"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
Canada to open door to Afghans who helped our diplomats, military [1]
"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
Motherfucker. Racist, fascist mother-fucker.
"If the (security) situation stays the same, it's clear like sky: We will all be cut into parts," said Junior.
See, even Junior knows that Afghanistan will be abandonded by the Crusader.
What do the NDP think of such a blatant admission of defeat by the cowardly scum that is the Blessed Virgin Kenney?
A complete lack of awareness, of course. What else can we expect from the No Damn Principles party.
So, while collaborators and traitors get a pass to Canada (no doubt to join the Conservative party), Omar Khadr languishes in an American rape room.
"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
That is why Canada is there. So that we can install liberal (meaning neoliberal economically), educated (meaning educated in the west), English-speaking people who can follow orders.
It's a bald admission of our "mission". We want a Raj set up, and we want people who will follow our orders. In English, of course.
It's an admission that we have failed in Afghanistn. This is our exit strategy: Train the ANA, ANP, and now this "surge" in civilian personnel - "training" and supporting our Afghan collaborators. As things stand now (subject to an earlier or later withdrawal), we are going to disengage from the Afghan war in 2011. These collaborators are our Afghan proxies to carry out our commands after we are no longer largely 'in country'.
Perhaps they are hoping this will be another blow back situation that would allow manovering room for another extention past 2011? Now the women, children and collaborators will not be safe, sorta rational?
Hvaing said that, the collaborators, would in essence be seeking political refigee status, just as political refugees around the world do, to save their lives. Why would this instance of needed refugee status, be refused as unacceptable by anyone on the left?
Hvaing said that, the collaborators, would in essence be seeking political refigee status, just as political refugees around the world do, to save their lives. Why would this instance of needed refugee status, be refused as unacceptable by anyone on the left?
Good question.
Perhaps they are hoping this will be another blow back situation that would allow manovering room for another extention past 2011? Now the women, children and collaborators will not be safe, sorta rational?
Hvaing said that, the collaborators, would in essence be seeking political refigee status, just as political refugees around the world do, to save their lives. Why would this instance of needed refugee status, be refused as unacceptable by anyone on the left?
I don't know why, nor do I see anyone saying it is unacceptable here. It's not as if the left couldn't understand the concept of how capitalist wink and nudge promises work, given it's effectiveness in this country, let alone how it is applied under far more challenging circumstances. I suppose that for some, along the lines of Kenney's usual pattern, loftily consigning people to lay in the bed they make is far easier than troubling one's ideology with grey matters.
I understand that we're dealing with a grey area here.
But it would be a whole lot easier for me to accept these collaborators on humanitarian grounds if Quisling traitors like l'il Jason Kenney weren't sending the heroic resisters of illegal and immoral wars back to the dark lords of the American empire for punishment.
Let me be clear. We accept refugees who are subject to persecution for their religious or political beliefs, their gender or sexual orientation, their disability, etc. etc.
We do not accept "refugees" who are charged by their home countries with committing crimes (such as, aiding and abetting an invader), except where those charges are merely a pretext for persecution on the grounds mentioned above - such as conscientious objectors, etc.. On the contrary, we extradite them to face justice. If they are subject to the death penalty, we first seek assurances that such will not be applied. But if the person hasn't entered Canada yet, facing the death penalty isn't a stand-alone ground for asylum.
In short, anyone who condemns the invasion of Afghanistan cannot possibly justify providing "refuge" to those who are charged with committing crimes against their own people. They must face justice.
If these people have committed crimes, then they should be arraigned on charges in a real court of law, and not hung upside down, tortured for days and beaten to bloody death as a spectator event.
When you visualize Afghanistan without Western (or Eastern) occupying troops, that's your mental image, isn't it?
I'm sorry, but there was something that happened in Afghanistan(and Pakistan) in 1979 through the 90's. Very many peiople living in those countries, including one Pakistani news journalist based in London and whose in depth comments from 2001 were posted here several times, described that period as "Talibanization" of the two countries.
I think your problem is that you draw blanks whenever the US-backed military dictatorships of General Zia through Musharraf are mentioned. I think it must be an embarrassing thing for some to have to admit - that Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan was not a democratic process encouraged by the CIA and Saudis and Pakistani ISI to the tune of: several billion dollars worth of aid in sophisticated weaponry to fight the atheistic communists - funding for madrassas in both countries as a basis for radicalization, then Talibanization - and then creation of a database of expendible Islamic jihadis for use in waging terror wars and destabilizing several other countries in Central Asia, and now used to fight the real insurgents in Iraq and destabilizing both India and Pakistan as a prelude to US military intervention and occupation in pick a country.
But you forget that I, too, like Malalai Joya and many women of RAWA, believe the NATO occupation is neither legit nor helpful to the situation.
And like Malalai Joya has stated, I, too, think that Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government have been selling weapons to the Taliban, as well as official permits to transport illicit drugs across Northern Afghanistan, all along. You think it's a real war. Many Afghans, and myself, do not.
This is meaningless. They havent had a country since US-backed mujahiden and CIA-funded religious whackos tore their country apart by 1989, and then continued creating a stone aged society with the help of the CIA and US military. So youre mistaken - both Pakistan and Afghanistan have become "strategic depth" for the Taliban/CIA's ideology.
In fact: The Taliban are not socialists. They are not progressives. The Taliban are theocrats determined to maintain a feudal order for the vast majority of Afghans. And US-CIA and Saudi and Pakistani elite knew this from the beginning.
You mean, not those primitive Sharia type courts, eh? Maybe provide us with a checklist as to what kinds of courts of law you would approve. Then our troops can monitor the process to make sure the natives are doing it right.
Rule, Britannia.
I stand corrected Remind, and disappointed as well....although not entirely surprised. And on that depressing note, Unionist, with this being a Friday and all, perhaps with a little liquid reflection, I might better prepare an appropriate response. You know, they're all occupied...their responses, actions, and conditions in which they must survive are outside of their control, they all have a right to exist and do whatever is available to live and provide sustenance for their families under daunting conditions. I suppose the one surprise is that you do not understand this.
At Santiago's National Stadium in Chile, a Venezuelan reporter said they could hear the screams of the workers executed in the east wing of the stadium each night. Every morning a pile of shoes was carted away and blood stains hosed down.
They are not socialists, we can be sure.
I stand corrected Remind, and disappointed as well....although not entirely surprised. And on that depressing note, Unionist, with this being a Friday and all, perhaps with a little liquid reflection, I might better prepare an appropriate response. You know, they're all occupied...their responses, actions, and conditions in which they must survive are outside of their control, they all have a right to exist and do whatever is available to live and provide sustenance for their families under daunting conditions. I suppose the one surprise is that you do not understand this.
I didn't say we should punish the collaborators, SJ. I said we should not welcome them into our country, because they would not be refugees in the accepted sense of international law. Would you have given asylum to the Shah? Duvalier? Their low-level dupes? Not me, my friend.
Kenney and Chow say we must welcome them because they have done such good service for the Canadian military. I really think this is a simple issue.
Fidel, do you have a point? I realize it's easier to simply recycle your old posts again and again than to have a position, but can we have a thread in which you address the matter rather than continue to claim that the Taliban are actually CIA?
I still don't know if you're pro-occupation, or anti-occupation. I think you are "occupation if necessary, but not necessarily occupation".
The point is that whether the people of Afghanistan end up with or don't end up with what the Crusaders call "Taliban" is not our concern. Our concern is getting the fuck out, and to stop murdering them and their families. Then we can help them however we can.
To be clear; Predator drones, Leopard tanks, and "training security forces" is not helping. Western trained death squads and intelligence apparatuses like the Mubarak are most definitely not helping anyone but the mercenary "NGO" carpetbaggers and foreign saboteurs.
They are not socialists, we can be sure. Thia picture is not from Santiago.
If you truly had any mercy you would stop producing any convenient sounding truth to back up the current NDP "position." That said I admire the effort, because unlike the Communist parties of yore what the NDP actually means by its statements is so vague, it is amazing that you can deduce anything from them.
So was the rawa.org stamp at bottom of the photo your first clue? Can't slide anything past our democratic purists, that's for sure.
Compare Pinochet's fascist record in power with Taliban random justice for the Afghan peons flouting Sharia and feudal laws.
The Taliban were propped-up as an Anglo-American proxy government in 1996. Support them if you want to. But dont expect me or the women of rawa to back up the Taliban, "brothers in creed" of the Northern Alliance war criminals, or at least according to the people's hero Malalai Joya and Afghans themselves. We do realize that some babblers have little regard for the opinions of that particular group of Afghans.
So was the rawa.org stamp at bottom of the photo your first clue? Can't slide anything past our democratic purists, that's for sure.
It was a clue that you were mixing and matching from your handy grab-bag of unrelated facts to say something completely off topic and irrelevant.
Fact: I dont like the Taliban leadership as much as I dislike NATO.
And I dont think the Pakistani ISI and Pakistani elites "strategic depth" in Afghanistan via the Taliban has anything to do with Afghans choosing democracy for themselves. In fact, I think there is evidence that Pakistan's army intelligence has been deeply involved with and, for all intents and purposes, has acted as an extension of the American CIA for several years. I cannot support the Taliban, a bunch of former US proxies buying weapons from Karzai's Northern Alliance criminals for the sake of perpetuating an illegal US military occupation of that country. All the world's a stage as far as Hollywood and the gladio gang are concerned
No one asked you to support the Taliban. But from your vague NDP-like equivocating, can we deduce that you do support a Crusader army in Afghanistan, as long as it is one that meets your criteria?
For example, you have no problem with the Soviet invasion. So, I'm guessing you're all for a Clintonesque "humanitarian" intervention that still kills the baddies, but has better PR?
Gawd no. Clinton is a war criminal walking around free as a bird, too. Among other things, the Clinton administration helped transform Bosnia into a militant Islamic base and intervened in the civil war in Macedonia. http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm [31]
Imagine that Russia or any other country intervened in the US civil war and sent weapons and aid to 11 southern confederate states and helped them defeat the union. Imagine that the south won and slavery and the kkk are still in vogue today in America. Wouldnt that be special.
I believe the in numerous and not always limited ways the British did intervened in the American civil war
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A912386
"One aspect that the Union did object to was the building of Confederate ships in British dockyards. These were purely commercial transactions with civilian shipbuilders to build unarmed vessels. These were built, engined and fitted out for seaworthiness before they were dispatched to a rendezvous with supply ships and fitted out as fighting ships."
"Both sides used the Enfield Pattern 1853 rifled musket but the South also bought Armstrong rifled cannon and muskets. The Armstrong rifle was especially valued for its accuracy and it was used as a sniping rifle. Footwear for the South was manufactured in Northampton and amounted to $1 million in the first 18 months alone. The Confederate army also depended on procuring supplies from Europe. As well as arms, they purchased uniforms, leather goods, hospital stores, and numerous other necessities."
There is a difference between understanding, and working to a different agenda.
Can anyone find the original thread on this topic? We have talked about this before the upgrade.
No, I did a cached google search, and found some stuff where it was stated only those cllaborators with US Imperialism need apply for refugee status, as only they will get it, and some other stuff about Canada letting actual terrorists in like the Ugihars.
I used this search parameter below, then checked cached sources, and/or other babble sources
"babble afghan collaborators coming to canada as refugees"
So was the rawa.org stamp at bottom of the photo your first clue? Can't slide anything past our democratic purists, that's for sure.
It was a clue that you were mixing and matching from your handy grab-bag of unrelated facts to say something completely off topic and irrelevant.
So, the Taliban record in power shows that they enjoyed rounding up Afghans in a football stadium for their random acts of disobedience, like women attending underground schools, showing a little cheek, or wearing lipstick, and then shot them to death and even buried them alive for good measure.
Are you telling us that's got nothing to do with teachers, students, doctors, socialists, social workers and union leaders being murdered in a Chilean football stadium in the 1970s?
What about the very misogynist rightwing death squad governments the US government supported in Guetemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in the 80s and 90s?
Which government south of us backed Pinochet over the democratically-elected socialist, and cooperated with Pinochet's dreaded secret national police, DINA, during the 70's and 80's?
Which Anglo-American governments propped-up a Taliban proxy government in Kabul, 1996?
No, I did a cached google search, and found some stuff where it was stated only those cllaborators with US Imperialism need apply for refugee status, as only they will get it, and some other stuff about Canada letting actual terrorists in like the Ugihars.
Is this what you had in mind?
I don't think it's his skin colour. It's the fact that he's a political enemy of the rulers of U.S. and Canada.
Just wait till Harper starts bringing some Uighurs here. Nothing to do with race. They're our allies.
See in that thread, some people were saying Harper wouldn't bring Omar Khadr home because of his "race" or colour. I said, nonsense. When it comes to their allies and puppets, they are colour-blind. I gave the example of Uighurs, whom the U.S. and its allies try to use against China. Of course, it's the same with the Afghan traitors. Even the lowest Islamophobic Neo-Con will hug and kiss those who do yeoman service, regardless of race, religion, or anything else.
I didn't say we should punish the collaborators, SJ. I said we should not welcome them into our country, because they would not be refugees in the accepted sense of international law. Would you have given asylum to the Shah? Duvalier? Their low-level dupes? Not me, my friend. Kenney and Chow say we must welcome them because they have done such good service for the Canadian military. I really think this is a simple issue.
It is simple if you believe the harm we have contributed towards will cease upon our departure, and that our responsibility for it ends at that juncture. I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you adhere to the notion that ultimately, nations should act responsibly even in defeat, when all the lies and excuses have been rendered threadbare. And by the way, it's a bit of a stretch don't you think, in comparing the monstrous crimes of the Shah and Duvalier with an Afghan translator, local fixer, or even a civil servant who participated within the puppet government apparatus. Eventually a change in government will occur, and as you may well imagine, all of these people will likely be at risk when the books of judgement are opened so to speak. When the moment of reckoning occurs, the arbiters of justice will find our mark placed upon the lives of those who cooperated regardless of the extent, and by extension the lives of their families, due to the coerciveness of violent occupation. So, despite our objections, what has been done has been undertaken in our names, by representatives that we personally did not choose, but yet collectively, we wear ownership not only as it is occurring, but long after when the directly attributable lasting effects play out in our wake. We have the capability to reduce this harm at a whim, at the mere stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. But yes, lets be clear about Kenney's motivation and his disingenuous concerns, which have nothing to do with saving the lives of low level functionaries that do not have money and influential connections abroad.
I said this is simple and I meant it:
1. Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan, without conditions.
There is no number #2.
If the Afghan people (through whatever local, regional, national regime comes to power upon our withdrawal) says: "These collaborators aren't going anywhere - they have treason charges to face here", what will you do? Help them shoot their way to freedom?
If you want to enter into negotiations with whatever non-occupier-backed regime comes to power and request clemency, or exile, or whatever, fine. But what "rights" do we have here? "Our troops are staying and killing until you let my translators go!?"
It comes down to the legitimacy of our presence in Afghanistan. For those who think we belong there in some capacity, anything goes. I'm not in that camp.
To which country were the cream of Nazi scientists ferreted off to? Not Canada.
Which country gave sanctuary to the Shah and billions of dollars of oil revenues belonging to the Iranian people? Not Canada
There are more examples where collaborators of rightwing military dictatorships had to flee the people's justice, and absconded with billions of dollars of the nation's wealth and were not given safe haven in Canada.
One exception I can think of from the recent past occurred when several members of Hong Kong mafia provided Canadian visas leading up to the handover of that island to China. And I think they percolated their way over the border to the land of opportunity not long after arriving in our Northern Puerto Rico.
Fidel Castro and revolutionaries, otoh, provided Cuban mafia and so many vicious criminals travel visas to America. The Mariel boatlift was the compassionate socialist way of allowing those Cubans, and who did not want to live life with their Cuban comrades any longer, an opportunity to pursue their individual talents and dreams elsewhere.
And like the Cuban example, and even 1990's Russia for that matter, I think Afghanistan has special talent that would be better suited in certain other countries.
Viva La Revolucion!
I would have given him asylum - but they got to him first:
Iraqi soldier kills two U.S. soldiers and wounds three
Just like Vietnam,
When the Afghan war ends, it will be because the American people and American government will have become thoroughly sick of the war.
When this happens, all the low level collaborators will be abandoned and will have to fend for themselves. A large number may be executed. Many will become refugees. Many of them may end up becoming "boat people".
It's the American (government) way.
well now we can see how much NATO values itz allies...
Idk selloutz get whatz coming but how much of what they said about the taliban like throwing acid is tru when they say it against their religion. Taliban are fucced in the head but mayb NATO is more because they the same mentality one has akz, rpgz, n technicals other has nukes... ppl need a 3rd front unless they want an islamic goverment
I think the acid throwing is true, and I agree with you that the people there need a "third front" rather than the binary we're made to believe is the only thing possible (either imperialist war, or Taliban forever).
I think the acid throwing is true, and I agree with you that the people there need a "third front" rather than the binary we're made to believe is the only thing possible (either imperialist war, or Taliban forever).
The Taliban generally take credit for assassinations, bombings, etc. - but Taliban spokesperson Qari Yousef Ahmadi specifically denied any involvement in this attack when then-Kandahar governor Rahmatullah Raufi announced that 10 "Taliban" had been detained and a number of them (he refused to say how many) had "confessed" (this was Nov. 26, 2008). Raufi, as it happens, was fired 7 days later (Dec. 4) and replaced by Canada's original pick for governor.
Source.
ye thas what I was talking about they take credit for what they do he said it was against Islam
This reminds me of a Vietnamese "boat person', that I once knew. He was a language interpreter, for the US government, who was viewed as a collaborator when they left.
He spent 3 years after the war in a 3x3 box, only kept alive because his mother bribed the guards where he was kept. When she was finally able to pay for his release, he was pulled out of the box, into direct sunlight, and his retina's were fried, after being in the total dark for 3 years. He was essentially blind from that day forth.
After being in Canada for several years, and after the reconcilliation there commenced, he was able to go home and visit, though I guess home is not the word I should use, as he definitely no longer considered it home. It was just the place where his family lived. He had been a lawyer who spoke 7 languages.
Yes, well a lot of people were pretty pissed off. Bao Nin, was one of 3 surviors of his regiment of 5000 that boarded the train and headed south from Hanoi in 1967. No one was in a very forgiving mood. Doubtless, doing translations for the US government did not include being present at interogations of captured NVA or Viet Cong. I am sure he was above all that.
Of course. He was probably just translating helpful agricultural manuals to help his countrymen.
He actually had no animousity towards them, but he had a whack load against the USA, and what they did to his former country, himself and his family. I think going home was more of a trigger for his PTSD, rather than anitpathy.
The Vietnam war was the scene of a crime for many years after. There were many more atrocities committed in VietNam than the nortorious Mi Lai massacre. An old saying says the first casualty in war is the truth. But since the VietNam war, leftists say the casualty has been free journalism. Rightists say that news journalists lost the war for the USA by reporting anti-US points of view.
Less publicized was a bit of propaganda concerning post-war Cambodia. The Killing Fields was movie first shown in the 1980s about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. There were movie scenes filmed depicting the Vietnamese as liberators of Cambodia. But they were never shown in final cut releases of the film. Reaganauts refused to acknowledge the killing fields up to the latter part of the 1980s, They refused to denounce a monster, a leader who the US supported for years and who was probably the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
yup and it was only till like the late 90z that the last fighters came out n surrendered u never know proly more hiding in the jungle if they still alive. The jungles of central africa, south east and south asia are so thicc if u hide in there nobody will ever really find you period. How U think LTTE hides their shit? Reagen was an asshole period Im not even suprised he was too busy w/ Iran-Contra n putting cracc in the hood to care
edit- And Obv South AmeriKKKa lol (Amazon lol)
I think the simple concept of justice would require that since we created these potential monsters that we at least owe them a chance to face our justice system ... or if we are so determined to have them face the Afghanistan justice system then we should also abandon all our soldiers and contractors to Taliban justice as well.
Can "we" actually say that "we" are going to let the people who worked for "us", doing the job "we" asked them to do, face Taliban justice, but "we" are going to come home and treat "ourselves" as heroes?
Abandon ALL the people who may have committed what the Taliban consider crimes, including our own, or give them ALL the chance to face western justice for whatever crimes may be proven to have been done.
hey the media needs some ppl to be killed so they can say the taliban is against an educated population (proly are but not this way) and other propoganda u know how Canada do. U know how amerikkka do u can roll with em but not as crew.
Yeah, we started this because we though they were inferior and needed intervention ... we totally fucked things up for them (and showed that if anything it is "us" who are inferior) ... and we want to leave them in a manner that proves that we haven't learned a damn thing and still believe that "they" are "inferior" and "they" deserve to be serverd with "inferior" justice, whle we reserve our "superior" justice to ourselves.
Of course, the way it will end is that two sets of people, equally responsible for the same "crimes" will face two justice systems ... one justice system that punishes the "guilty" with "extreme" penalties, and the other justice system that allows the guilty to face no penalty at all ... I have a hard time rating which system is really "inferior" ... I suppose if pushed I would have to say that my preferred justice system would err on the side of preventing the innocent from being punished even if that meant a few guilty were allowed to escape justice, but that doesn't include using this as an excuse for not even trying to bring the guilty to justice.
I remember this story and where the American's couldn't manage to give Iraqi refugees asylum, but gave it to a dog.
Making a Home for Charlie, Away From Baghdad's Slums
By Karin Brulliard
February 15, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021402556.html
The United States admits more refugees than any country in the world, but in 2006, only 202 Iraqis were allowed in. Of the 21,000 Iraqi asylum seekers the office has registered since the U.S. invasion, only 291 have been granted refugee status.
From October 2006 through March, the United States gave refugee status to more than 15,000 people. How Iraqis compared with some other groups:
-- Somalis: 3,077
-- Iranians: 2,468
-- Burmese: 1,518
-- Cubans: 1,339
-- Iraqis: 68
Source: State Department
Johnson's list
http://www.thelistproject.org [59]
Left Behind
Scott Pelley On The Plight Of Iraqis Who Helped The U.S.
CBS 60 Minutes
March 11, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/60minutes/main2554125.shtml [60]
Iraq Refugees Panel:
Kenneth Bacon, George Packer and Zina Abbas
Charlie Rose Show
March 22, 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4955138002388545417&hl=en [61]
And one should also consoder that from the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, up until at least 2002, that the Afghani school children have been educated with extremist religious school books teaching that violent Jihad was good, and that killing the infidel was a holy mission .... oh, and did I mention where these books came from? The US via the CIA ... and right up until 2002 (and maybe even to this moment)the same books were still being supplied by the same source.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html
But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. . .
Rashid loves school but he says he and the other boys don't understand why their books are filled with war.
Afghanistan down the drain for the sake of an ideology now devouring itself.
Disgusting, isn't it? And there's good reason to believe that even while Canada was sending soldiers over there to fight for the USA, that Bush II was still providing Afghan children the same books inciting them to kill Canadian infidels.
More reason to throw the fucker in prison when he comes to Toronto to spechify.
Yeah, we started this because we though they were inferior and needed intervention ... we totally fucked things up for them (and showed that if anything it is "us" who are inferior) ... and we want to leave them in a manner that proves that we haven't learned a damn thing and still believe that "they" are "inferior" and "they" deserve to be serverd with "inferior" justice, whle we reserve our "superior" justice to ourselves.
I don't, and have never, believed that that had anything to do with why we are there. The U.S. went in partly out of blood lust in response to 9/11, and partly to improve their strategic position in the area. Canada went along to try to curry favour. There has never been any real concern with the actual conditions that the people of Afghanistan are living in. That being said, I find the idea that we should just completely leave and let the cards fall where they may to be irresponsible. We are largely to blame for the mess that currently exists, which means that we also have considerable responsibility to help improve things. Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to do as we're currently there as illegal occupiers.
So what do you suggest? Kill as many insurgents as we can and prop up as many nice western-sounding leaders as possible on our way out of the country? Think we can get all that done by 2011? Or did you mean the hospitals and dams and bubble gum and photo ops with girls in schools? It's tough being a war criminal. First you have to commit the crimes, then you have to take "considerable responsibility" to undo them.
Hear, hear Unionist. Such is the contradiction ("Big Lie") of war.
It seems not all NATO countries are in agreement with providing refuge for Afghan victims of war:
Three judges of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal ruled on Wednesday that the level of "indiscriminate violence" was not enough to permit Afghans to claim general humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom. Hundreds of asylum-seekers a year are returned to Afghanistan if they have not convinced a court they are in fear of persecution or that their lives are in danger. The ruling on Wednesday prevents them from arguing that the country is a dangerous place...
... The judges said: "Nobody is suggesting that the situation in Afghanistan is anything but a very long way short of ideal but... the numbers of civilians killed by indiscriminate violence turns out to be a great deal less than might otherwise have been expected."
Turning down an asylum claim by a Afghan man, 20, from Nangarhar, the court ruled that civilian casualty figures were not high enough to warrant protection under European law.
The judgement also made it clear that an asylum-seeker had to show why it was not possible to be relocated to another part of Afghanistan if they had succeeded in proving that they faced persecution in their own region.
Case study: Sent back to his death
Abdullah Tokhi, 35, repeatedly pleaded while seeking asylum in Britain that his life was in danger because of a sectarian and political blood feud back home. But the Government at the time decided that Afghanistan was now a safe place thanks to the intervention of Britain and the US, and Mr Tokhi was returned to his village. A year later he was dead, shot while walking in a street in a bazaar.
The account given by Mr Tokhi in his asylum application stated that the family originally lived in Bangarak in the Kalakan region in the north at a time when the ruling Taliban, overwhelmingly Pashtun, carried out widespread persecution of the Tajik population in the area. After the US and British invasion of 2001, the Northern Alliance, predominantly Tajiks and Uzbeks, took control and began hunting down those who had helped the Taliban.
As Mr Tokhi continued his efforts to stay in Britain, the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, with regions falling into lawlessness. The Taliban moved back into this vacuum. Mr Tokhi's apprehension about his familiy's safety increased after reports that his enemies had tracked his family to their home in Paghman. Mr Tokhi's application for asylum was turned down by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, as was his appeal. He returned to Afghanistan in September 2004 and was killed in autumn 2005.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-judges-afghan...
Links:
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/30/canada-afghans030.html
[2] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013231
[3] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013264
[4] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013266
[5] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013271
[6] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013272
[7] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013274
[8] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013276
[9] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013288
[10] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013303
[11] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013308
[12] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013337
[13] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013341
[14] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013357
[15] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013359
[16] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013413
[17] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013418
[18] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013419
[19] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013425
[20] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013429
[21] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013430
[22] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013434
[23] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013446
[24] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013465
[25] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013472
[26] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013484
[27] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013485
[28] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013490
[29] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013497
[30] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013533
[31] http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm
[32] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013536
[33] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013537
[34] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013540
[35] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013550
[36] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013594
[37] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013596
[38] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013631
[39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
[40] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013674
[41] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013684
[42] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013687
[43] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1013726
[44] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1014090
[45] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1014978
[46] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015032
[47] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015044
[48] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015053
[49] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015056
[50] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015058
[51] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015060
[52] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015062
[53] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015093
[54] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015138
[55] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015171
[56] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015175
[57] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015185
[58] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015328
[59] http://www.thelistproject.org/
[60] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/60minutes/main2554125.shtml
[61] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4955138002388545417&hl=en
[62] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015637
[63] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015646
[64] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1015709
[65] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1016516
[66] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1016535
[67] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1024945
[68] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/national-news/canada-comforts-collaborators#comment-1075349
[69] http://rabble.ca/user
[70] http://rabble.ca/user/register
Oh yeah, we can't edit our opening posts. How thoughtful. So, I'll repost a corrected version:
Canada to open door to Afghans who helped our diplomats, military
touches on a policy to provide safe haven to Afghans endangered by
their association with Canada.
"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
Motherfucker. Racist, fascist mother-fucker.
"If the (security) situation stays the same, it's clear like sky: We will all be cut into parts," said Junior.
See, even Junior knows that Afghanistan will be abandonded by the Crusader.
What do the NDP think of such a blatant admission of defeat by the cowardly scum that is the Blessed Virgin Kenney?
A complete lack of awareness, of course. What else can we expect from the No Damn Principles party.
So, while collaborators and traitors get a pass to Canada (no doubt to join the Conservative party), Omar Khadr languishes in an American rape room.
When the U.S. and Canadian embassies in Saigon - uh - Kabul fall, those Afghan collaborators who can get out, will. Those who can't will be shot as collaborationist traitors.
Yep, just like Vietnam all over again.
Decent intelligent folk like George Galloway are barred entry into Canada by these fascist gangsters we have running the country.
Kenney is indeed a fascist, and Olivia Chow's statement is deeply disturbing.
Chow is right. Not offering Afghan collaborators refuge would likely be a death sentence for them. It's not that I dont trust Taliban justice - it's that I'm not sure if the majority of Afghans do. And that's a problem when the US, Saudis, ISI help them rig elections like that, and arm them to the eye teeth for years and years and educate them in black arts of terrorism and torture etc
I don't get it. After heroically helping the invaders bring freedom to their homeland, don't you think they should be eager to make the supreme sacrifice?
I realize Chow is NDP, but isn't it possible she could be mistaken, just this once?
I guess you would offer Karzai refuge as well, eh?
Did we not have this conversation before? I though most people such as Unionist agree that we should have them come to Canada.
Of course since the upgrade I can not find the original thread.
Correct me if I am wrong, I am going off memory
I don't get it. After heroically helping the invaders bring freedom to their homeland, don't you think they should be eager to make the supreme sacrifice?
Remember the helicopter exodus scene from a roof top in Ho Chi Minh city. The people skipping town in that photo probably didnt have the proper travel documents
I guess you would offer Karzai refuge as well, eh?
I realize the west made no attempt to save Najibullah from a frightful a fate at the hands of the Taliban after being locked up in a UN compound to 1996. But I'm a socialist, and true socialists are capable of mercy.
If these people have committed crimes, then they should be arraigned on charges in a real court of law, and not hung upside down, tortured for days and beaten to bloody death as a spectator event. That's too close to what the fascist bastards did to Patrice and Che.
I kind of doubt it would come to a Najibullah type incident anyway. Either Karzai or Taliban or all of them could likely be evacuated to safety at the last moment. Like Musharraf and Rumsfeld okay'd a clandestine airlift of hundreds of Taliban, ISI agents and al Qa'eda from a tight situation with the Northern Alliance in 2001.
This bears repeating:
"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
That is why Canada is there. So that we can install liberal (meaning neoliberal economically), educated (meaning educated in the west), English-speaking people who can follow orders.
It's a bald admission of our "mission". We want a Raj set up, and we want people who will follow our orders. In English, of course.
Isn't it atypical though of the member from Calgary Southeast, and the party he represents, completely out of character that is, to give a rat's ass about the fate of anyone but themselves or others like them? In this one instance, he'd have us believe they've re-considered their usual position of foreigners as disposable human beings.
If these people have committed crimes, then they should be arraigned on charges in a real court of law, and not hung upside down, tortured for days and beaten to bloody death as a spectator event.
When you visualize Afghanistan without Western (or Eastern) occupying troops, that's your mental image, isn't it?
Your rhetoric - along with the mistreatment of women - is the kind used to justify the invasion of this "barbaric" society. Your mental image no doubt stopped you from calling for Canadian withdrawal before 2006 - more than four years after the invasion.
Don't you understand yet that how Afghans run their country is their own business?
Did we not have this conversation before? I though most people such as Unionist agree that we should have them come to Canada.
No, Webgear, when we say "bring the troops home", we don't mean their Afghan hangers-on. Also, we wouldn't want to populate Canada with the kind of people that apply for jobs working for invading troops - now would we? We have enough of those types in Ottawa already.
"Those kind of people are going to have to play a central role in the long-term construction of a stable and democratic Afghanistan," Kenney said in an interview.
That is why Canada is there. So that we can install liberal (meaning neoliberal economically), educated (meaning educated in the west), English-speaking people who can follow orders.
It's a bald admission of our "mission". We want a Raj set up, and we want people who will follow our orders. In English, of course.