The Afghan people will win - Part 1

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

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

Webgear

There are a lot of Italian mines in Afghanistan, most were delivered post 1993.

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

martin dufresne

Some Canadian soldiers fire mortar shells; others fire e-mail messages. Brothers in arms, sharing hatred for Afghan resistance... all will be defeated.

Fidel

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

Webgear

Fidel

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

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

 

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

Webgear

martin dufresne wrote:
Some Canadian soldiers fire mortar shells; others fire e-mail messages. Brothers in arms, sharing hatred for Afghan resistance... all will be defeated.

Martin finally we agree on something, yes, all Afghan resistance will be defeated.

My mortar skills are better than my writing skills.

 

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

Unionist

Meanwhile, life goes on (so to speak):

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/04/canada-afghanistan.html] 3 Canadian soldiers killed by roadside bomb[/url]

Quote:

Warrant Officer Dennis Raymond Brown, Cpl. Dany Fortin and Cpl. Kenneth O'Quinn were killed Tuesday evening when a roadside bomb detonated during a patrol in Arghandab District, about 10 kilometres northwest of Kandahar City, said Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance.

The soldiers were sent into the area as part of Canada's Quick Reaction Force to respond to a call by the Afghan National Police after an IED was found on the main supply route, said Maj. Rob Dunn.

The soldiers were able to defuse that bomb and were returning to base when their patrol struck another roadside device, Dunn said.

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

 

 

Caissa

I often wonder why Canadian public opinion isn't turning significantly against this "war" much like US public opinion eventually turned against Vietnam.

Unionist

Because we're winning!!! Smile

Caissa

Ok. I was 11 when Saigon "fell" so I have experienced the Vietnam War more as history. It seems to me, as Unionist hints above, that the MSM was more free during VW and not embedded with the forces in the sense they are now. The draft also seems to have been galvinizing for the middle class.  Thirdly, the 60s and 70s seemd to be atime of social change.

Slumberjack

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

Unionist

Caissa, thanks for spelling out what I meant!

Those are three very clear points of difference between the two eras, and of course there are others which are perhaps corollary to them. For example, during the Cold War, there emerged a broad rejection among youth and students (in particular) of the attempted demonization of all liberation movements as "Communist" or "Marxist" or "Soviet-backed" or "Maoist" etc. Almost in tidal-wave-like fashion, we saw through that, and we came not only to oppose our involvement in imperialist aggression abroad, but to look for its manifestations in our own society.

Today, however, besides the points you mention, demonization of the "enemy" has become a finer art. They're presented as terrorists, fundamentalists, suicide-bombers, beheaders, misogynists, perpetrators of genocide, homophobes... Just read this board and see. Even among people who should know better, the White Man's Burden has had something of a new lease on life.

When the choice is presented as, "Obama, or Osama?", some people tend to lose their bearings.

 

Webgear

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

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

It is part of Murphy's Law.

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

Unionist

Yay, Webgear wins a cigar!

That's why I said this above:

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

Now tell me, Webgear, how come you and I figured it out on this little lefty discussion board, but our creepy media just quotes statements from creepy military spokespersons and never tries to figure out the truth?

 

Caissa

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

Webgear

Reporters and politicians are all the same, they never try and figure out the details, they all have prepared speaking points which they stick to, like flies to shit.

(An IED is just a poor man's mine. They are cheap and easy to produce and hard to defeat.)

They all have their political leaning, and heaven forbid, they report anything that goes against personal beliefs.

Even now, I am listening to a CTV reporter that does not know what she is talking about.

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

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Webgear wrote:

What if the sovereign people of Afghanistan have decided to choose the some officials at this time such has the Chief of Police for Kandahar province, would you accept his statement?

Not before the invaders leave. In case you didn't notice, even Peter Mackay has a say in who is in charge in Kandahar. It's brutal when you invade a country. Let them all leave, then we can see who truly has the people's confidence. Can't tell now.

Quote:
Would you accept a statement from someone elected before the King Mohammad Zahir Shah was overthrown in 1973? Or does the offical have to be elected after 1973 but before the Soviet invasion?

I was thinking more like 2009. The invaders leave, then the Afghan people send everyone a text message saying who their representatives are. Or, they may use Twitter or Facebook. The invaders must leave. 

In the meantime, if I have to trust anyone, I will trust the slogans shouted by angry Afghans risking their lives to denounce Canada and Amerika in the streets, long before I trust any Canadian military investigators. I believe the Canadian military received the same kind of Honesty Seminars as the RCMP currently testifying in the Dziekanski inquiry.

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

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

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

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

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:
Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. 

When I say "free", I mean free to make the choices among Afghans. Those choices may include religious dictatorship, violence, repression. They may include what we outsiders view as more enlightened government, such as Afghans enjoyed before the U.S. and Soviet Union started their invasions/subversion in the late 1970s. To predict that a people will fail, once the outside "helpers" have been chased out, is an act of condescension. Even though I know you oppose the foreign intervention, that kind of preconceived notion sometimes can betray attitudes similar to those which send the Saviours in there in the first place. That's why I limit my perspective to getting the invaders out. Whether RAWA carries on, or not, will really depend on whether they have enough popular support and fill enough of a need to survive. But it's none of my business.

Jingles

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

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

Quote:
The soldiers were sent into the area as part of Canada's Quick Reaction Force to respond to a call by the Afghan National Police after an IED was found on the main supply route

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Cueball Cueball's picture

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

 Yes. Sorry to hear about your personal loss.

Slumberjack

Yeah, I'm sure.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am really not as ideological as you think. Regardless, I thought your comment got a little lost in the to and fro discussion, and should be noted. So there it stands in the light of day, and you can make of it what you wish. Whatever you think I think and feel.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:
Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. 

When I say "free", I mean free to make the choices among Afghans. Those choices may include religious dictatorship, violence, repression. They may include what we outsiders view as more enlightened government, such as Afghans enjoyed before the U.S. and Soviet Union started their invasions/subversion in the late 1970s.

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

Unionist wrote:
To predict that a people will fail, once the outside "helpers" have been chased out, is an act of condescension. Even though I know you oppose the foreign intervention, that kind of preconceived notion sometimes can betray attitudes similar to those which send the Saviours in there in the first place. That's why I limit my perspective to getting the invaders out. Whether RAWA carries on, or not, will really depend on whether they have enough popular support and fill enough of a need to survive. But it's none of my business.

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

 

Unionist

Jingles wrote:

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

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

Quote:
The soldiers were sent into the area as part of Canada's Quick Reaction Force to respond to a call by the Afghan National Police after an IED was found on the main supply route

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Absolutely, Jingles, that was exactly the gist of my original question. When I read Webgear's reply, I automatically thought he had got it ... but now, I'm not so sure!

Webgear - comrade - did you get the point Jingles just made? Was it implicit in your response? Be honest now. If it wasn't, surrender that stogie at once!!!

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Whoever holds the most power weapon-wise will take control when we finally leave. 

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

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

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

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

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

Slumberjack

Cueball wrote:
  I am really not as ideological as you think. Regardless, I thought your comment got a little lost in the to and fro discussion, and should be noted. So there it stands in the light of day, and you can make of it what you wish. Whatever you think I think and feel.

I have no particular insight into your ideologies, other than a general sense from some of the issues discussed.  When everything is pared down to it's essentials, stripped of ideology, excuses and lies, the right to continue breathing air is all that is left, for everyone in this war.  When even that  basic ability is extinguished, and no accountability for the true perpetrators exists, I believe it is instinctive that the familiar can bring the reality of it more clearly into focus.  The key measure though is the ability to recognize it from a distance, while being connected personally through heightened concern for those that are most affected.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:
Ghislaine wrote:

Whoever holds the most power weapon-wise will take control when we finally leave. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Absolutely, Jingles, that was exactly the gist of my original question. When I read Webgear's reply, I automatically thought he had got it ... but now, I'm not so sure! Webgear - comrade - did you get the point Jingles just made? Was it implicit in your response? Be honest now. If it wasn't, surrender that stogie at once!!!

I don't know why all the effort, an entire afternoon's worth of prodding, just to compel someone to bow to your grasp of the obvious.  Even a quick skim of the story can connect the dots.  Why don't you just come out with it and move on to the implications?

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

Even a quick skim of the story can connect the dots.

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

The point is this:

It is our lying military and our subservient media.

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

They will live with the horror alone.

 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

 You put words in my mouth, as I did not describe this possible outcome as a "failure" - you did.

You said:

Quote:
You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression.

you're right, I tagged that as "failure". You didn't. But you predicted that outcome. That's what I questioned. You don't know what those people can do once they are left alone.

Webgear

Jingles does make a valid point, yes it could have been a set up.

Is it not then a possiblility that the Taliban fired the mortar shell that killed the 3 children, in order to blame the Canadians?

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

Webgear

Fidel wrote:
 

Afghans did get rid of a repressive monarchy. And then, according to [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html]Canadian John Ryan[/url], got rid of another repressive regime by the end of the 1970's. Women were gaining rights and freedoms, which in any normal population represents a little more than half of everyone concerned. The muslim clergy and land barons didnt appreciate the new women's rights or land redistribution laws.

And at the time, Afghanistan was actually part of the Soviet Union. The country's feudal social structure was undisturbed from the Stalinist era through to the 1970's.

 

Interesting view of history.  

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

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:
Ghislaine wrote:

 You put words in my mouth, as I did not describe this possible outcome as a "failure" - you did.

You said:

Quote:
You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression.

you're right, I tagged that as "failure". You didn't. But you predicted that outcome. That's what I questioned. You don't know what those people can do once they are left alone.

 Well, I hope I am wrong. The point I wanted to make is that we have to admit that this is a possibility, but irregardless of this - we should not stay in Afghanistan.  I have no idea what will happen once those people are alone. I do know how girls and women are treated and given the situation for women in surrounding countries that are not being occupied by us, I have little hope that it will become a bastion of women's rights. My point is that that is irrelevant. We should not be there.

 Your comments above about the Canadians dying for nothing are so true they send shudders up one's spine - the specific situation (which confirms a lot of what Malalai Joya speaks about) and the overall situation.

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Jingles does make a valid point, yes it could have been a set up.

Imagine the families reading that news story.

Quote:
Is it not then a possiblility that the Taliban fired the mortar shell that killed the 3 children, in order to blame the Canadians?

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

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

 

Fidel

Ghislaine wrote:
Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:
Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. 

When I say "free", I mean free to make the choices among Afghans. Those choices may include religious dictatorship, violence, repression. They may include what we outsiders view as more enlightened government, such as Afghans enjoyed before the U.S. and Soviet Union started their invasions/subversion in the late 1970s.

Afghans did get rid of a repressive monarchy. And then, according to [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html]Canadian John Ryan[/url], got rid of another repressive regime by the end of the 1970's. Women were gaining rights and freedoms, which in any normal population represents a little more than half of everyone concerned. The muslim clergy and land barons didnt appreciate the new women's rights or land redistribution laws. But at the same time, moderate clerics didnt object so much as to want to declare jihad against the Afghan PDPA government. The CIA and Saudis went out of their way to fund and arm religious extremists, and send mercenaries from 40 different countries to Afghanistan and ignoring religious moderates entirely.

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

Fidel

Webgear wrote:

Fidel wrote:
 

Afghans did get rid of a repressive monarchy. And then, according to [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html]Canadian John Ryan[/url], got rid of another repressive regime by the end of the 1970's. Women were gaining rights and freedoms, which in any normal population represents a little more than half of everyone concerned. The muslim clergy and land barons didnt appreciate the new women's rights or land redistribution laws.

And at the time, Afghanistan was actually part of the Soviet Union. The country's feudal social structure was undisturbed from the Stalinist era through to the 1970's.

 

Interesting view of history.

Yes it is, and Canadian John Ryan was there at the time. I cant imagine a history where the Russians sent billions of dollars in aid and weapons to southern confederates to prop up a slave-owning cotton picking democracy.

Unionist

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

George Victor

The Globe ran this letter back on Dec. 31/07 :

In his 1950 memoir, Bugles and a Tiger, about fighting on the North-West Frontier of India (now in Pakistan), John Masters wrote, "The task of disarming the tribes might have cost about 20,000 lives and taken 10 years of all-out campaigning" by colonialforces in the 1930s.

Nothin could be done without the timeless compromise of paying government "allowances" and keeping them within a tribal territory where "the old bloodthirsty ways" consitituted "for them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

There must be another, socially innovative, non-military answer for an area that has known uninterrupted warfare since Alexander the Great."

I was only speculating, of course, that there had been an earlier interruption in conflict there.

Fidel

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

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

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

George Victor

Are you trying to foment jihad here, Fidel?Laughing

Webgear

Unionist wrote:
Webgear wrote:

Jingles does make a valid point, yes it could have been a set up.

Imagine the families reading that news story.

Quote:
Is it not then a possiblility that the Taliban fired the mortar shell that killed the 3 children, in order to blame the Canadians?

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

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

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

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

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

 

Defeat only happens when the war is over.

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

Fidel

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

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

Fidel

dbl post

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

I have every reason to believe that unionist is really Taliban himself!!! :-)

That's "Mullah Unionist" to you, sonny! Laughing

As for your Catholic schools, it's true I don't live there, but my allergies still react to the smell of incense wafting across the border at Pointe Fortune...

 

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

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

Huh? Who said anything about the ANP? Wink

Quote:
Does the Taliban have the support of the population?

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

Quote:
Do the Taliban have the same level of support as did the Mujahedeen as against the Soviet?

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

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

Of course. You've read the reports.

Quote:
Defeat only happens when the war is over.

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

Ghislaine

I work across the hall from CF recruiting here. Often very young, innocent-looking men (or more accurately boys imv) will come in and ask where the recruiting office is. It is all I can do to hold myself back from giving them either the wrong address or telling them to change their mind. Obviously I cannot (my job is with a federal crown corp), but it is difficult. I wonder whether any of them ever go on to serve in Afghanistan or more ominously whether any paid the ultimate sacrifice...for nothing.

 The fact that Harper has finally admitted the truth is wonderful. The fact that his actions will not match the truth that he admits to understanding is disgraceful.

Fidel

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

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Ghislaine wrote:

Often very young, innocent-looking men (or more accurately boys imv) will come in and ask where the recruiting office is.

If they can't find the recruiting office, how are they going to find those IED's? 

Unionist

They may be colocated...

 

Frmrsldr

Hello Webgear,

I am a former soldier. I hate to disagree with you, but the crater is consistent with the signature that a mortar round would leave. Given the angle, it couldn't be a 20 mm, or 30 - 37 mm cannon shell fired from a vehicle or aircraft or a rocket fired from an aircraft. The crater is too large for any smaller rounds (again, the angle is not consistent). The crater is too small for a 155-mm or 105-mm howitzer round.

You contradict yourself later when you argue that the children may have been killed by a Taliban mortar round. 

<>

Pages

Topic locked