5 Canadians killed in Afghanistan; 4 Soldiers and Michelle Lang of the Calgary Herald

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Frmrsldr

KenS wrote:

You could apply that description as one of the purposes of most patrols.

Most patrols are what were called in Vietnam "search and destroy" missions. You send patrols out to make sure there are no insurgents in the area. If you encounter any, you "clear" the area.

COIN is all about winning the hearts and minds. Gen. McChrystal himself said that the U.S. and NATO need to reduce Afghan civilian casualties. In most of Afghanistan (except Herat and Kandahar provinces) U.S. and NATO troops are redeploying out of the countryside and into the urban centers.

Canadian troops will concentrate on Kandahar City: where this incident took place was one of Kandahar City's districts.

Sure, some of the intel (oops, the word released to the civilian public was "information") will be passed on to the government who will, in turn, pass it on to the NGOs so our "Great White" society will know what kinds of "blessings" to shower on the villagers to buy their support. This is of course ignoring the fact that the insurgents are Afghans who will never leave Afghanistan and us foreigners aren't going to remain in Afghanistan much longer.

Think though, what the hell else would the military be gathering intelligence on the local population for?

In the interest of COIN and reducing Afghan casualties, you need targeted hits against the insurgent leaders. Remember, Gen. McChrystal is a military intelligence officer. There are two ways you can gather intelligence: 'Nicely' or through torture. Make no mistake, McChrystal is there to win a war. He's not some compassionate cultural anthropologist of Afghanistan.

http://consortiumnews.com/2009/121309a.html

Frmrsldr

War is peace. Torture is love.

This is the narrative that the Canadian government, military and mainstream media have been feeding the Canadian public for the last eight years. The effect has been that the Canadian public does not question what we are doing in Afghanistan. You raise a good point when you suggest that making such linkages would cause one to be dismissed as a crank.

Some people here see the propaganda and its effect after years on the general public and have asked what can be done to reverse the effects.

I have suggested that we need to inform people. My approach would be to plant the seed in peoples' minds not to take things for granted but to approach what they hear from the government, military and mainstream media with a critical mind.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams were devised by Donald Rumsfeld and represent the fruit of militarizing human rights. The work of PRTs is done by civilian NGOs but they are ultimately administered and supervized by the military. The needs of the military come before the needs of Afghans. PRTs are part of this policy of winning the hearts and minds. Why else was a PRT an integral part of a military convoy if, in fact, it is the case in this scenario?

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Totalitarian regimes consider journalists legitimate targets. Any babbler who does so deserves to be banned from babble.

Wilf, she was riding in a LAV with occupation troops. Was the LAV a "legitimate target" for the insurgents? I note you never responded to my analogies with Budapest, Prague, Nanjing...

Quote:

If no Canadian journalists were our eyes and ears in war zones, what would we know about anything happening there? Nothing except CNN stories, and DND public affairs releases which may be well intentioned but don't claim objectivity.

Surely you can make more skillful use of the internet than that. I find AFP, Al Jazeera, and even several British sources to provde a lot of balance to the unctuous jingoism of the sources you mentioned. I also note you didn't bother commenting on the "Afghanistan Dispatches" that I linked to, where (sadly) Ms. Lang's only posts consisted of mindless pap recounted from the viewpoint of "our troops". She even spoke in the first person about the occupation:

Michelle Lang wrote:
By building up the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, NATO forces want to hand security for the country back to the local people. We're not there yet.

That's not war reporting - that's unabashed public relations for the occupation.

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
That's not war reporting - that's unabashed public relations for the occupation.

That's not really the point. But as to the tone of her pieces, some were more "home town" than others. That's normal. During the Iraq war, I quit relying on BBC World (which I normally watch, as better than CBC) because some of their reporters were starting to call British troops "we." That's always the first tip-off that a journalist is rooting for the home team. We accept that from sports reporters. We prefer that journalists avoid that when writing hard news. Even BBC can be guilty, though.

But "hometowning" is not an offence worthy of capital punishment, nor does it make one a legitimate target.

I don't want to continue this discussion. It is in incredibly bad taste, when journalists and their families across Canada are in mourning. It is also highly counter-productive, if you are hoping Michelle's death will turn more journalists against the mission. Finally, I doubt that any leader of CEP would tolerate for two seconds public statements by any officer of CEP that one of its members was a legitimate target for assassination because of what she wrote.

 

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

But "hometowning" is not an offence worthy of capital punishment, nor does it make one a legitimate target.

I never said that, and now you're adopting a different style of argument. I said that a NATO LAV was a legitimate target and invited you to comment. You didn't. She entered that LAV, she made herself a target. Comments?

Quote:
I don't want to continue this discussion. It is in incredibly bad taste, when journalists and their families across Canada are in mourning.

Let me know when the mourning is over and we can get back to discussing Canada's role (not just military) in Afghanistan.

Quote:
Finally, I doubt that any leader of CEP would tolerate for two seconds public statements by any officer of CEP that one of its members was a legitimate target for assassination because of what she wrote.

You've fallen into sophistry and exaggeration. No one was "assassinated" here, and no one said Michelle Lang was a "legitimate target". Ask the CEP what they think of their members embedding themselves in front-line combat vehicles and writing puff pieces for the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't know how they'll respond (I suspect they'd have a real hard time...), but that's  a discussion worth having.

Polunatic2

One journalist who has been consistently opposed to the US/NATO occupation is Eric Margolis who was imbedded with the muj during the Soviet occupation. He understands what Canada is up against and how fruitless it is and has been saying so for some years now. I developed a new found respect for Margolis. 

Considering the Canadian government's appalling record when it comes to defending journalists abroad who are abducted or arrested trying to do their jobs, we can be sure that Lang's death will be treated much differently. It's that kind of duplicity which is frustrating and contributes to a "so what" mentality. 

We can oppose the occupation/war and still feel some empathy for the victims on all sides. They are all senseless. I don't get any satisfaction hearing about the deaths of Cdn soldiers or journalists although with each death, I hope that more people are turning against the war and letting their elected reps know about it. 

KenS

Scott Taylor does not actually go to Afghanistan that often.

But he certainly keeps up, and is the polar opposite of embedded. He also does as much as he can to keep his ear to the ground what is actually going on among various insurge forces, despite having paid a very steep and nearly fatal price for doing that in Iraq.

Webgear

Frmsldr

Dand District is not part of Kandahar city, it is a district that is adjacent to the city.

General Stanley A. McChrystal is an infantry officer with some background in military intelligence, he is not an Intelligence Officer.

If you are going to use military terminology can you please use Canadian phrases.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmsldr

Dand District is not part of Kandahar city, it is a district that is adjacent to the city.

General Stanley A. McChrystal is an infantry officer with some background in military intelligence, he is not an Intelligence Officer.

If you are going to use military terminology can you please use Canadian phrases.

Dand district is a district adjacent to Kandahar City/is a district that is part of the city - sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Gen. McChrystal is an officer with a background in military intelligence/he is an Intel officer - ditto; most of the intelligence he got in Iraq and got/now gets in Afghanistan (he was stationed in the 'Ghan before) comes from torture victims.

That military convoy probably had PRTs and the whole 'enchalada' because the Dand district has a number of "Model Villages" - what were called "Strategic Hamlets" in Vietnam. Model Villages are another sign that Gens. David Petraeus' and Stanley McChrystal's COIN is nothing more that dusted off Vietnam counterinsurgency theory. It is an attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people by isolating them from the insurgents. They only stand a chance of succeeding if troops can protect them 24/7 until the war is over. The downside is that with this close proximity of foreign troops to Afghan civilians, the war will be brought to them and in the battles between the insurgents and the foreign aggressors, more Afghan civilians will suffer casualties. This will defeat our purpose in trying to win the hearts and minds. It will escalate the amount of violence in Afghanistan. It will escalate the number of foreign troop casualties and it will escalate the number of insurgents fighting against us.

Michelle Lang was part of the 'charm offensive' to win the hearts and minds of Canadians in an attempt to shore up flagging support for the war back home.

Webgear

Frmsldr

I would assess that accuracy is not one of your strong points. If I remember correctly Kandahar City is surrounded by five districts, so yes the lay of the land does matter when discussing the situation at hand.

Having knowledge of intelligence does not make one an Intelligence Officer. I have an understanding of aircraft maintenance procedures; this does not make me a mechanic.

NorthReport

I hope lots more Canadian journalists suffer in Afghanistan and then perhaps our msp will stop reporting on the war so favourably.

NorthReport
Chester Drawers

NorthReport wrote:

I hope lots more Canadian journalists suffer in Afghanistan and then perhaps our msp will stop reporting on the war so favourably.

Truly offensive.  Wishing harm on a group of people.  Statements like this removes the moral high ground from the progressives that believe they hold it. 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Lou, you were a little off on the question of this reporters' embeddedness. I don't have a problem with that. God knows i'm off sometimes. Please don't mistake my mocking you for mocking the dead.

I can accept that. 

Glad to see the discussion has, for the most part, moved on.

SparkyOne

NorthReport wrote:

I hope lots more Canadian journalists suffer in Afghanistan and then perhaps our msp will stop reporting on the war so favourably.

 

So to Paraphrase one could think you hope

More Migrant workers suffer in accidents to bring attenton to numbered companies skirting work place saftey rules.

More Women suffer from domestic abuse to make everyone aware of serious violence against women is.

More homeless dying from exposure in Vancouver so the government will stop treating them like second class citizens?

 

What about more Afghans dying so they will realize how futile resisting their NATO oppressors really is?

 

Sorry NorthReport hoping anyone suffers is a horrible horrible thing to say. Do you actually hope more Canadian journalists die (or suffer as you put it)?

I hope NO ONE else suffers in Afghanistan so the governmnt can see that violence IS NOT the answer.

NorthReport

People promoting the war are suffering.

 

That's a change from the usual innocent victims.

Unionist

NorthReport, do me a favour and lay off the hyperbolic statements. It's just grist for the mill of those who support the occupation and are desperately seeking some moral high ground on their icy slope.

How about putting it this way:

"I hope lots of Canadian journalists tell their media outlets, the government, the military, the public, and the Afghan people that they refuse to be used as PR pawns in the effort to crush the sovereignty of the Afghan people. That will help end this obscene occupation."

 

Polunatic2

Works for me Unionist.

SparkyOne

Well put Unionist thank you.

KRüüLER

I specifically registered with rabble.ca to comment on this New Years Eve tearjerker.

 

Let me be the first to say: A Darwin Award for the dumb, but pretty stenographer (passing herself as a journo, no less).

 

A Corporate Shill Freedom Award to her cold, calculating employer, who was just doing its job (propaganda for the fascist paymasters).

 

Nothing fills my heart with joy more than the sight of a bully getting its comeuppance.

 

Well-done, Canwest-Global.

Unionist

You mean you couldn't think of anything krüüler to say than that?

 

KRüüLER

Unionist wrote:

You mean you couldn't think of anything krüüler to say than that?

 

 

A Jeff Gannon Award for all ethically-challenged, myopic stenographers out there, "catapulting the sh!t."

 

There are countless unemployed keyboard mercs waiting to fill in dead stenographer shoes at Canwest-Global, or any other shill-4-cash BS outlets on behalf of corporate Canada and Uncle Sam.

 

So, your little bloody tearjerker holds little traction in this Canadian Household. I've seen corporate interests (fascists) exploit dumb, pretty stenos before.

 

You can chalk the funerals to the bottom line. We're all paying, regardless of the fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians silently disagree.

Eastwinds

It will all end soon folks, the occupation will be over, NATO will pull out eventually and Afghanistan can stay the way it was just like so many people would prefer. The taliban will rule there again and we all can get together for some celebration cake.

Hopefully, after the mission fails and Mullah somebody becomes ruler of the land, not one more dollar of my tax dollar is ever sent there as to not upset the way Afghanistan should be. Then again, Mullah somebody will not want to spend any money on the 8 mill+ kids who now go to school anyways...phew, what a relief.

 

 

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

If I remember correctly Kandahar City is surrounded by five districts, so yes the lay of the land does matter when discussing the situation at hand.

Dand district was one of the approaches to Emerald (I mean Kandahar) City that was supposed to be relatively quiet/relatively "secure". That is why it was chosen for this journalist to travel on that route. I guess this incident proved that wrong.

I heard that the Pentagon, military analysts and the U.S. military are now arriving at the conclusion that the Canadian military may have over-rated their progress in the greater Kandahar City district(s)/area and are currently re-assessing the situation.

The Canadian military operates on a "need to know" basis. They will feed the Canadian public sugar coated war porn 'infomercial' puff pieces in the form of Michelle Lang. They are not going to hand you what they are really doing in the 'Ghan on a silver platter.

They will hide that under the blanket of "National/Operational Security. We need to 'protect' the nation, the mission and the troops (the order intentional), dontcha know.

SparkyOne

KRüüLER wrote:

There are countless unemployed keyboard mercs waiting to fill in dead stenographer shoes at Canwest-Global

Not to mention keyboard mercs joining up over at Rabble.ca eh?

KRüüLER

Wilf Day wrote:

 

 Michelle Lang was a working journalist, not an advocate. She went where the story was happening.

Michelle Lang, with a whole life to live, gave her life so that the story could be told.

 

 

The story is about a fascist corporatist invasion. She was going to bolster the narrative.

 

I for one appreciate the delicious irony. A created, "made-up" story. The subsequent need to re-establish the fascist viewpoint.

 

Her life is a token in the bucket of blood our Federal (libservative) Government throws at Canadians every week.

 

Happy New Year, Jeff Gannon pros.

Sineed

KRüüLER wrote:

 

I've seen corporate interests (fascists) exploit dumb, pretty stenos before.

Can ya cool it with the "pretty, dumb" stuff?  Granted, she was out of her league because she usually was a health reporter.  And yes; I believe she decided to go to Afghanistan because it looked like a good career move.

But the whole "pretty, dumb" thing reminds me of the Amanda Lindhout threads.  Which were also sexist.

remind remind's picture

five more names to jingoize on the bottom of hockey sweaters

KRüüLER

SparkyOne wrote:

KRüüLER wrote:

There are countless unemployed keyboard mercs waiting to fill in dead stenographer shoes at Canwest-Global

Not to mention keyboard mercs joining up over at Rabble.ca eh?

 

I doubt that. You have this tearjerker story which is way too sweet. I'm not mercing, which is a pro-active form of intervention. I'm just laughing my head off at this Canwest-Global BLOOD THEATER.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

It will all end soon folks, the occupation will be over, NATO will pull out eventually and Afghanistan can stay the way it was just like so many people would prefer. The taliban will rule there again and we all can get together for some celebration cake.

Hopefully, after the mission fails and Mullah somebody becomes ruler of the land, not one more dollar of my tax dollar is ever sent there as to not upset the way Afghanistan should be. Then again, Mullah somebody will not want to spend any money on the 8 mill+ kids who now go to school anyways...phew, what a relief.

According to the Geneva Conventions, aggressive war is illegal.

That means that Bushs' "Strike First" pre-emptive war doctrine is illegal. That means no vengeance for 9/11. That means regime change is illegal. Most of those convicted at Nuremberg were charged with "regime change" or (to put it another way) waging aggressive war.

Sorry, but in the eyes of international law, that means going to war against a country and its government because you do not like them or what they do, is not on.

The initial war in Afghanistan and our continued presence there is illegal.

We never should have been/shouldn't be there. Period.

KRüüLER

Sineed wrote:

KRüüLER wrote:

 

I've seen corporate interests (fascists) exploit dumb, pretty stenos before.

Can ya cool it with the "pretty, dumb" stuff?  Granted, she was out of her league because she usually was a health reporter.  And yes; I believe she decided to go to Afghanistan because it looked like a good career move.

But the whole "pretty, dumb" thing reminds me of the Amanda Lindhout threads.  Which were also sexist.

 

Do you mind???

This is theater of the absurd. Pretty dumb steno vainly and willingly gives her cheap life to advance the interests of its banckrupt, but shrewd employer.

 

And you don't find this theater rich???

 

And, about dumb, pretty stuff, I didn't look for her. She placed herself right in the middle of the story for our appreciation.

 

You can extoll the value of political correctness all you want, won't bring the dull, pretty one back.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

KRüüLER wrote:

 

Do you mind???

This is theater of the absurd. Pretty dumb steno vainly and willingly gives her cheap life to advance the interests of its banckrupt, but shrewd employer.

 

And you don't find this theater rich???

 

And, about dumb, pretty stuff, I didn't look for her. She placed herself right in the middle of the story for our appreciation.

 

You can extoll the value of political correctness all you want, won't bring the dull, pretty one back.

Knock it off Kruuler.  Your blood lust for Lang's death is at best unseemly, and at worst sexist, anti-worker, and more than a little creepy. 

Celebrating the death of anyone in Afganistan is not cool.

Eastwinds

Frmrsldr wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

It will all end soon folks, the occupation will be over, NATO will pull out eventually and Afghanistan can stay the way it was just like so many people would prefer. The taliban will rule there again and we all can get together for some celebration cake.

Hopefully, after the mission fails and Mullah somebody becomes ruler of the land, not one more dollar of my tax dollar is ever sent there as to not upset the way Afghanistan should be. Then again, Mullah somebody will not want to spend any money on the 8 mill+ kids who now go to school anyways...phew, what a relief.

According to the Geneva Conventions, aggressive war is illegal.

That means that Bushs' "Strike First" pre-emptive war doctrine is illegal. That means no vengeance for 9/11. That means regime change is illegal. Most of those convicted at Nuremberg were charged with "regime change" or (to put it another way) waging aggressive war.

Sorry, but in the eyes of international law, that means going to war against a country and its government because you do not like them or what they do, is not on.

The initial war in Afghanistan and our continued presence there is illegal.

We never should have been/shouldn't be there. Period.

So would it have been legal if they had attacked Saudi Arabia  since the 9/11 hijackers were from there?....or is it better that NATO went into a place where the "organization" was hiding and training?

If I remember correctly, the UN voted for the mission in AStan?

Isn't part of the mission to help rebuild and develop AStan?....not an easy task, not a task done overnight etc....and if it can't be done, then that's why I say never send another dollar there after my country's troops are gone, let AStan be the way it was.

I ask many questions of the mission myself. I have my moments of doubt too....but I also ask those who are/were so against the reactions after 9/11, what was the better alternative then what we see today?...simply do nothing?...or what?

KRüüLER

Lou Arab wrote:

KRüüLER wrote:

 

Do you mind???

 

Knock it off Kruuler.  Your blood lust for Lang's death is at best unseemly, and at worst sexist, anti-worker, and more than a little creepy. 

Celebrating the death of anyone in Afganistan is not cool.

 

Lou "arab",

a) You have deeper roots in blood than I do. Bloodlust is your line of work.

 

b) Sexist, anti-worker. Exactly. I fall for the exploitation of a youthful, but inexperienced person who didn't belong in this theater in the first place, save for a bit of corpofascist exploitation, which was intentional.

 

The pretty, but inexperienced female "actress" was a corporate pawn in a ghoulish play you seem to completely revel in.

 

And you find my calling of it unseemly??????

KenS

That discussion has been done many times Eastwind. So don't be surprised if the only responses you get are the quick and abusive type. It dosen't mean people are uninterested in fuller answers... just that there are only so many times you can feel like running through the same maze.

Webgear

Frmsldr

All the districts in Kandahar province are approaches to Kandahar city in one shape or form.

There are no safe areas in warzones; there may be relatively quiet/secure areas however that does not mean there is not a chance of attack.

KRüüLER

Lou Arab wrote:

KRüüLER wrote:

 

Do you mind???

This is theater of the absurd. Pretty dumb steno vainly and willingly gives her cheap life to advance the interests of its banckrupt, but shrewd employer.

 

And you don't find this theater rich???

Celebrating the death of anyone in Afganistan is not cool.

 

I'm not one to celebrate. The only ones "celebrating" here are mostly you, phony arab, and that other confused mainstream troll well at ease here at Rabble.ca.

Blood lust is all yours too.

KenS

OK Crueler.

I was waitng to see if you got the hint and went back into the woodwork of your own accord.

You've no doubt been flagged as offensive numerous times. But the moderators cannot be on it full time.

You are not merely a creep. Take your filth elsewhere.

KRüüLER

KenS wrote:

OK Crueler.

I was waitng to see if you got the hint and went back into the woodwork of your own accord.

You've no doubt been flagged as offensive numerous times. But the moderators cannot be on it full time.

You are not merely a creep. Take your filth elsewhere.

 

Ad Hominen.

You have nothing to say buddy. And you are fcking with my charter rights, you impotent twit.

 

Your lack of anything to say is duely registered.

KRüüLER

The Globe & Mail is falling over itself to exploit this spectacle.

 

Ghoulish Theater for the mainstream.

 

Bloody New Year, blood-lusters.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

So would it have been legal if they had attacked Saudi Arabia  since the 9/11 hijackers were from there?....or is it better that NATO went into a place where the "organization" was hiding and training?

If I remember correctly, the UN voted for the mission in AStan?

Isn't part of the mission to help rebuild and develop AStan?....not an easy task, not a task done overnight etc....and if it can't be done, then that's why I say never send another dollar there after my country's troops are gone, let AStan be the way it was.

I ask many questions of the mission myself. I have my moments of doubt too....but I also ask those who are/were so against the reactions after 9/11, what was the better alternative then what we see today?...simply do nothing?...or what?

The only war that is justified is defensive war. A defensive war is fought if a nation(s) have been militarily attacked and/or invaded by another nation(s).

According to international law, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism is not an act of war. It is a criminal act. As such, the appropriate response would have been to conduct a criminal investigation by the CIA, FBI, CSIS, the RCMP, MI-6 (British civilian intelligence), INTERPOL, etc. - not NATO. Find out who the guilty are. Find out where they are. Get warrants from the ICC (International Criminal Court). Then go out with the intent of arresting and bringing them to justice.

So, attacking Saudi Arabia would have been illegal. Also, remember that the guys who plotted the attacks and who flew the planes were in Hamburg, Germany and Tampa FL, U.S.A.

To militarize human rights, then use war to defend and protect those rights is aggressive war and is (still) not kosher according to the Conventions.

This is the wedge issue that the "war cartel" uses to divide the left and even to get (some of) the left to support these wars.

No U.N. Resolution was passed that legally sanctions the Afghan war. The only thing the U.N. did was the Permanent Security Council (U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia and China) agreed/acquiesced that they would not make the case that the war was illegal and therefore silently allowed it to happen - this was after W. Bush defied the U.N. by bombing and invading Afghanistan (October 7, 2001) and before NATO countries (except the U.K.) deployed troops there.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

KRüüLER wrote:

 

Lou "arab",

a) You have deeper roots in blood than I do. Bloodlust is your line of work.

 

 

No need to put Arab in quotes.  It's my legal last name, passed on to me by my Lebanese father who was, in fact, an arab.

I'm not sure how working for a public sector union constitutes bloodlust as a line of work, so I can only assume the implication is somehow that arabs are killers, but maybe I'm being too sensitive.

In anycase, your ramblings are not serving your credibility.

KRüüLER

Frmrsldr wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

So would it have been legal if they had attacked Saudi Arabia  since the 9/11 hijackers were from there?....or is it better that NATO went into a place where the "organization" was hiding and training?

If I remember correctly, the UN voted for the mission in AStan?

Isn't part of the mission to help rebuild and develop AStan?....not an easy task, not a task done overnight etc....and if it can't be done, then that's why I say never send another dollar there after my country's troops are gone, let AStan be the way it was.

I ask many questions of the mission myself. I have my moments of doubt too....but I also ask those who are/were so against the reactions after 9/11, what was the better alternative then what we see today?...simply do nothing?...or what?

The only war that is justified is defensive war. A defensive war is fought if a nation(s) have been militarily attacked and/or invaded by another nation(s).

According to international law, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism is not an act of war. It is a criminal act. As such, the appropriate response would have been to conduct a criminal investigation by the CIA, FBI, CSIS, the RCMP, MI-6 (British civilian intelligence), INTERPOL, etc. - not NATO. Find out who the guilty are. Find out where they are. Get warrants from the ICC (International Criminal Court). Then go out with the intent of arresting and bringing them to justice.

So, attacking Saudi Arabia would have been illegal. Also, remember that the guys who plotted the attacks and who flew the planes were in Hamburg, Germany and Tampa FL, U.S.A.

To militarize human rights, then use war to defend and protect those rights is aggressive war and is (still) not kosher according to the Conventions.

This is the wedge issue that the "war cartel" uses to divide the left and even to get (some of) the left to support these wars.

No U.N. Resolution was passed that legally sanctions the Afghan war. The only thing the U.N. did was the Permanent Security Council (U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia and China) agreed/acquiesced that they would not make the case that the war was illegal and therefore silently allowed it to happen - this was after W. Bush defied the U.N. by bombing and invading Afghanistan (October 7, 2001) and before NATO countries (except the U.K.) deployed troops there.

 

Eastwinds,

this is all very nice, though somewhat OT.

 

This post is about ill-advised "ethically-challenged workers" employed by a deceptive and unaccountable government entity, and corporate entity. Their ill-advice is coming home to roost. This is the story discussed here, not about how this corpo-fascist sandtrap happened in the first miserable place.

It would be nice to be able to discuss this like adults, as Canadians.

KRüüLER

Lou Arab wrote:

KRüüLER wrote:

 

Lou "arab",

a) You have deeper roots in blood than I do. Bloodlust is your line of work.

 

 

No need to put Arab in quotes.  It's my legal last name, passed on to me by my Lebanese father who was, in fact, an arab.

I'm not sure how working for a public sector union constitutes bloodlust as a line of work, so I can only assume the implication is somehow that arabs are killers, but maybe I'm being too sensitive.

In anycase, your ramblings are not serving your credibility.

 

Whatever you do, you bathe in it.

SparkyOne

KRüüLER wrote:

Ad Hominen.

You have nothing to say buddy. And you are fcking with my charter rights, you impotent twit.

 

Your lack of anything to say is duely registered.

 

You are the biggest keyboard Merc I've seen since becoming a member here. Infact probably extending well beyond my time here.

 

You're going to run your mouth until the mods ban you for being an offensive troll and you will just find another forum to rant and rave about in your basement.

 

 

 

Eastwinds

Frmrsldr wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

So would it have been legal if they had attacked Saudi Arabia  since the 9/11 hijackers were from there?....or is it better that NATO went into a place where the "organization" was hiding and training?

If I remember correctly, the UN voted for the mission in AStan?

Isn't part of the mission to help rebuild and develop AStan?....not an easy task, not a task done overnight etc....and if it can't be done, then that's why I say never send another dollar there after my country's troops are gone, let AStan be the way it was.

I ask many questions of the mission myself. I have my moments of doubt too....but I also ask those who are/were so against the reactions after 9/11, what was the better alternative then what we see today?...simply do nothing?...or what?

The only war that is justified is defensive war. A defensive war is fought if a nation(s) have been militarily attacked and/or invaded by another nation(s).

According to international law, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism is not an act of war. It is a criminal act. As such, the appropriate response would have been to conduct a criminal investigation by the CIA, FBI, CSIS, the RCMP, MI-6 (British civilian intelligence), INTERPOL, etc. - not NATO. Find out who the guilty are. Find out where they are. Get warrants from the ICC (International Criminal Court). Then go out with the intent of arresting and bringing them to justice.

So, attacking Saudi Arabia would have been illegal. Also, remember that the guys who plotted the attacks and who flew the planes were in Hamburg, Germany and Tampa FL, U.S.A.

To militarize human rights, then use war to defend and protect those rights is aggressive war and is (still) not kosher according to the Conventions.

This is the wedge issue that the "war cartel" uses to divide the left and even to get (some of) the left to support these wars.

No U.N. Resolution was passed that legally sanctions the Afghan war. The only thing the U.N. did was the Permanent Security Council (U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia and China) agreed/acquiesced that they would not make the case that the war was illegal and therefore silently allowed it to happen - this was after W. Bush defied the U.N. by bombing and invading Afghanistan (October 7, 2001) and before NATO countries (except the U.K.) deployed troops there.

 

Ah, ok..now I get it. Let's say, for an example, that in the new year a group of terrorists kocked down a building in a Cdn city killing 800 people. It was later found out that these terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, were allowed to train/live there by the Afghan rulers, those rulers not willing to shut down the organization and hand over any more of the group, etc etc...then I should expect the RCMP to get a warrant from the ICC and nail the mother f'ers?...LOL, too funny.

 

 

Webgear
KRüüLER

 

 

If I was easily impressed, the blood loss of these fine, inexperienced young men would somehow register. Right now, all I feel is the red ink of stormparatroopers.

 

Like I said earlier, the blood shed by corpofascists is ghoulish.

 

And I for one, am the least impressed of all by this callous exploitation of fine youthful, but inexperienced, and under-educated CANADIANS.

SparkyOne

What do you do for a living Kruuler?

KRüüLER

Eastwinds wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

So would it have been legal if they had attacked Saudi Arabia  since the 9/11 hijackers were from there?....or is it better that NATO went into a place where the "organization" was hiding and training?

If I remember correctly, the UN voted for the mission in AStan?

Isn't part of the mission to help rebuild and develop AStan?....not an easy task, not a task done overnight etc....and if it can't be done, then that's why I say never send another dollar there after my country's troops are gone, let AStan be the way it was.

I ask many questions of the mission myself. I have my moments of doubt too....but I also ask those who are/were so against the reactions after 9/11, what was the better alternative then what we see today?...simply do nothing?...or what?

The only war that is justified is defensive war. A defensive war is fought if a nation(s) have been militarily attacked and/or invaded by another nation(s).

According to international law, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism is not an act of war. It is a criminal act. As such, the appropriate response would have been to conduct a criminal investigation by the CIA, FBI, CSIS, the RCMP, MI-6 (British civilian intelligence), INTERPOL, etc. - not NATO. Find out who the guilty are. Find out where they are. Get warrants from the ICC (International Criminal Court). Then go out with the intent of arresting and bringing them to justice.

So, attacking Saudi Arabia would have been illegal. Also, remember that the guys who plotted the attacks and who flew the planes were in Hamburg, Germany and Tampa FL, U.S.A.

To militarize human rights, then use war to defend and protect those rights is aggressive war and is (still) not kosher according to the Conventions.

This is the wedge issue that the "war cartel" uses to divide the left and even to get (some of) the left to support these wars.

No U.N. Resolution was passed that legally sanctions the Afghan war. The only thing the U.N. did was the Permanent Security Council (U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia and China) agreed/acquiesced that they would not make the case that the war was illegal and therefore silently allowed it to happen - this was after W. Bush defied the U.N. by bombing and invading Afghanistan (October 7, 2001) and before NATO countries (except the U.K.) deployed troops there.

 

Ah, ok..now I get it. Let's say, for an example, that in the new year a group of terrorists kocked down a building in a Cdn city killing 800 people. It was later found out that these terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, were allowed to train/live there by the Afghan rulers, those rulers not willing to shut down the organization and hand over any more of the group, etc etc...then I should expect the RCMP to get a warrant from the ICC and nail the mother f'ers?...LOL, too funny.

 

 

 

eASTWINDS,

 

it's called the rule of law. That you are under-equipped to grasp that I understand. Canada is a land full of moronic individuals that don't have a clue where they are.

This is a nation of laws. Exept you wouldn't know it by how disabled and clueless law enforcement is in Canada.

 

Eastwind, did you vote conlibersavtive at the last "election"? I can see why you support this unlawful invasion and occupation.

Pages

Topic locked