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

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 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.

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. 

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.

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.

Taliban claim blast that killed Canadians

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/canadians_a...

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.

People promoting the war are suffering.

That's a change from the usual innocent victims.

Works for me Unionist.

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 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.

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.

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.

five more names to jingoize on the bottom of hockey sweaters

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 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.

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??????

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.

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.

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

Ghoulish Theater for the mainstream.

Bloody New Year, blood-lusters.

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Canadian military officials have named the four soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday, when a powerful improvised explosive device struck the vehicle they were travelling in on the outskirts of Kandahar city.

They are Sgt. George Miok, 28, and Cpl. Zachery McCormack, 21, both of Edmonton; Sgt. Kirk Taylor, 28, of Yarmouth, N.S.; and Pte. Garrett Chidley, 21, of Cambridge, Ont. All were members of the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team.

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.

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.