The Afghan people will win - part 17

102 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2010-03-16 12:30

remind

The Afghan people will win - part 17

Continued from here

PraetorianFour wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
Quote:
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – The Taliban on Sunday called their deadly bomb attacks on the southern city of Kandahar a warning to NATO's top general that the insurgents were ready for the war's next major offensive in their heartland. The series of bombings that demolished buildings and killed dozens — including 10 people at a wedding — prompted the provincial governor to plead for more security in the area. [b]Fearful residents said they had no confidence that either government or foreign troops can protect them.[/b]

Taliban kill some 30 Afghans last week. 20 the week before in kabul. NATO are dropping bombs wiping out villages or dropping into wild night time raids. I wonder if the Afghans themselves will take arms against NATO and the Taliban, wouldn't blame them one bit.

Just wanted to add a bit more. I'm sure I will get jumped on for pointing out that the Taliban kill local afghans too, on purpose. Reading these posts there is a definate US & NATO are bad while ignoring cases of the Taliban killing "their own people". I just want to point out that the the Taliban are responsible for the deaths of Afghans just like all the examples of NATO doing shit. You can argue who is worse who does more who does what. My point being the Taliban are no 'friend of the people' either which seems rather lost in these threads.

*bolding mine

Tue, 2010-03-16 12:39

remind

Well p4, you almost got there, you just needed to take another short realization step further.

Perhaps if the Afghans themselves did not have to worry about NATO, and just had to worry about the Taliban, they could actually address the issue of the Taliban themselves. As NATO is just making them targets of both NATO itself and the Taliban.

Nothing more than that is indicative of why NATO needs to get the hell out.

Unless of course one wants to mention the fact Afghans have already been fighting to get NATO out, no one really believes the propaganda that Afghans want NATO there, you know.

Oh and, no one mentions the Taliban, as that is an Afghan issue that they themselves have to deal with how they want!

Tue, 2010-03-16 12:42

Unionist

Hear hear, remind!

Tue, 2010-03-16 23:38

Frmrsldr

Jason Ditz wrote:

According to one top aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the president was livid when he heard that Mullah Baradar, the High ranking Taliban commander captured in Pakistan last month, had been arrested.

... Seen as one of the most moderate members of the Taliban's senior leadership, the mullah's capture has been lauded by the US, but has seriously inconvenienced Karzai's push for peace talks.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/15/aide-karzai-very-angry-over-mullah-ba...

The Taliban has the "home team" advantage in Afghanistan and no matter what we do, we will always lose.

(Also, see my last post in The Afghan people will win - part 16.)

Wed, 2010-03-17 02:50

Frmrsldr

Western mainstream media (often embedded with the military) often ignores or plays down U.S./NATO/ISAF killing of Afghan civilians while it often over-reports or plays up Taliban/insurgent/suicide bomber killing of civilians, seldom mentioning what the legitimate military or political targets were. Anything about Afghanistan coming from Western mainstream media is meant for Western consumption and to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Western public.

Because of this fact, I'm inclined to disagree with Western media reports that state, for example, in 2008 or 2009, more Afghan civilians were killed by Taliban/insurgents/suicide bombers than U.S./NATO/ISAF troops. In fact, the reverse is probably true.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/09/05/150-civilians-dead-in-air-rai...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/05/05/and-8216-us-air-raid-kills-ov...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article6971638.ece

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/03/14/afghanistan-s-kandahar-hit-by...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/03/14/nato-covered-up-botched-night...

Hey, in these last two links, at least the Taliban had the guts to admit they were behind the attacks. This is more than can be said for NATO and those piece of shit foreign (and Afghan) troops who were involved in the night raid.

The Taliban's excuse for killing civilians, "Bombs are an inaccurate weapon."

In the night raid, Afghan civilians (some were pregnant women) were shot with small arms at point blank range. What's the foreign troops' excuse? Were the victims shot before or after they were handcuffed?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7063184.ece

Yes indeed, NATO (a subordinate organization to the U.N.) is much preferable to the U.N.

Wed, 2010-03-17 09:58

PraetorianFour

Frmrsldr wrote:

Hey, in these last two links, at least the Taliban had the guts to admit they were behind the attacks. This is more than can be said for NATO and those piece of shit foreign (and Afghan) troops who were involved in the night raid.

hear hear! At least the Taliban did the honourable thing, full of guts by admitting to bombing and killing civilians on purpose. Unlike those dastardly pieces of shit Nato forces!

Really Frmrsldr? What makes you label NATO [And Afghan soldiers and police] as pieces of shit [Which is excellent dehumanization I'll add] but not the Taliban? I'm not going to give the Taliban props for admitting to murdering dozens of people anymore than I'll pat NATO on the back for doing the same. That's ridiculas dude.

Quote:

The Taliban's excuse for killing civilians, "Bombs are an inaccurate weapon."

In the night raid, Afghan civilians (some were pregnant women) were shot with small arms at point blank range. What's the foreign troops' excuse? Were the victims shot before or after they were handcuffed?

This is simply playing who is the lesser of two evils. Letting bombs rip in crowded areas killing 50 some men women [who could be pregnant] and children compared to shooting [assassinating?]people during night raids. BOTH of those are fucked up and wrong.

If I came on here and said Hey guys atleast Nato had the guts to admit to bombing civilians, I'd be eaten alive.

You could spend all day playing who behaved worse, I'm sure I'm wrong but you almost sound like your dismissing what the Taliban have done. That would be no better than me dismissing the shit NATO has done and say "ya sure i guess there is that BUT LOOK here at what the Taliban have done! Outrage!" This problem is a coin with three sides, I've found people seem only interested in acknolwdging one or two of them.

As much as one may repeat "the Taliban are the people of Afghanistan" over and over and over, it's wrong. They are more than that. The Taliban are not just a bunch of noble farmers who are mad at ISAF for invading their lands and killing their sons and daughters in evil airstrikes. The farmers are the ones the Taliban use as fodder.

Remind, I just can't see the Taliban as a "Afghan problem" and be content to let them deal with it. We [The west, mainly the US] made the Taliban and I believe we are responsible for them. This is history repeating itself. "Friends" who we've set up funded trained mentored become enemies. I don't know how to fix the sitation. I think we need to fix the problem we caused but it's hard when trying to help seems to make it worse.

Thu, 2010-03-18 17:19

NDPP

good post I agree: Watch out for the next wave of the war - the ngo ization which is almost as bad as the warmakers...

Travers: Harper Uses Troops as Political Shield

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/781495--travers...

"As sure as war is hell, the Afghanistan story will inevitably unfold and the walls will come tumbling down. When they do, Harper, his cabinet and at least one chief of defence staff will have much to explain.."

Fri, 2010-03-19 01:35

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Travers: Harper Uses Troops as Political Shield

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/781495--travers...

"As sure as war is hell, the Afghanistan story will inevitably unfold and the walls will come tumbling down. When they do, Harper, his cabinet and at least one chief of defence staff will have much to explain.."

It depends on three key factors:

1. The House. As of just hours ago, the news is reporting that Parliament is standing firm and insisting that the Prime Minister's obstruction of justice and delay tactics in releasing the "Prisoner Papers" unedited to Parliament, constitutes Contempt of Parliament.

2. The press. We need journalists like Jim Travers (Canada's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, perhaps?) and others to keep Torturegate alive.

3. The Canadian public. When Torturegate gains traction (remember, the initial Watergate break-in didn't gain traction right away), I think either the majority or at least enough Canadians will care about Canada's international reputation to be as thoroughly disgusted over Harper's, MacKay's and Hillier's actions as the public were disgusted over Nixon's, Erlichmann's, Haldeman's and Atourney General John Miller's actions.

Fri, 2010-03-19 03:35

Frmrsldr

We, as noble Christian soldiers, or however we look upon ourselves, have a high disdain whenever we do things like tie up and handcuff young women, who seem to pretty obviously not be Taliban, and then pump pistol rounds into their heads or put our rifles on full auto and then riddle them with lead. They had direct physical contact with their victims. They chose to murder these people. So again, I ask, what was their excuse? "We became aware that we had fucked up when we entered the compound. So as not to have our efforts be a write off, we changed the mission. The mission now became black propaganda. We tied up and handcuffed the dead Afghans. The story now was that 'the Taliban did this'."

Most soldiers are decent and would not murder in a calculated and cold blooded way other childrens' mothers and fathers and other parents' children. The "piece of shit" comment is an expression that was in currency when I was in the Army and is one that (the soldiers I knew) would use to describe the foreign and Afghan soldiers in question because in this case, "a few bad apples" make the rest look bad.

That we have this double standard that we apply to ourselves is apparent by the facts that:

1. The unit that committed this atrocity hid its unit identification crests, emblems etc., on their uniforms at the time of the operation.

2. They left no "death cards" etc., identifying who had done the dirty deed.

3. NATO is covering up for them.

4. The unit has not come forth and identified itself.

You know you have lost a war when you have to fight the people. Insurgents and suicide bombers often wear civilian clothes. Foreign soldiers can't tell insurgents from civilians. That is why foreign soldiers often kill civilians in guerrilla wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. "A teenage girl or a boy of 13 or 14 can kill you just the same as a 25 or 26 year old man. Best is to assume that all Afghans are your enemy if you want to make it home for Thanksgiving."

The government sells this war to the people that we are fighting in Afghanistan to teach Afghans how to make their country a democracy, how to treat women as equals and how to respect human rights. We expose this for the hypocritical lie that it is every time we "accidentally" kill civilians by 100 or more at a time by carpet bombing a village or when we intentionally murder innocent Afghan men, women and children with small arms at the individual level.

I'm not making a who's better/who's worse argument:

But if you were a poor Afghan villager or farmer and you realize that the current foreigners are going to leave, just like all the other previous foreigners and the Taliban/insurgents will remain, who would you (tacitly at least) side with, in the long run?

Survival is the art of the practical. This is simple human psychology.

According to the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws, treaties, agreements, protocols, etc., war of aggression is illegal. Regime change, what the majority of those charged with at the Nuremberg trials were convicted of, is illegal.

It is illegal to wage war against and engage in regime change no matter how much we dislike them or what they do.

I should have thought your argument about how we created this mess by first creating the Taliban and other mujihadeen who are now fighting against us and the fact that our continued presence in Afghanistan is making things worse, would lead you to the conclusion that we should get the hell out of Afghanistan now and should never have meddled there in the first place.

The comedy The Cheap Detective was not a very memorable movie. But it had a line I will never forget: "The world doesn't want to be saved. It just wants to be left alone."

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68751

Sat, 2010-03-20 23:57

#10

NDPP

Afghanistan War: Lessons from the Soviet War

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100318/wl_csm/288563

"Unlike NATO forces, who now make pointed efforts to protect civilians [yeah right!] the Soviets and their Afghan cohorts often deliberately targeted local populations. Throughout its war however, the Red Army held little more than the main towns, the countryside remained largely in the hands of the mujahideen. Similarly today, 70 percent of the country is ranked as 'insecure' by the United Nations."

Stumbling About in the Graveyard of Empires

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25038.htm

"what I find most astonishing about America's latest military adventure is just how much this gravest of national decisions is not being seriously discussed in our national discourse. Perhaps even more amazing is the degree to which that is true from the bottom of the national security policy process all the way to the top...we're basically not talking about and thinking about Afghanistan at all.."

Sun, 2010-03-21 00:00

#11

Fidel

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/joya-condemns-ridiculous-mi... condemns 'ridiculous' military strategy[/url]

Quote:
"It is ridiculous," said Malalai Joya, an elected member of the Afghan parliament. "On the one hand they call on Mullah Omar to join the puppet regime. On another hand they launch this attack in which defenceless and poor people will be the prime victims. Like before, they will be killed in the Nato bombings and used as human shields by the Taliban. . .

Ms Joya believes that corruption is endemic, citing uranium deposits and opium as incentives for Nato and Afghan officials to retain a presence in Helmand.

It's about the minerals and dope and gaining a new square on the chess board. Dopey Steve and supporting cast just do whatever they are instructed to.

Sun, 2010-03-21 00:01

#12

NDPP

and the public largely ignores the whole business...

Sun, 2010-03-21 00:07

#13

Fidel

No that's dopey Steve's job to ignore the detainees issue. He's very good at playing stupid, a natural in fact.

Sun, 2010-03-21 00:20

#14

Fidel

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-report-offers-damning-pi.... report offers damning picture of human rights abuses in Afghanistan[/url]

Quote:
Afghan prison conditions are horrific, torture is common and police frequently rape female detainees, the U.S. State Department finds in its annual survey of human rights.

The damning report paints a grim picture of scant respect for human rights by the embattled regime headed by President Hamid Karzai. While Taliban treatment of civilians is even worse, the report's assessment of vile prison conditions and routine abuse and torture by Afghan police and security raises new questions about whether Canada and other nations are still transferring prisoners to known torturers. Doing so is a war crime under international law.

So who's training the Afghan police? 30 years of US meddling in Afghanistan, and the country's a basket case. Another one for the record, and this time our stooges in Ottawa can take some of the credit.

Sun, 2010-03-21 00:24

#15

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

No that's dopey Steve's job to ignore the detainees issue. He's very good at playing stupid, a natural in fact.

NDPP

amazing how far he's gone with it

Sun, 2010-03-21 01:56

#16

Fidel

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Fidel wrote:

No that's dopey Steve's job to ignore the detainees issue. He's very good at playing stupid, a natural in fact.

NDPP

amazing how far he's gone with it

It's not him as an individual. Dopey Steve sans Bay Street monet would be as noteworthy among Canadians as wet kleenex and with all the personality of the same. Crazy George's friend, Steve, and all of the Harper clones in government, are not actually running the country - Bay Street and US corporatocracy are. 22% of registered voters didn't vote for Steve and his non-existent personality. They voted for the party and government that serves their interests as well as those of Bay Street's. Without big money behind them, Steve and the Harpers couldnt win the stooge-offs that they do with a fifth or so of Canadians choosing governments. And you thought you were living in a democracy? tsk-tsk

And our first-past-the-ghost electoral system is like a runaway Toyota, except it's an AMC Gremlin but a lot older. One touch of the gas pedal and relatively small increase in votes for either of the two bay street parties causes the car to swerve hard to the right and into the rhubarb patch and exploding into flames every time. And then the farmer's sheep catch hell. bahahaha

Sun, 2010-03-21 02:21

#17

NDPP

yes of course it's all about the backers - but even still for someone so profoundly politically ungifted even by the dreary, backwater standards of Canucklehead pols it's a wonder - a Stevie wonder!

Sun, 2010-03-21 02:36

#18

Fidel

They could win with Bob or Doug McKenzie heading up either wing of the party. Our stooges are bought and paid for every four years.

Sun, 2010-03-21 17:49

#19

NDPP

Taliban Fighters Being Taught at Secret Camps in Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7069817.ece

"American officials believe Iran's support for the Taliban has reached 'troubling' proportions, although it is not on the same scale as its backing for Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq...Taliban militants still receive much of their training in neighbouring Pakistan. Elements of the ISI, Pakistan's secret-service, are known to train, equip and fund the Taliban. But a recent crackdown on Taliban safe havens in Pakistan has forced many insurgents to look to Iran for support.."

Sun, 2010-03-21 18:51

#20

Fidel

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Taliban Fighters Being Taught at Secret Camps in Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7069817.ece

"American officials believe Iran's support for the Taliban has reached 'troubling' proportions,

The Nazis were troubled by Polish aggression against a German radio tower in Silesia, too, before deciding that Poland had to be blitzed and invaded. As it happened, the SS had pulled a false flag op to make it look like Polish aggression. Goebbels and co. propagandized hell out of it for the benefit of all Germans.

This is what Iranians get for the Taliban having tried to handover bin Laden to the Yanks three times in 2001. And let this be a lesson to all Poles and Iranians and Afghans, and Iraq, a country still accused of having ties to Al-CIA'duh by head mafia-neocon whackos, etc

Sun, 2010-03-21 23:23

#21

Webgear

Earlier this month, Hizb-i-Islami fighters battled the Taliban with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine-guns in Baghlan province. It was not immediately clear whether the clashes were a localized militant dispute or represented signs of a rift between Hekmatyar and the Taliban. But dozens of Hizb-i-Islami fighters, under pressure from the Taliban, ended up joining government forces that had amassed on the edge of the battle zone.

I am sort of surprised that no one mention these attacks earlier this month. It appears there is some rifts are appearing amongst the insurgents, this was quite common in the Afghan-Soviet war.

Mon, 2010-03-22 03:48

#22

NDPP

Medicating the Military

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/military_psychiatric_drugs_031710w/

"At least 1 in 6 [US] service members is on some form of psychiatric drug..'It's really a large scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people's cognition and behaviour,' said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.."

Mon, 2010-03-22 11:03

#23

PraetorianFour

quote]We, as noble Christian soldiers, or however we look upon ourselves, have a high disdain ...[/quote]

People always do this. Name call and degrade in one breath then try and put the same 'piece of shit' on a high pedistal when you have a rock in your hand trying to knock them off.
"Their suposed to be rightious protectors with high morales" etc..

Do me a favor and PMme [or just link me] the story about US soldiers handcuffing pregnant Afghan women and shooting them with pistols. I'm not saying I don't believe it didn't happen, it totally might have. Regardless of my own bias I try and keep an open mind and look at facts, you were right and I was wrong about the US being involved in that night time raid that killed 8 villagers.
I've just noticed you seem to suppose a lot or accept any accusation of wrong doing by the states/nato with very little proof at times. Or is the proof in the fact that the US deny it so it has to be true? So the US soldiers took these men and pregnant women, handcuffed them then shot them with pistols?

Quote:

Most soldiers are decent and would not murder in a calculated and cold blooded way other childrens' mothers and fathers and other parents' children. The "piece of shit" comment is an expression that was in currency when I was in the Army and is one that (the soldiers I knew) would use to describe the foreign and Afghan soldiers in question because in this case, "a few bad apples" make the rest look bad.

I believe that. I don't have a very high opinion of ANA soldiers and some the soldiers from some other countries who I served with. You should have been more clear though with your comment because you're using a really wide brush.

Quote:

That we have this double standard that we apply to ourselves is apparent by the facts that:

The same double standard I am suggesting exists in thread. It's not about the people of Afghanistan winning. maybe it started that way but now it looks to be about the US/NATO being bad and fucking up.

Quote:

1. The unit that committed this atrocity hid its unit identification crests, emblems etc., on their uniforms at the time of the operation.
2. They left no "death cards" etc., identifying who had done the dirty deed.
3. NATO is covering up for them.
4. The unit has not come forth and identified itself.

Is this a new incident or is this from a couple of weeks ago where the US and Afghans did a night raid and pulled people out of their house and 8 people were shot and everyone paid pass the buck about whether it was the US or ANA that did it?

Death cards?

Quote:

Insurgents and suicide bombers often wear civilian clothes. Foreign soldiers can't tell insurgents from civilians. That is why foreign soldiers often kill civilians in guerrilla wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. "A teenage girl or a boy of 13 or 14 can kill you just the same as a 25 or 26 year old man. Best is to assume that all Afghans are your enemy if you want to make it home for Thanksgiving."

Agreed. They aren't stupid enough to wear uniforms, unless you count them wearing the ANA and ANP uniforms at times to sneak past security check points and blow up markets or buildings. By "best to assume etc".. you are obviously implying it's better to shoot first and ask questions later right?

Quote:

The government sells this war to the people that we are fighting in Afghanistan to teach Afghans how to make their country a democracy, how to treat women as equals and how to respect human rights. We expose this for the hypocritical lie that it is every time we "accidentally" kill civilians by 100 or more at a time by carpet bombing a village or when we intentionally murder innocent Afghan men, women and children with small arms at the individual level.
I'm not making a who's better/who's worse argument:

When your giving props to the Taliban for admitting murdering 50 people and condemning the NATO for doing the same you are making it into a who's better who's worse argument.

You asked what's Nato's excuse? I say excuses are the refuge of the weak. No one should make excuses if someone fucks up then they pay the price for what they do. I lost a pretty good friend of 20 years just recently because he fucked up and I refused to cover for him. If NATO fucks up then they should own up to it, period. If they don't then people like you [and me] need to kick them in the ass and do what we can to make sure they do.

Quote:

But if you were a poor Afghan villager or farmer and you realize that the current foreigners are going to leave, just like all the other previous foreigners and the Taliban/insurgents will remain, who would you (tacitly at least) side with, in the long run?
Survival is the art of the practical. This is simple human psychology.

Frmrsldr this is a very very good point. Lots of people look at the Afghans and expect them to jump on the "right" train or righteous train and embrace all this stuff that's pushed on them. Treat women better because it's the right thing to do, women are people too.
Police don't execute prisoners! Give them a trial.
Don't assault children.
Don't support insurgents, don't turn a blind eye to road side bombs.

What happens when ISAF leaves? The ANA and ANP will stand up against the Taliban? Ya right. Seems to me the locals care more about what's for supper than the overall state of the country and I don't blame them one bit.
How many people in Canada really truely care for the state of the country and take an active [perhaps even dangerous] role in chaging it? Comapred to people who complain about it and goto work every day.

Quote:

According to the Nuremberg Trials etc.. etc..

Most of your posts regarding the topic seem to irreversibly lead to this. You keep bringing it up over and over. War of aggression is llegal. Okay, now what?

Quote:

I should have thought your argument about how we created this mess by first creating the Taliban and other mujihadeen who are now fighting against us and the fact that our continued presence in Afghanistan is making things worse, would lead you to the conclusion that we should get the hell out of Afghanistan now and should never have meddled there in the first place.

Honestly I'm still undecided if going there in the first place after 9/11 was the right thing to do or not.
I'm coming to my own conclusions about that [Please, save the illegal war of agression stuff]
Should we leave? Yup. I'm just trying to decide on what I think is a good plan concerning the Taliban taking over in the vacume we leave behind. If they are going to take over, I would like some kind of assurece that they won't turn around and murder anyone who worked with/for ISAF because they were more worried about what's for supper than the stae of the country.

Mon, 2010-03-22 11:21

#24

remind

Gawd...the stench of war propaganda is nasty in the morning.

P4, frmrsldr, quite clearly noted the murdering of pregnant women was part of the night time raid...

...guess Pakistan and "Iran", must have better training capabilities than NATO and the RCMP, as it has been 9 years of saying by NATO we are 'still' training Afghans.

As for your question to frmrsldr, being "now what" about war crimes, now what means charges need to be laid. As opposed to brushing past them as if they were of no consequence. Perhaps if charges were laid more would get that what they are doing is illegal.

And yes, it is so much better that NATO kill innocent civilians than it would be for a civil war to break out, when we get the hell out and start minding our own business. (sarcastic in the first part of course)

Mon, 2010-03-22 23:39

#25

Fidel

remind wrote:

Gawd...the stench of war propaganda is nasty in the morning.

Bwahaha He's a delivery boy. Sent by grocery clerks... to collect Bill.

Tue, 2010-03-23 00:45

#26

Frmrsldr

PraetorianFour wrote:

Do me a favor and PMme [or just link me] the story about US soldiers handcuffing pregnant Afghan women and shooting them with pistols. I'm not saying I don't believe it didn't happen, it totally might have.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/03/14/nato-covered-up-botched-night...

See post #5.

It doesn't state what weapon was used to murder the handcuffed victims. But through the process of elimination, an informed guess would be an assault rifle, a carbine or a pistol.

Frmrsldr wrote:

A teenage girl or a boy of 13 or 14 can kill you just the same as a 25 or 26 year old man. Best is to assume that all Afghans are your enemy if you want to make it home for Thanksgiving.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Agreed. By "best to assume etc".. you are obviously implying it's better to shoot first and ask questions later right?

If this is the mentality, then it explains the occurrence of such incidents.

Frmrsldr wrote:

According to the Nuremberg Trials etc.. etc..

PraetorianFour wrote:

Most of your posts regarding the topic seem to irreversibly lead to this. You keep bringing it up over and over. War of aggression is llegal. Okay, now what?

Frmrsldr wrote:

I should have thought your argument about how we created this mess by first creating the Taliban and other mujihadeen who are now fighting against us and the fact that our continued presence in Afghanistan is making things worse, would lead you to the conclusion that we should get the hell out of Afghanistan now and should never have meddled there in the first place.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Honestly I'm still undecided if going there in the first place after 9/11 was the right thing to do or not. I'm coming to my own conclusions about that [Please, save the illegal war of agression stuff] Should we leave? Yup.

You just answered your own question (in bold, above). A good mneumonic device for learning is repetition. I use it to counteract the propaganda used by the government, the military and the mainstream media. Our "mission" (these clowns can't even wrap their tongues around the word "war") in Afghanistan is supported by NATO and mandated by the U.N. - There is no U.N. Resolution that mentions Afghanistan by name and confers the power to anyone to use military force to attack, invade, wage war against and militarily occupy Afghanistan. What we are doing in Afghanistan is waging a war of aggression. What we are doing in Afghanistan is illegal.

When we kill Afghans, it is murder. When our soldiers die in this war, because it is illegal and our governments have sent us there, the blood of our soldiers is on the hands of our government, our military, the Pentagon, Defense Departments and the arms industry.

PraetorianFour wrote:

I'm just trying to decide on what I think is a good plan concerning the Taliban taking over in the vacume we leave behind. If they are going to take over, I would like some kind of assurece that they won't turn around and murder anyone who worked with/for ISAF because they were more worried about what's for supper than the stae of the country.

Let me put this in a simpler way. If Canada were invaded (like in the War of 1812) what would you do? Would you welcome the foreign invaders as liberators and embrace them and their ideas (which they say are superior to ours) on government, culture and society?

Or would you, like our forefathers in 1812 and the Afghans of today, defend our country? Would you reject their attempts to ram their ideas (which differ from ours) on government, culture and society through the use of maiming, murdering and rapine ie., through war?

How would you act? How would a "Patriot Act"?

See my posts to Webgear on this page.

Tue, 2010-03-23 00:47

#27

NDPP

US-Led Forces[and Canadians] in Afghanistan Are Committing Atrocities, Lying and Getting Away With It

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backg...

"The implication was clear: The dead militants were probably also guilty of the cold-blooded slaughter of helpless women prisoners. NATO said their intelligence had 'confirmed militant activity.'

As if to reinforce the point, coalition spokesman Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, A CANADIAN, talked in that second press release of 'criminals and terrorists who do not care about the life of civilians.'

Only that's not what happened at all."

detestable murderers and scumbags

Tue, 2010-03-23 01:04

#28

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

I am sort of surprised that no one mention these attacks earlier this month. It appears there is some rifts are appearing amongst the insurgents, this was quite common in the Afghan-Soviet war.

What profound, earth moving difference does this make?

Did this cause the Russians to win the war? Will it cause the U.S./NATO/ISAF to win this war?

The only difference I can see is that it somewhat breaks up the narrative coming from the government, the military, and the mainstream media that the insurgents are a monolithic "Taliban".

I wouldn't get too excited over the fact that some of Hekmatyar's troops joined with Afghan government forces. In Afghanistan, the forces in politics shift like the sands on the floor of an Afghan desert. Although Hekmatyar was part of the Taliban government, neither he nor his HIG network were part of the Taliban insurgents. You probably know that.

Jason Ditz wrote:

Making matters even more complicated, the Hezb-e Islami has never been on good terms with the Taliban ...

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/22/karzai-in-peace-talks-with-taliban-ri...

Tue, 2010-03-23 01:47

#29

Frmrsldr

The comedy The Cheap Detective was not a very memorable movie. But it had a line I will never forget: "The world doesn't want to be saved. It just wants to be left alone."

Anand Gopal wrote:

The Taliban's protection of the drug economy - which many in Marjah are involved in - and the provision of rudimentary services (judiciary, policing, and some development) won them support from the local population. As one Marjah resident told me:

The Taliban leave us alone. They are Islamic and they provide security in our area. We can grow all produce here without being bothered by the government. We are afraid that when the Americans come, they will start putting more regulations and there will be more corruption. We don't want to harm other people, we just want to be left alone.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/VVOS-83CRYQ?OpenDocument&RS...

Tue, 2010-03-23 11:12

#30

PraetorianFour

Frmrsldr wrote:

It doesn't state what weapon was used to murder the handcuffed victims. But through the process of elimination, an informed guess would be an assault rifle, a carbine or a pistol.

Looks like the women weren't handcuffed and shot. What I'm getting is that someone stood in the door and was arguing and shot by the force and the bullets continued on and struck the women who were crouching behind the man.

it sounds like the handcuffed & murdered story was someone trying to cover it up and make it look like an execution.

Frmrsldr wrote:

You just answered your own question (in bold, above). A good mneumonic device for learning is repetition. I use it to counteract the propaganda used by the government, the military and the mainstream media. Our "mission" (these clowns can't even wrap their tongues around the word "war") in Afghanistan is supported by NATO and mandated by the U.N. - There is no U.N. Resolution that mentions Afghanistan by name and confers the power to anyone to use military force to attack, invade, wage war against and militarily occupy Afghanistan. What we are doing in Afghanistan is waging a war of aggression. What we are doing in Afghanistan is illegal.

I'm just saying it makes my eyes kinda glaze over. Well it could be that or taylor Swift and Lady gaga playing the same songs on the radio over and over and over and over.

Quote:

Or would you, like our forefathers in 1812 and the Afghans of today, defend our country? Would you reject their attempts to ram their ideas (which differ from ours) on government, culture and society through the use of maiming, murdering and rapine ie., through war?

A little off topic but you know during the war of 1812 we sent soldiers across the border and took offensive actions against the states. Being a defensive only army wouldn't have ended that war

I know you're fond of answering a question with a question Frmrsldr but you're question had nothing to do with what you quoted from me.

I said

Quote:
I'm just trying to decide on what I think is a good plan concerning the Taliban taking over in the vacume we leave behind. If they are going to take over, I would like some kind of assurece that they won't turn around and murder anyone who worked with/for ISAF

Meaning, I want to find a way to make sure the people who worked with us aren't murdered in their home.

You answered what would I do if someone attacked Canada? Are you saying that if someone did invade/occupy Canada and Canadian citizens turned around and helped these people out that it would be okay to murder them for helping when the invaders left???
I'm sure your not condoning murder but that's kind of what your question sounds like to me.

Tue, 2010-03-23 15:52

#31

NDPP

Afghan Censors to Target Taliban (and vid)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/03/2010323101125575169.html

"Shocking images of deformed babies born in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion have been deployed on the Taliban's website to support accusations that the American army has illegally used depleted uranium.."

...and Canada?

Wed, 2010-03-24 02:26

#32

NDPP

Soldiers on Sale: Who's in Charge of the Hired Killers?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2010/M...

"These rent-a-Rambos' real mission was to assassinate Pashtun leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan and target Tribal compounds for strikes by US Predator Drones. Welcome to the modern version of the Mafia's infamous contract killers 'Murder Inc.'.."

Victims of Uranium Munitions in Afghanistan (your tax dollars at work?)

http://www.alemarah.info/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...

Taliban Say Not Involved wth Karzai Peace Talks

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world...

"The Islamic Emirate has a clear position. We have said this many, many times. There will be no talks when there are foreign troops on Afghanistan's soil killing innocent Afghans on a daily basis.."

Civil War Certain as 'Afghan National Army' Now Over 60% Tajik

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/03/civil_war_certa.html

"The Afghan National Army is just the Northern Alliance in very expensive NATO provided uniforms"

There are a number of 'Big Lies' put forward by the US in Afghanistan all slavishly reported. Here are a few..."

The Afghan Ant-Hole: The New US NATO Offensive Will Run into Trouble

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18298

"NATO plans for Afghanistan this year are shaping up nicely: negotiate with the Taliban, but at the same time kill them in Kandahar and Kunduz..

It should not be forgotten that Karzai himself was a member of the Taliban government from 1995-1998 before Unocal hired him as an insider to try to clinch an oil pipeline deal. His effortless transition to US protege suggests he was already on the US payroll.."

there should be more going on here to stop this - the level of acquiesence and passivity is truly shocking..if and when Canada does really bring troops home on schedule the PTB will have demonstrated that they can conduct a completely unjustified counter insurgency war on the other side of the world and have Canadians go along with it with very, very little opposition worthy of the name... the same with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and our virtual political alliance with the Zionist regime etc., tacitly or not so tacitly supported by all the mainstream pols. Lots of political work to be done. Lots.

Wed, 2010-03-24 04:41

#33

Frmrsldr

PraetorianFour wrote:

A little off topic but you know during the war of 1812 we sent soldiers across the border and took offensive actions against the states. Being a defensive only army wouldn't have ended that war

I disagree. The presence of Americans in British North America was equivalent to the presence of the British in America during the American War of Independence and also during the War of 1812. The Canadians had roots, family and fixed property in British North America/Canada, the Americans didn't. The Americans had roots, family and fixed property in America, the British didn't. For the British in America, both wars were unwinnable quagmires. For the Americans in BNA, the War of 1812 was an unwinnable quagmire. In the American War of Independence and the War of 1812, it was sufficient to wage a guerrilla war where British casualties slowly mounted and to cut the British off from their supplies to win those wars. There was no need to invade other peoples' territory ("country"). Same with the War of 1812. It was not necessary to wage a war of aggression against Americans by counter-attacking America. The Americans were foreigners in a foreign land (made obvious by the fact that very few locals offered them beneficial assistance). Cutting the American forces off from their supplies and reinforcements on BNA soil would have been sufficient to win the war.

PraetorianFour wrote:

I know you're fond of answering a question with a question Frmrsldr but you're question had nothing to do with what you quoted from me.

I said

I'm just trying to decide on what I think is a good plan concerning the Taliban taking over in the vacume we leave behind. If they are going to take over, I would like some kind of assurece that they won't turn around and murder anyone who worked with/for ISAF. Meaning, I want to find a way to make sure the people who worked with us aren't murdered in their home. You answered what would I do if someone attacked Canada? Are you saying that if someone did invade/occupy Canada and Canadian citizens turned around and helped these people out that it would be okay to murder them for helping when the invaders left??? I'm sure your not condoning murder but that's kind of what your question sounds like to me.

What I am addressing is your fundamental belief that informs all your arguments about Afghanistan: That is, "We have a right/duty/obligation to be there."

My response to this is: "No, we don't. The war in Afghanistan is illegal."

War causes death, destruction and suffering. Afghan insurgents, Afghan civilians (those who supported the insurgents, innocent civilians and those who support the puppet Karzai government and the foreigners) and Canadian and foreign troops have been injured, killed and emiserated.

Who is responsible for this?

We are. We created the mujihadeen, the Taliban and the insurgents. We started the Soviet Afghan War in the late 1970s and fought it by proxy. We fuelled the Afghan Civil War that brought the Taliban to power. We supported the Taliban until October 2001. We caused the current Afghan war. Everyone who is killed, injured or emiserated in this war is due to our actions.

The legal and moral underpinnings of the War of 1812 and the Afghan war are exactly the same. America's attack, invasion and war against Canada was unjust. Our attack/invasion/war/occupation against and of Afghanistan is also immoral, illegal and unjust.

I did not answer the question of what you would do if someone attacked Canada. Neither did you. You dodged the question.

You seem to have the same cultural blindness that Americans had in the War of 1812 toward Canadians and have toward Afghanis and Iraqis in the current Afghan and Iraq wars: That Canadians, Afghanis and Iraqis would welcome the U.S. and us (Canadians and other foreign troops) as liberators and would forever be grateful toward us for bestowing upon them the blessings of our foreign and alien culture.

During the War of 1812, the American idealists believed that their brethren living in the Americas to their north would welcome them as liberators. The propagandists made the argument that they were extending the liberty from the yoke of British colonial oppression started in the American War of Independence. They would bring democracy, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that starts with the words "We hold these truths to be self evident: That men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

These are fine words, but why didn't Canadians hear them in 1812? Because they were drowned out by the sound of marching army boots, the tattoo of the military drum and the sound of musket and artillery fire.

When Americans (or anyone else acts this way) the natural response is one of, "Take your war machine and the murder, maiming and rapine that goes with it and FUCK OFF, America!

Given their history, (most) Afghans do not like foreigners. Just ask Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and his brothers, the British (in the 19th Century) and former Russian officers who fought in the Soviet Afghan War.

Afghans reserve a special disliking for those Benedict Arnolds who 'sell their Afghan brethren down the river' (ie., betray them) for their '30 pieces of filthy lucre'.

America has a bad track record when it comes to its allies. This is what it was like for Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, to mention a few. Afghanistan will be no different:

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2009/11/02/the-american-way-of-aban....

If you have moral concerns about the welfare of the minority of Afghans who have rendered services to us for pay, then it logically follows that you should have moral concerns about all (other) Afghans who act, just like the Benedict Arnolds, out of a mix of personal gain and out of a belief/desire to improve the conditions of their country and its peoples.

Remember our earlier discourse where we sought to learn about the nature of empathy?

Wed, 2010-03-24 13:03

#34

PraetorianFour

Frmrsldr wrote:

My response to this is: "No, we don't. The war in Afghanistan is illegal."

Believe me I'm not just trolling. You keep saying the war in Afghanistan is illegal. I'm not a message forum lawyer or anything, I know very little about the law. Can you explain exactly how the war in Afghanistan is illegal? [In point form please] I ask because while looking into the Swiss involvement in Afghanistan I came across this.

Quote:

Legally, the mission was based on the UN resolution 1386 of December 20, 2001, supplemented later by the UN resolution 1510 of October 13 2003, which extended the mandate to areas outside Kabul. Basically, the ISAF was commissioned to safeguard the reconstruction of the country. The mandate was prolonged until October 13, 2008 by UN resolution 1776 of September 19, 2007

It looks like the UN gave ISAF permission to be in Afghanistan to me. Are you suggesting that the UN is breaking the [Their own?] law?

And in reply to your question.

Quote:
I did not answer the question of what you would do if someone attacked Canada. Neither did you. You dodged the question.

If someone attacked Canada I would defend it. [You knew I would say that so I figured your question was somewhat rethorical.]

I assumed you were going to just say that's what people in Afghanistan are doing.

Wed, 2010-03-24 23:02

#35

Frmrsldr

PraetorianFour] [quote=Frmrsldr wrote:

My response to this is: "No, we don't. The war in Afghanistan is illegal."

PraetorianFour wrote:

Believe me I'm not just trolling. You keep saying the war in Afghanistan is illegal. I'm not a message forum lawyer or anything, I know very little about the law. Can you explain exactly how the war in Afghanistan is illegal? [In point form please]

I understand. As a soldier participating in the Afghan war, if you are to be convinced that the war is illegal, you need convincing legal and logical arguments to establish this.

Briefly, google "War of Aggression" and "Military Attack"; "Use of Military force" and illegal and add "U.N. Charter" and "Geneva Conventions". Google International Justice Court 1986 Nicaragua v. U.S.A. for the precedent that establishes military attacks against countries on the grounds that "they are harboring terrorists" is illegal. Google "Lawyers Against War". Otherwise scroll through my previous posts where I make the case why the Afghan war is illegal.

PraetorianFour] I ask because while looking into the Swiss involvement in Afghanistan I came across this. [quote wrote:

Legally, the mission was based on the UN resolution 1386 of December 20, 2001, supplemented later by the UN resolution 1510 of October 13 2003, which extended the mandate to areas outside Kabul. Basically, the ISAF was commissioned to safeguard the reconstruction of the country. The mandate was prolonged until October 13, 2008 by UN resolution 1776 of September 19, 2007

PraetorianFour wrote:

It looks like the UN gave ISAF permission to be in Afghanistan to me. Are you suggesting that the UN is breaking the [Their own?] law?

Those Resolutions state that the ISAF was commissioned to safeguard reconstruction, NOT attack/invade/wage war (of aggression) or engage in regime change. So no, the U.N. is not breaking its own law, but the U.S./NATO/ISAF did when they went beyond the U.N. Resolutions in 2005 and switched to a combat role. Where the U.N. falls down is it did not speak out (or at least not loudly enough) against the U.S./NATO/ISAF violating the U.N. Resolutions.

[PraetorianFour]

And in reply to your question.

Quote:
I did not answer the question of what you would do if someone attacked Canada. Neither did you. You dodged the question.

PraetorianFour wrote:

If someone attacked Canada I would defend it. [You knew I would say that so I figured your question was somewhat rethorical.]

I assumed you were going to just say that's what people in Afghanistan are doing.

That's right. Now you see the parallel between America's unjust attack/invasion of Canada in the War of 1812 and the U.S.A.'s, Canada's, NATO and ISAF countries' unjust attack/invasion of Afghanistan in this current war.

Thu, 2010-03-25 13:31

#36

PraetorianFour

Quote:

I understand. As a soldier participating in the Afghan war, if you are to be convinced that the war is illegal, you need convincing legal and logical arguments to establish this.

Briefly, google "War of Aggression" and "Military Attack"; "Use of Military force" and illegal and add "U.N. Charter" and "Geneva Conventions". Google International Justice Court 1984 Nicaragua v. U.S.A. for the precedent that establishes military attacks against countries on the grounds that "they are harboring terrorists" is illegal. Google "Lawyers Against War". Otherwise scroll through my previous posts where I make the case why the Afghan war is illegal.

Not JUST being a soldier. Pretty much anything. Remember when you were in the CF and you had those intructors who would claim something was "illegal" and you could get charged for it. Every now and then someone would put up their hand and say "Ummm, can you reference the QR&Os? Lots of times the person couldn't.
I had a police officer tell me I was doing something illegal with my firearms which I new wasn't true. He swore by it and said I could be charged and assured me what I was doing/had was illegal. I had to go to the RCMP webpage and print off various rules and regulations regarding firearms, firearm storage and ammunition restrictions for proof before he accepted it.
If someone tells you something is illegal [or legal] and you're unsure it pays to check.

I googled Lawyers Against War. I clicked on the link on their web page

Bush War: Military Necessity or War Crimes? Part 1
None of the 3 links work, just says page not found.
Quite a few links you provided seem down. I'm thinking you have the links saved for just such a debate, you should go through them and double check though.

I started searching the suggestions you gave me and expanded it to "Is the war in Afghanistan illegal" I found lots of yes and no amateur web pags devoted to it.
I found a news page from the UK quotting kofi annan where it looks like he says the war in Iraq is illegal.
Nothing on Afghanistan. I'm not saying it isn't illegal, it very well might be. I understand the over all opinion here towards the issue. I'm just saying I can't find an official UN webpage saying saying the war in Afghanistan is illegal.
Can you show me one? [Respectfully I don't mean your interpetation of the law but the UN stating it themselves.]

Quote:

Those Resolutions state that the ISAF was commissioned to safeguard reconstruction, NOT attack/invade/wage war (of aggression) or engage in regime change. So no, the U.N. is not breaking its own law, but the U.S./NATO/ISAF did when they went beyond the U.N. Resolutions in 2005 and switched to a combat role. Where the U.N. falls down is it did not speak out (or at least not loudly enough) against the U.S./NATO/ISAF violating the U.N. Resolutions.

Now this is tricky. How does one safe guard construction workers against someone trying to blow them up on their way to work or cut their head off for working?

So we switched to a combat role in 2005? That's weird because when the US handed command over to the mission over NATO beefed up their rules of engagemet [ made them stricter]. I would argue that pre 2006 saw more agressive actions by the forces in Afghanistan, perhaps just not as public.
When NATO took control many US soldiers complained aout feeling like their hands were tied. Much harder to call in airstrikes and artillery. [Which in my little opinion is a good thing].

Either way, you can't protect reconstruction efforts by taking a defensive role. This was tried in a manner, litterlly, in 2008. Road construction crews repairing roads and paving them.
Constructon members went missing and turned up a few days later with warning signs on them not to work with ISAF. These stopped when the protecting force pushed out and agressively patroled the area instead of taking a defensive posture. When the protection crews actively went after the Taliban and not just wait for something to happen construction workers stopped geting their throats cut. That's a very simple explination but I think the whole issue has merit when discussing what is actually required to safe guard construction. I'll agree that the US probably still used this to justify hardcore offensive ops. I just think it's hard to find the line between the two.

Quote:

That's right. Now you see the parallel between America's unjust attack/invasion of Canada in the War of 1812 and the U.S.A.'s, Canada's, NATO and ISAF countries' unjust attack/invasion of Afghanistan in this current war.

I see the parallel [i]you're[/i] trying to draw between the two. I however do not think the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with the war of 1812. How come you've been on such a big war of 1812 thing this week?

Thu, 2010-03-25 17:05

#37

Frmrsldr

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foleyexposure.html#_ftn8

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml (esp. Preamble and Article 51)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+War

(See "The ruling") http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ni/nicaragua_vs._united_states.htm

PraetorianFour wrote:

That's a very simple explination but I think the whole issue has merit when discussing what is actually required to safe guard construction. I'll agree that the US probably still used this to justify hardcore offensive ops. I just think it's hard to find the line between the two.

This is what is described, among other things as a "slippery slope" argument. This is why war is a vortex that often sucks government and military leaders and even individuals into doing things, that during peacetime, they would have said they would never do.

When Canadian troops were in Kabul pre 2006, their base was right across the street from the reconstruction, redevelopment and aid NGOs' camp. When Canadian troops were deployed to Kandahar, their base is some kilometers away from from the aid workers' camp.

As for the slippery slope phenomenon, look at WW I and the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, WW II and the treatment and execution of Prisoners of War by the Germans on the Eastern Front and the Japanese in the Pacific Theater and the war in the air conducted by the RAF and USAF in the European Theater over Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden and other cities and in the Pacific Theater over Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other cities (conventional incendiary and atomic bombs), in the Korean War, the execution and mistreatment of prisoners by both the North Koreans and American (and allied) soldiers.

Look at Vietnam. First it was fought by the French, with the U.S.A. underwriting the cost of the war and supplying most of the weapons. When the French pulled out in 1954, the U.S.A. financially propped up the Diem regime and sent CIA field agents, military advisors, weapons and helicopters. In 1964, President Johnson sent the first ground troops. At first, their mission was to stay on base and defend America's military assets (mostly the helicopters and their bases).

American officers made the same argument you do: American troops were sitting ducks while remaining on their bases, the Viet Cong were free to roam the countryside and grow stronger. It was only a matter of time before the Viet Cong attacked and overran the bases. After only weeks, American forces switched from a role of defense to aggressive patrols. The tactic was called "Search and Destroy". From 1964 to 1968, the number of U.S. troops sent to Vietnam escalated. In 1969, President Nixon talked about "Vietnamizing" the war in Vietnam and capped the number of troops but escalated the B-52 bombing campaign of Hanoi and Haiphong (Operation Linebacker II), bombed Laos and Cambodia and invaded Cambodia. It wasn't until 1972 that the process of de-escalating the war began and all the American troops finally started returning home.

In 2008, when the Conservatives and the Liberals passed Harper's latest War Resolution to escalate Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan to 2011, then Liberal leader Stefane Dion was collared by a CBC reporter after he left the House. When asked about the "caveats" or "conditions" the Liberals claimed they placed on the troops in the final year or months of deployment in 2011, where the troops would not engage in aggressive combat but would only defend aid workers, it went like this:

Question: "So the troops are attacked by insurgents. The troops win the firefight and the insurgents retreat. Will the troops engage in "hot pursuit"?"

Dion: "Well, it's not the job of Parliament to micromanage officers in the field. We'll let them decide."

See? Slippery slope phenomenon (or, if you like, mission creep).

Close to a year ago now, Harper and MacKay were talking about an "exponentially" smaller number of Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan beyond 2011, where again, it was suggested they would not fight aggressive combat but would adopt a defensive posture, one of protecting aid workers. This is bullshit. As we have seen, commanders most likely will adopt "the best defense is a good offense" strategy. As soon as you start to "slide down the slippery slope", and the mission morphs from the defense to a war of aggression, then there is no difference between what we will be doing beyond 2011 (if this comes to pass) and what we are doing now. That is why I adopted the strictest and most narrow of definitions of a war of (self) defense and a war of offense/aggression on the "Swiss Military Model" page - because of this "slippery slope" phenomenon. I'm sure the troops ordered to stay beyond 2011 will be extremely disgruntled (pissed off) and say things like, "Sucks to be us!"

I've always seen the parallel between the Afghan war and the War of 1812. I talk about it now because of the page on this site dedicated to this subject.

Thu, 2010-03-25 18:28

#38

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

I've always seen the parallel between the Afghan war and the War of 1812. I talk about it now because of the page on this site dedicated to this subject.

Really?

Because until the most recent thread on the war of 1812, I do not recall you comparing the two wars.

I also do not recall the either Canadian Camp in Kabul being in close proximately to any NGO group or compound. Most NGOs are in the centre of Kabul while the Canadian camps where east and south of the city.

Thu, 2010-03-25 19:09

#39

Fidel

PraetorianFour wrote:
[I however do not think the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with the war of 1812.

Did you think that the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan was legal, too? What about US torture and renditions?

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1012]German court declares Iraq war violated international law[/url] 2005

What of the invasion and occupations of Czechoslovakia and Poland? Carthage?

Thu, 2010-03-25 21:11

#40

PraetorianFour

Frmrsldr.

When I clicked on the first like it brought me to a paper by

Brian J. Foley[1]

When I googled his name this is the first link that came up.

Quote:

CURRICULUM VITAE Brian J. Foley Drexel University College of Law ...
Brian J. Foley & Ruth Anne Robbins, Fiction 101: A Primer for Lawyers on[b] How to Use Fiction. Writing Techniques to Write Persuasive Facts [/b]Sections...

Ummmm, am I reading that correctly???

Next link I read the Preamble. Nothing mentioning Afghanistan being illegal there.

The next link, to a dictonary, doesn't mention Afghanistan.

Lastly, The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America. 1984, 1986?
I looked but I didn't see any documentation that supported the UN deeming the war in Afghanistan as "illegal".

Is there not a UN statement point form saying yes this war is illegal?

Thu, 2010-03-25 22:51

#41

Frmrsldr

PraetorianFour wrote:
Frmrsldr. When I clicked on the first like it brought me to a paper by Brian J. Foley[1] When I googled his name this is the first link that came up.
Quote:
CURRICULUM VITAE Brian J. Foley Drexel University College of Law ... Brian J. Foley & Ruth Anne Robbins, Fiction 101: A Primer for Lawyers on[b] How to Use Fiction. Writing Techniques to Write Persuasive Facts [/b]Sections...

Ummmm, am I reading that correctly???

I haven't gone where you have on this. It depends on who the implied subject of the book is. Is it Foley himself or is it those (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, etc.) who make the argument that the Afghan and Iraq wars are legal, that Afghan Prisoners of War are not but are "illegal enemy combatants" and thus not covered by the Geneva Conventions and thus can be tortured and abused, torture in the interest of U.S. security is justified, a possible war with Iran is justified, etc.?

I've read (naturally) the original link and questioning the personal integrity of Mr. Foley (even if correct) does not reduce the validity or "rightness" of his arguments.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Next link I read the Preamble. Nothing mentioning Afghanistan being illegal there. The next link, to a dictonary, doesn't mention Afghanistan. Lastly, The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America. 1984, 1986? I looked but I didn't see any documentation that supported the UN deeming the war in Afghanistan as "illegal". Is there not a UN statement point form saying yes this war is illegal?

The problem here, is you are taking these things too literally and looking at them at too small a level.

When it comes to the law, there are legal definitions and precedents that judges and lawyers use to present their cases, make their arguments and inform their decisions.

For example, if you are before the court as a Defendant, the lawyers and the judge will look to see if there were previous like cases. If there are like case(s), then the lawyers will base their arguments on them. When the judge hands down his ruling, if it is based on a previous case(s) or ruling(s), s/he will cite the previous case(s) and/or ruling(s) of previous judges.

A case will only be judged on the base of its own merits if it is a unique or groundbreaking case, that there are no other cases like it.

The law is like a jigsaw puzzle. You aren't going to find what you're looking for in condensed form all in one place, unless someone has written a book that perfectly covers the subject sought.

To answer whether the Afghan war is illegal or not, you have to look up what international law has to say about the concepts "war of aggression". "just war", "war as self-defense", "armed force", "armed attack", "terrorism, is it an act of war or a crime?"

When you read the definitions of these concepts, you will get basically two answers, either:

1. The Afghan and Iraq wars, etc., are illegal.

2. The Afghan and Iraq wars, etc., are legal.

For your answer, you will have to determine, which of the two arguments, has the overall logically/morally/legally consistent premises.

Another principle that informs my point of view is the question, "Which answer will cause the greatest good and the least harm?"

Right out of the gate, that eliminates aggressive war.

Fri, 2010-03-26 03:26

#42

Frmrsldr

Quote:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The United States will ask Canada to keep as many as 600 soldiers in Afghanistan after the country's military mission there ends in 2011, the Globe and Mail newspaper said on Thursday.

The paper, citing unidentified sources, said the troops would serve as military trainers and would be most likely based in Kabul. The U.S. request would come through NATO, it added. Although Ottawa says it will withdraw all 2,800 soldiers serving in the violent southern Afghan city of Kandahar, Washington has been pressing Canada behind the scenes to show more flexibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100325/ts_nm/us_afghan_canada_troops

Fri, 2010-03-26 09:48

#43

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

I've always seen the parallel between the Afghan war and the War of 1812. I talk about it now because of the page on this site dedicated to this subject.

Really?

Because until the most recent thread on the war of 1812, I do not recall you comparing the two wars.

The first is post #31 on the "War of 1812" page.

Webgear wrote:

I also do not recall the either Canadian Camp in Kabul being in close proximately to any NGO group or compound. Most NGOs are in the centre of Kabul while the Canadian camps where east and south of the city.

I'm going by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang's The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar.

Sat, 2010-03-27 01:34

#44

Frmrsldr

Looks like they're preparing a "welcoming committee" for us in Kandahar City:

Jason Ditz wrote:

For now the Taliban is increasing its presence through the city [Kandahar], launching attacks on the unpopular government and encouraging residents to keep guns and supplies in their homes in anticipation of the American invasion. As the weeks and months before the invasion linger on, Taliban fighters will have ample opportunity to prepare for what is looking like a very bloody upcoming battle over the city.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/26/taliban-securing-kandahar-neighborhoo...

Sat, 2010-03-27 01:52

#45

NDPP

CIA Report: Shoring Up Afghan War Support

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf

"This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan..The memo is a recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written by the CIA. It is classified as 'CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN NATIONALS'.."

Sat, 2010-03-27 18:03

#46

NDPP

War and Peace: A Taliban View

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC26Df03.html

"They want our defeat not reconciliation...At this point we realized that the Americans were very concerned about waging war on Afghanistan for whatever reason. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have found any old excuse to wage war.."

Sat, 2010-03-27 22:19

#47

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

Q: Why would U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan go out of their way to smear a journalist?

A: Because he told the truth about a night raid that killed Afghan civilians, including pregnant women.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1844

Sat, 2010-03-27 23:17

#48

Fidel

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

War and Peace: A Taliban View

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC26Df03.html

"They want our defeat not reconciliation...At this point we realized that the Americans were very concerned about waging war on Afghanistan for whatever reason. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have found any old excuse to wage war.."

There's the motive that has eluded 9/11 truth deniers for the most part. Theyve asked us why a bunch of established megalomaniacal psychopaths and pathological liars would commit mass murder on American soil? Apparently they don't see the folly of assigning truthers with the task of finding a reason for the madness of established war criminals.

Sun, 2010-03-28 09:41

#49

NDPP

yes and there's more elaboration on the whole OBL pretext for war, as well..

NATO Tries to Silence A Truth-Teller in Afghanistan (and vid)

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?=1844

Q: Why would US and allied forces in Afghanistan go out of their way to smear a journalist?

A: Because he told the truth about a night raid that killed Afghan civilians, including pregnant women

Sun, 2010-03-28 10:21

#50

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

yes and there's more elaboration on the whole OBL pretext for war, as well..

According to international law (Nuremberg Trials, Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions U.N. Charter, etc.), an act of war is an act(s) of armed force or aggression committed by a state(s) against another state(s).

Terrorism is an act(s) of violence committed by non state actors (terrorists) to coerce a state(s).

Osama Bin Laden is not a "state actor"; ie., a head of state. Nor is Al Qaeda a state government or the armed forces of a state.

9/11 was an act of terrorism. Not an act of war.

The U.N. authorized U.S. law enforcement agencies and orgainizations permission to go wherever the pursuit of those suspected of being behind 9/11 led, and to arrest them and bring them to justice.

The U.N. did not authorize the U.S.A. to use armed force (wage a war of aggression) against Afghanistan or any state.

The air war launched on October 7, 2001 and the ground war of the U.S., U.K. and their proxy Afghan forces against Afghanistan was done without informing or getting authorization from the U.N.

The precedent that there are no legal grounds for using armed force or waging a war of aggression because a state is alleged to be harboring terrorists was established by the 1984 International Justice Court case Nicaragua v. U.S.A.

In fact, the bombing and subsequent killing and injuring of Afghan civilians because their government "harbored terrorists", is collective punishment. Collective punishment is contrary to laws and legal precedents established by the Nuremberg Principles and Geneva Conventions and is therefore, a war crime.

According to Article 51, in a conflict, the U.N. is supposed to be informed of the actions taken by the states involved and is supposed to determine what actions are, or are not, to be taken next. This did not happen. The NATO led ISAF forces sent to Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 and the subsequent change in mission by U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces from one of protecting reconstruction, redevelopment and aid agencies to one of waging a war of aggression in 2005 and 2006, was handed to the U.N. fait accompli and was never authorized by the U.N.

The final reasons given for the Afghan war - regime change and social engineering are contrary to the Nuremberg Principles. The majority of those convicted at the Nuremberg trials were found guilty of regime change, a euphemism for waging a war of aggression. We cannot take it upon ourselves to wage a war of aggression to replace the government of a sovereign state(s), no matter how much we dislike them or what they do.

Using the argument of "social engineering" to attempt to justify waging a war of aggression is an oxymoron. War, by its very nature is destruction. You cannot accomplish any positive good (reconstruction and development) through war (destruction).

Afghanistan is morally repugnant and insupportable and an is illegal war of aggression.

Sun, 2010-03-28 19:00

#51

NDPP

The CIA's Strategy to Manipulate European Public Opinion on the Afghanistan War

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18376

"Langley's best and brightest now counsel America's political masters that although 'apathy' may be their strongest ally in waging the endless 'war on terror', it cannot be counted upon indefinitely to sustain the imperial project.."

the above may not apply to Canada

Pages

Topic locked