It is clear that the Taliban are winning the propaganda war.
Posted by hegadumb at April 16, 2007 02:14 PM
Actually, I’ve printed off the entire pdf document and will digest it tonight. I don’t want to comment too much on data I’ve not even seen.
Further, my single line above wasn’t just some off-the-cuff remark - it is the conclusion of the Senlis Council report, which is the basis for Eric’s article this week.
Thanks for posting though!
Posted by hegadumb at April 16, 2007 03:23 PM
I’ve long been wondering WTF we Canadians are doing in Afghanistan. It most certainly has nothing to do with the “official” reasons, because if that was true, then those reasons would apply one-hundred fold more to compel us to go to Darfur. But… there ain;t no oil in Darfur.
There ain’t no oil in Afghanisstan either, but Dick Cheney has a natural gas pipeline in the planning that requires a ‘friendly’ regime in Kabul.
That’s why we Canadians are in Afghanistan. I’m surprised the Eric didn’t mention Dick Cheney’s proposed gas pipelines.
Rabinovitz, I got a dozen words into your post before rolling my eyes and shaking my head. You’re very tiresome.
Posted by D. Canuck at April 16, 2007 03:57 PM
I distinctly recall a top U.S. Administration official being confronted by a member of the media a couple years ago with the British military failure in Afghanistan. The official quickly dismissed the historical reference with some barely-audible words about “their bad generalship”, and continued with the press conference and confident predictions of success. Personally, I generally attach more significance than that to constant principles of history.
Posted by cheephillippe at April 16, 2007 04:08 PM
D Canuck:
Re: I’ve long been wondering WTF we Canadians are doing in Afghanistan.
We’re doing our part for NATO and the UN, unlike many of our allies.
Re: It most certainly has nothing to do with the “official” reasons, because if that was true, then those reasons would apply one-hundred fold more to compel us to go to Darfur. But… there ain;t no oil in Darfur.
Their wasn’t no invitation to Darfur either. Are you suggesting Canada should have “invaded”?
Did you note that just today the Sudanese government agreed to allow UN gunships and a few thousand UN troops to enter? Just today.
The United Nations and the Evil Imperialist Sherry Swilling Yacht Monkeys have been pushing Khartoum to accept thousands of U.N. troops, but the Sudanese has repeatedly rejected a U.N. force. What do you want Canada to do? Tell al-Bashir we’re coming in with our rented tanks (when they arrive)?
Maybe some should direct their anger at China, due to their financial and diplomatic support for Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government’s proxy militias. But then we wouldn’t be blaming the West, so I guess that won’t wash on this board.
Posted by hegadumb at April 16, 2007 04:11 PM
It speaks sadly of Canada to see our involvement in Afghanistan. Unfortunately Canada has never been an independent nation. We have no self sufficiency economically, and never have, plus our foreign policy has been dominated by first the British Empire and now American neo-colonialism. When one looks objectively at our history one must question Canadian morality as one notes how eagerly we’ve jumped into armed conflicts when Canada has never had cause to be in any.
I will always hold out the faint hope that Canada could find a neutral path, like Switzerland. With all our immigrants we should be a bridge between the first and third worlds. Instead we’re just a pathetic lackey, allowing our tax dollars to go to war criminals at Boeing without a peep of protest.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at April 16, 2007 05:27 PM
Actually Canuck, there IS oil around there; in Sudan, Chad, and parts of Somalia. This is one reason why the Americans are fighting a proxy war in Somalia through Ethiopian forces; in fact, North Korea was recently “allowed” to sell arms to Ethiopia to aid in this U.S backed effort in Somalia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/korea_ethiopia_arms_dc
Hegadumb:
The Chinese don’t attach their sense of civic morality to their foreign policy, which is just as well, since they are effectively a police state, and don’t apologize for it. They need strategic resources, and are willing to secure trade relations with the providers of such resources by developing their infrastructure. Whether such infrastructure enables or disables a government whose internal policies they may or may not disagree with is immaterial.
Americans sanctimoniously intervene in the internal affairs of certain nations with military force, foment proxy wars, and then simultaneously proclaim that the are the “defenders of freedom.” Interestingly, if the Americans stopped trying to solve problems through militarism, either on their own or through proxies, and instead threw their considerable soft power around without preaching to others what we don’t practice ourselves, we would not be the butt of so much criticism.
We condemn atrocities of others while committing them ourselves. What is a daisy-cutter but an atrocity? How about “shake and bake” operations, Fallujah, Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo? If you are deliberately engaged in committing human rights abuses, you don’t have the moral authority to prevent others from committing them, and any attempt you make to do so will ring hollow. By contrast, if you commit relatively few such offenses, tell others not to commit them, and give them incentives for not doing so while not threatening their sovereignty, they might actually respond to you.
The Chinese build things and allow the locals to sort out who gets to use them (ports, roads, etc). The Americans bomb everyone, and then wonder why it is that our targets don’t throw rose petals at our feet, or thank us for bringing them “democracy.” This is why the next century belongs not to us, but to them.
Posted by chatman at April 16, 2007 05:31 PM
Even the Afghans have never ruled in Afghanistan. At best the “government’ has control of 4 cities and a couple of roads. How do you defeat a country that practically doesn’t exist?
It’s too bad the Canadians were stupid enough to fall into the same trap as the USA. This war was lost before it began. Its only “benefit” was to provide a body count for Bush to try and offset the deaths on 9/11 that he is responsible for.
Posted by Toumbak at April 16, 2007 05:55 PM
Paul Whiteside - Let me guess. You are or were a professor of political science in a Canadian University. How else but through years of brutal self and other analysis could you come up so consistently with searing truths that make me, a Canadian patriot, squirm?
Toumbak, Canada did not initially fall into the same trap as the US. It had a 2-year limit on the venture, which was mainly thought of as peace keeping rather than peace making (although it had elements of the former); we were there then to relieve American troops so they could be freed up to bash the Iraqis. That was our spineless way of saying No to participating in the Iraq invasion (and thereby avoiding more trade sanctions).
However, since then, we have a “New Government” that has bought into the crap about bringing western values etc. to hook, line, and sinker. This government is a blatant US lackey unlike Canada’s other leaders who managed to be more surrepticious. Except Trudeau of course - he accepted Vietnam draft dodgers, something the current Prime Minster is loath to do as being a refuge for this God-damned war would undermine his God-given Christian Mission to convert those scruffy Muslims. And Harper’s “new government” just bought a 100 tanks to underline his commitment to this insanity (and potentially a fiscal deficit).
Rabinovitch, your analysis was spot on but your delivery spoiled it. Try and say what you will without emotion. Better yet, take your own advice and ignore you-know-what.
Posted by shazam at April 16, 2007 08:36 PM
Great Column! I am in awe of the incredible depth of historical facts (and of he who makes them known). It just makes me feel like we are… ignorant. Is there too much detail out there so we say ‘forget about it’ and rely solely on gut feelings, instinct and guesstimation? If I want the truth or answers I try to ignore the personalities and focus more on the information presented. In the book ‘Hubris’ they say that Bush told people, “I’m going to kick his (Saddam’s) muther——ing a— all over the middle east”.
I’m supposing half of the fun of posting on these blogs is to take a few jabs at the other guy and to get some kind of reaction. A lack of subtlety makes the jousting sound terribly juvenile though….heyyyy, just like the Bush quote above!
Posted by timm6767 at April 16, 2007 09:32 PM
Thank you for your flattering guess Shazam. Afraid you were off the mark by a longshot. Actually I’d take theology over politics any day but I’m nothing like a professor in that field either. As a wannabe Canadian nationalist I do squirm as often as you do.
Regarding Stephen Harper, I don’t see religion as a motivator at all. He’s taking a very pragmatic approach as Canada’s economic well being is tied in almost exclusively with the US, therefore it only makes sense to always be on good terms with our #1 trading partner. Even the comment he made about Israel a while back, saying that Canada would be more than a fair weather friend and would support Israel no matter what, was not religiously based. All American politicians and most intellectuals have so bought into the Zionist myths that unqualified support is simply another way for Harper to please the US.
I dislike his approach immensely for idealistic reasons. Still it is easy for me as I’m not responsible for the well being of 30 million Canadians. Besides, the Liberals never really stood up to the Americans either. They’d make plenty of symbolic gestures which were mostly meaningless as the basic realationship remained unchanged. When it comes to foreign affairs I know that none of our politicians will ever take the moral high ground I want them to take, thus Harper is doing no worse than the rest. I must admit that the man has still not yet earned my dislike. Quite a contrast to how much I loath Chretien and the Liberal Party.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at April 16, 2007 11:34 PM
—- US and NATO … not wining hearts and minds. The longer the westerners stay and bomb villages, the more resistance will grow. —-
—————
A preliminary U.S. military investigation indicates that more than 40 Afghans killed or wounded by Marines after a suicide bombing in a village near Jalalabad last month were civilians, the U.S. commander who ordered the probe said yesterday.
The Washington Post yesterday, found that a 4-year-old girl, a 1-year-old boy and three elderly villagers were among the dead.
———————
And have a look at THIS. If this is the stanard of Marines being sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, no wonder they fire blind. Any loud noise makes these guys crap all over themselves. These are not professional soldiers… just thugs with guns and a uniform.
http://youtube.com/watch?t=t&page=1&feature=RecentlyWatched&f=b&v=RZlvLmBvOx8
(Marines under attack, crying for their lives)
Posted by The Questioner at April 16, 2007 11:44 PM
The article is spot on.
The pushtun / pathans are a wierd bunch. The only thing which keeps them straight is religion. The ones who dont have that, are probably the most corrupt people on earth.
The pathans are either extremely nice people or extremely dangerous. I think the lack of oxygen at high altitudes has something to do with the black and white situation. :)
Am personally a descendant of the afridi tribe (sub clan of the pushtun)
The people NATO is dealing with is the corrupt kind. They’re ripping them off big time. The other kind is on the other side. You’ve got to remember something while dealing with these people.
A person who does not have principles will sell you off the second he gets the chance. Such a person is only sincere with himself.
Thats what happened to the british invasion force over a century ago. The britishers found out that the people who had helped them to kabul were also ones who were sniping at them while they were retreating.
Karzai’s brother is the largest narco exporter in Afghanistan.
Posted by _RealityBites_ at April 17, 2007 04:12 AM
amerikan TRADITIONS:
1) School shootings
2) Office shootings
3) Restaurant shootings
4) Bathroom shootings
5) Church shootings
6) Mall shootings
7) Gym shootings
8) Train shootings
9) Street shootings
10) Car shootings
11) Bus shootings
12) Government building shootings
13) Park shootings
14) Zoo shootings
15) College shootings
16) Family shootings
17) Hotel shootings
18) Motel shootings
19) Gas station shootings
20) Bar shootings
21) Nightclub shootings
22) Disco shootings
23) Concert shootings
24) Highway shootings
25) Recording studio shootings
26) Forest shootings
27) Factory shootings
28) Bakery shootings
29) Supermarket shootings
30) Grocery store shootings
31) Public library shootings
32) Post office shootings
Posted by Rabinovitz at April 17, 2007 07:53 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6558903.stm
If you’re ever in Quetta, Peshawar, or the tribal areas you’ll find 10-15 year olds walking around with kalashinikovs.
Posted by _RealityBites_ at April 17, 2007 08:00 AM
This sez it all..
—————————
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
(from “the young British soldier” by Kipling)
Posted by The Questioner at April 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Reality:
Didn’t this Karzai run a kabab hotel specializing in giving people tummy-aches?
Trust the Americans to pick the most ridiculous, two-bit little hustler off the streets… LOL.
Hey guys! Pick ME sometime, huh?
Anyway… read this from today’s paper. I can say with 200% confidence, that Afghanistan doesn’t have a future. And foreigners in Afghanistan most certainly don’t.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/17/fea.htm
(kabul no more a paradise on earth)
Posted by The Questioner at April 17, 2007 10:41 AM
I graduated from the Technical University of Kabul and during my studies there we never had any school shootings. Actually, the university president, Prof. Dr. Omar Ali Abdul Akhmed-Talibanian, forbidded all students to carry pistols on campus.
Posted by Rabinovitz at April 17, 2007 12:11 PM
Rampart, I found that article a touch optimistic! Thoughts:
1. After the Russians, general anarchy, and the Taliban, the situation has improved, albeit marginally. That is good.
2. Interesting that the article makes no mention of drought – another major reason for the lack of trees.
3. Refugees are returning. That is very good.
4. It will take 15 years to fix Kabul’s infrastructure. That is the kind of commitment the international community needs to make. Now.
5. Funding is critical and isn’t anywhere near what it needs to be.
6. I enjoy articles that use the word “shit”.
Here is an article about trees, and some women who are committed to “grow trees to lift their own lives”
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Afghan_Women_Grow_Trees_To_Lift_Their_Own_Lives_999.html
Here is a pre-invasion interview with Spôjmaï Zariâb that I just stumbled upon and found fascinating:
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_03/uk/dires.htm
Posted by hegadumb at April 17, 2007 01:36 PM
There is a university in Kabul, and to be truthful - it outdates many institutions in that region. It was established in 1931. Also contrary to the common belief, it continued through the times of Taliban and has produced the hand-full of Afghan doctors that exist there - goes to show the Afghan resilience and the love for education in a country devastated by more than 30 years of continuous war.
=============================About the article:
The Americans are going to leave some day, be it 5 years into the future or tomorrow - it makes utterly no difference. And as soon as they leave that Pashtuns are going to beat the living daylights out of the Hazaras and the Tajiks. There is going to be a holocaust - a revenge for what they did to the Pashtuns in Kunduz, Mazar and areas around Kabul. It will be pay back time, and Pashtuns really know their revenge.
Posted by John Edward at April 17, 2007 02:53 PM
amerika’s love of DEMOCRACY:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.
September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
1980’s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds “contras”. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.
1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
1998: Clinton bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in “aid”.
Posted by Rabinovitz at April 17, 2007 03:45 PM
Okay, enough with the one-sided BS.
Now tell us some things that you find hypocritical about YOUR country/geographical location, so you can avoid sounding like a racist, nationalistic warmonger.
Ironically, you appear more like the closed-minded Americans that you are trying to make fun of.
I don’t think anyone on this list is interested in your propaganda, except for maybe Rampart.
Posted by Tovy at April 17, 2007 04:12 PM
Paul Whiteside: Hey, you have clay feet! Harper was the only PM to be sworn in using his own Bible. What is the symbolism and implications? He puts his religious faith first, i.e. what he believes. He has truthiness, like Bush, a gut faith-based feeling that shapes his policies. He has also joined Bush’s approach to drugs - repress repress, including jacking up the price of medical marijuana 1500% so fully one-third of these struggling people are in arrears and many have dropped out of the program. Why? Because a) drugs are bad and b) the market should rule so kick out the government subsidies. Sorry to say Paul that your boy will drive you to distraction yet.
Posted by shazam at April 17, 2007 06:10 PM
OK, I get Margolis’s point, but does the death of six soldiers really compare to the loss of an entire colonial army? Is the U.S. really losing militarily to superior fighters, or is it “losing” in the sense of being unable to achieve impossible objectives? What are the objectives, anyway? If the objective is to secure an oil corridor or something, then for all I know the occupation is a success based on that. What defines success and failure here?
Posted by CalmHorizons at April 17, 2007 06:28 PM
John Edwards, you said it. I fear the aftermath will be worse than the current condition. Pashtuns are just counting the days…
Posted by thePond at April 17, 2007 11:03 PM
Not my boy Shazam. I have never and will never vote Conservative/Liberal. I hope for minority governments because the alternative is five year dictatorships.
I’ve no problem with Harper’s religion because it is a part of human nature to be religious. I don’t think it fair to equate him with Bush because Bush is a dangerous fanatic. Bush was murdering people as govern of Texas and since becoming President has continued to show the darker(and more common) practices of Christianity. Harper has killed no one. Perhaps there are subtle moves you’ve noted which will become less subtle over time. If that’s the case by all means tell me, “I told you so!” But all I hear from the secular left in Canada is speculation about what a threat Harper could be - like the speculation about the al Qaida threat(clearly discredited now).
Posted by Paul Whiteside at April 17, 2007 11:53 PM
John Edward and thePond:
Old Pathan saying… “nobody is worse than the person who gets drunk at night and arranges a fight for the next day … and then apologizes in the morning and makes excuses”. They say that about Karzai.
After Amreeka leaves, the pup had better find himself on a plane/motorbike/donkey-cart out of Afghanistan as quick as he can… he won’t have much time.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 12:14 AM
There are two types of “insurgents” in EYE-raq:
*There are the real insurgents (aka freedom fighters) who only attack amerikan and british soldiers (aka terrorists and oil colonialists) and who want to liberate their land from foreign invaders.
*Then there are the fake insurgents, the ones who only blow up EYE-raqi civilians, who are directed and financed by the U.S. and Azzrael. These serve to justify the continued occupation of EYE-raq.
Posted by Rabinovitz at April 18, 2007 08:16 AM
So your belief is that the Sunni men who slaughter Shiite civilians by the thousands and the Shiite men who slaughter Sunni civilians by the thousands are directed and financed by the…Jews?
I’m sure those are awesome meetings:
“Sure, we’ve got thousand year old grievances with each other, but we were going to let that slide because, you know, Islam = peace and everything. Then out of nowhere, “the Jews” offered us a boatload of money to revisit our ancient grudge. Really – we were just about to be BFF when the Jews made us an offer we couldn’t refuse – “Blow each other up! Kids, women – don’t matter! Just get to senselessly murdering each other…for us!” and we were all, “You’ve got a deal, Jews!”
LOL!
I strongly advise you to demand a full refund from the Technical University of Kabul, as they clearly failed to help you develop your reasoning skills.
Posted by hegadumb at April 18, 2007 09:31 AM
It is in Pakistan’s interest to have the US next door… seemed to work wonders to keep India at arm’s length. Also works beautifully when we want stuff like C-NITE upgrades, etc.
If we want, we can raise the temperature very easily by letting in more fuel to the Taliban. Right now, we have severely restricted the fuel supply (this was the main thing the US wanted Pakistan to do after 9/11). Before the fuel came under control, the Taliban were really causing major grief to the Americans.
The fact that the fuel is still going to the Amreekan puppets means we are still with Amreeka. Otherwise they wouldn’t last 2 days. NATO would be pancaked for sure. Keeping this in mind, one can understand why the Americans rushed in some special guy (someone who smooths feathers) when Mushi threatened an end to cooperation in this “war on terror” nonsense.
Still.. like I have said before.. and as Eric sez… the average Afghan really hates the US.. and/or as Reality sez… they are using the US.
The situation will only stay under control for so long.
Btw, it wasn’t the Afghans alone who took care of the Soviets. We did most of the work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Storks_%28Mujahideen%29
Point is, as long as Amreeka is nice to Pakistan, Amreeka will have a soft landing. But we can’t stop the inevitable from happening. We can just slow it down.
Every soldier from NATO owes their damn life to us and our restricting fuel, not to anything else. Otherwise NATO doesn’t have the skills or the balls to deal with the Afghans.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 09:37 AM
I had decided not to post anything concerning Rabin’s comments, but since Bino/hegadumb opened his mouth, I think everyone should know what the fool (Rabin/Mr.14yearold) meant:
http://www.physics911.ca/Compilation:_British_Forces_Conduct_False-Flag_Bombings_in_Iraq
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/99
http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_04_on/zarqawi_bush.html
etc. etc. etc.
God forgive me for getting between these two again, but I have to try one more time stop them from feeding off each other.
Having said that, give a thought to why false-flag ops don’t seem to work in Afghanistan? LOL
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 10:05 AM
Apparently, Rampart, you will swallow anything.
Here is text from one of your links, which makes our resident “14 year old” poster’s claims of being a university graduate sound plausible:
Mossad is a master at false flag operations, e.g., Oklahoma City, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the July 7, 2005 London bombings, the 9-11 attacks in New York, the assassination of the Prime Minister in Beirut, the stoking of Muslim riots in France last year, the bombing of the Hassan al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, etc.
Posted by hegadumb at April 18, 2007 10:24 AM
Further, the article with the laughable text I posted above keeps referencing “Richard Wislon” and his zany theories but does not tell us who this “expert” is.
I’m googling him, but only coming up with the same article from other moonbat sites.
Can you shed some light on him, Rampart?
Posted by hegadumb at April 18, 2007 10:31 AM
You misunderstood. The point isn’t if they are kooks to suggest false-flag ops or not. Most false-flag ops are done so well, one can never tell.
The point is, many many people talk about such stuff …. exactly what 14yearoldwithconfiscatedgirlfriend was talking about. Some links are crap and some are not. The point is, I found these 3 in 20 seconds (I just looked at the titles).
These are what Rabin is talking about. But since he is a victim of verbal diarrhea and can’t express himself properly, I did it for him. Ask HIM what he means when he refers to such stuff.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 11:00 AM
Re: You misunderstood. The point isn’t if they are kooks to suggest false-flag ops or not.
I misunderstood nothing. The subject you chose to jump in to was relative to America and Israel financing and directing terrorist attacks in Iraq. You link me some anonymous clown who claims Tim McVeigh was acting on behalf of the Mossad.
Re: The point is, many many people talk about such stuff ….
Yes. As I mentioned, such tripe is widely found on sites like “wakeupfromyourslumber”. Very credible. Again, per some guy named Richard the Mossad also responsible for the “Muslim riots in France” (hey – I thought they were just “youths”?)
Re: Some links are crap and some are not. The point is, I found these 3 in 20 seconds (I just looked at the titles).
Then why even bother to weigh in if your posting bunk you haven’t even read on behalf of the14yearold?
Re: These are what Rabin is talking about.
Right. Hence my rebuttal to HIM.
Re: But since he is a victim of verbal diarrhea and can’t express himself properly, I did it for him. Ask HIM what he means when he refers to such stuff.
I plan to. In the future, maybe you shouldn’t act as his interpreter if you can’t support his argument in any meaningful way.
Posted by hegadumb at April 18, 2007 11:14 AM
—-In the future, maybe you shouldn’t act as his interpreter if you can’t support his argument in any meaningful way.——-
Everyone should know exactly what he was talking about. Being cryptic isn’t helping. It is our right to be informed about what crap the two of you are talking about. If you keep bad feelings bottled up you will go bust one day.
My intention was not support him in anyway… it was just to help the two of you to start communicating in a civilized manner. I could only do that when the lines of communication are crystal clear.
Say thank you and hug your 14yearoldbrother.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 11:25 AM
Bino… I helped you, in case you still haven’t figured it out, being slow-witted and all. I said look at what this “fool” is talking about.
I showed everyone how ridiculous 14yearoldgraduate is being. I gave you an opening with that idiot link…. which you used very well. Stop complaining.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 11:36 AM
… why would selling a war to canadians require “defending women’s rights” ?
A: Femanists in canada are a huge and unchecked political force; something you wouldn’t know from their numbers in parliment. So where is their power base? They hold complete control of the judiciary. Women in canada have quasi immunity from the law, and femanist agendas rule the day. As a result, and as an example, family law in canada, and most western nations, trumps all other laws of the land including our trumpeted Charter of Rights. The current new canadian conservative/reform alliance government is trying to change the courts who have, since the repatriation for the Constituation and the Charter of Rights 25 yrs ago (sidenote: much debate yesterday over a lack of recognition of this milestone, for this reason), resulted in the courts defining social policy in Canada (ie unelected officials who are supposed to make impartial judgements). As a result, changing the federal judicial appointment process is underway. Gay marriage being legalized (i personally don’t care, many gays don’t either - so its an issue affecting few), was rammed through parliment with little or no debate, yet a femanist approved casue. Similarly, bizarre legal recognition of up to three legal parents for a child (trying to change nature through court orders?!) And Finally, the statement of a supreme court female judge that “re-engineering the family will take some time.” … so femanists rule canada as a shadow government, as it is in many western nations … That is why… Anyhow, glad i could get that off my chest…
Posted by bigsugar999 at April 18, 2007 11:57 AM
Since Bino wanted me to read the links.. and now that I’ve read the links I posted… THIS one, I agree with. 14yearold was on to something….
http://www.physics911.ca/Compilation:_British_Forces_Conduct_False-Flag_Bombings_in_Iraq
I ask again… why haven’t such tactics worked in Afghanistan?
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 12:41 PM
Rampart, I think we all managed to grasp what he meant when he said:
“Then there are the fake insurgents, the ones who only blow up EYE-raqi civilians, who are directed and financed by the U.S. and Azzrael. These serve to justify the continued occupation of EYE-raq.”
This is pretty clear. I called him on it. Not you, him. He has yet to reply. For a guy that feigned maturity (“God forgive me for getting between these two again, but I have to try one more time stop them from feeding off each other.” posting a half-dozen times on the matter in the span of two and a half hours is telling. As Mr. Margolis reminded you in a previous article, this isn’t your personal chat room.
Thanks for taking the time to read something you posted, however.
Posted by hegadumb at April 18, 2007 12:55 PM
—-I think we all managed to grasp what he meant—-
You didn’t seem to. So I had to spell it out for you.
And as you were banned last week, I don’t think it is your place to tell me or anyone, how to act.
I did notice how at least one of those links greatly disturbed you (the one you didn’t talk about). Thanks for the data.
Anyway, the question I was asking (unlike your off topic blather) was that false-flag ops are a well known strategy. How come they don’t work in Afghanistan?
It sez a lot about xenophobic Pathan culture and a hint to why NATO is getting creamed in Afghanistan.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 02:43 PM
Why are they still in Afghanistan anyway??? Unlike Iraq and now Iran, it is no threat to Bino’s innocent little Israel. Why then?
Anyone know?
1. to tighten the noose around Iran?
2. to keep it from falling under our influence?
3. to keep it from falling under Iran’s influence?
4. to secure it as an energy corridor?
What? What the hell is worth $2 Billion daily? Afghanistan itself has always had zero value historically. It was always a place that had to be crossed or secured as a buffer.
Posted by The Questioner at April 18, 2007 03:01 PM
Very good questions Rampart. Too bad the zionist is unable and unwilling to answer them. Now read my essay:
[In the beginning we threw rocks at each other then hit each other with sticks followed by spearing each other. With the discovery of metal we learned to hack at each other with swords and axes. Gun powder brought us canons and guns to shoot each other with. With machinery we built guns that could kill at a faster rate with higher mortality results. With the advent of bombs and flight we learned to drop bombs without even knowing who we were killing, it didn’t matter if they were innocent women and children. With science we developed nuclear war where we could wipe out entire cities with one bomb. But we have yet not learned to use our intellect to live in peace. We build monuments to our greatness and issue medals and awards to pat ourselves on the back.]
Posted by Rabinovitz at April 18, 2007 03:06 PM
As a Canadian, all I can say is Canada OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!
Someone refresh my memory..when did the Taleban invade Canada?
Because unless our security was threatened by the Taleban, it sort of begs the question: why are we there?
Oh..right..9/11..
Well, I don’t know who did 9/11, and I don’t care, either. But here’s a fact: 9/11 occurred in New York. Not Ottawa, not Toronto, not Vancouver or Calgary or Montreal.
No one attacked Canada that fateful morn.
What’s that..the Taleban’s human rights record..?
Asides from the fact that much of the ‘atrocities’ committed by the Taleban against the people of Afghanistan were cooked up in New York PR firms, even if they were true, that’s Afghanistan, let the Afghans deal with the Taleban.
The Afghans were all-too-ready to allow the Taleban to clear the country of rapists, thieves, highwaymen, drug-lords, et al. during the early 1990s, but turned on them when they banned Bollywood movies.
Now the Afghans are relying on Canadians and others to clear the country of Taleban. Oh, but too bad, the Taleban is winning.
The Western powers are doing nothing but harm in Afghanistan. Canada needs to stop these ridiculous interventionist crusades, from Afghanistan to Haiti and everywhere in-between.
Posted by reduxx at April 19, 2007 12:59 PM
Reduxx-
Re: Someone refresh my memory..when did the Taleban invade Canada?
Is that your sole basis for your foreign policy and what determines when you’d intervene in world affairs? The Janjaweed haven’t attacked Canada so I assume you want no part of Darfur then? The Nazi’s didn’t attack Canada so…we shouldn’t have participated in WW2?
Are you familiar at all with NATO? The charter states that an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all members. Canadians were killed in the WTC, BTW.
Re: Asides from the fact that much of the ‘atrocities’ committed by the Taleban against the people of Afghanistan were cooked up in New York PR firms…
You have no idea WTF you are talking about here. None.
Re: …let the Afghans deal with the Taleban.
Hey, how about “Let the woman being attacked deal with the rapist”. That’s painfully callous and mighty un-Canadian of you - and that is coming from a cold hearted Torontonian.
Posted by hegadumb at April 19, 2007 01:19 PM
Hegadumb wrote:
“Are you familiar at all with NATO? The charter states that an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all members. Canadians were killed in the WTC, BTW.”
The government of Afghanistan did not attack New York, nor did they have anything to do with the attack on New York. So why was Afghanistan bombed and invaded?
Posted by Weary at April 19, 2007 03:59 PM
weary - the “government” (which was only recognized by 3 countries on Earth, BTW) had refused to hand over element of AQ whom they were sheltering.
Posted by hegadumb at April 19, 2007 04:34 PM
Right oldfan - my bad - only ONE country on the planet recognized the Taliban by the time the war started, and that country was Pakistan.
And for reduxx, maybe you can come up with some hilarious caption for this movie - a witty title or something:
www.rawa.us/movies/beating.mpg
Maybe “This was cooked up by a PR firm from New York!”
Posted by hegadumb at April 19, 2007 05:44 PM
We had a point in going to Afghanistan after 9/11. The point was to punish the Taliban for sheltering Al-Qaida and providing a “home base” for Al-Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks.
Of course we have to remember that the US had to be talked into going to Afghanistan because they wanted to attack Iraq. As Rumsfeld put it, “There aren’t any targets to bomb in Afghanistan.”
But to get the “coalition of the willing” onboard the US had to at least put on a show of attacking Afghanistan and Al-Qaida, but their hearts just weren’t in it. Less that a year after 9/11 Bush said “We’re not even looking for him (Osama bin Ladin) anymore” which was seriously puzzling, since the entire war on Iraq was supposedly a “War Against Terror”.
So we gullible Canucks are left holding the bag in Afghanistan, thinking that we’re doing something other than establishing a friendly regime which will not attack/upset Dick Cheney’s proposed natural gas pipelines.
Once Al-Qaida was dispersed and the Taliban got their shit-kicking, we Canucks have no reason to be in Afghanistan anymore. Canada’s role in Afghanistan is to do our part in the Project for the New American Century, and those pipelines are an important part of that plan.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at April 19, 2007 06:18 PM
Most people who are pro intervention take on this tact when the country is other than their own or where they have no vested interest in its welfare or its population.
I wonder how some on this board would feel if the UN entered Israel for “peacekeeping” operations. The cry would then be bloody murder and you would hear things like, “why are our troops there”, “get them out, now” , “why put them in harms way”, “let Israel handle its own problems” etc.
Those who support intervention do so many times for selfish/political reasons.
Posted by thePond at April 19, 2007 09:00 PM
Amreeka and Canada went to Afghanistan to look for THIS guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhdxtL_wU7U
And they won’t leave until they get him. Problem is however that “little Pathan” is… little. He keeps coming and going across the border without anyone seeing him.
This is the only logical explanation I can come up with.
Posted by The Questioner at April 20, 2007 12:29 AM
Hegadumb…
Can you picture Canada inviting George Bush for a visit/chit chat and while He was our guest, France wanted Him extradited for terrorist acts. Canada, not believing that He is a terrorist, asks for proof and France refuses to provide this. Canada then refuses to extradite Him… and France bombs the beegezis out of Canada… such is Afghanistan.
Nato did not bomb Saudi, the real base of perps for 9/11… funded by Saudi’s and trained by Americans… do you not see a bit of an imbalance, here… there was little to be gained by bombing US friendly Saudi’s and a lot to lose.
Posted by dikcoates at April 22, 2007 10:55 AM
There are more Egyptian relics overseas in British and U.S. museums than in Egypt. They would have taken the pyramids too if they could, but since they could not, they like to claim they were built by aliens or slaves.
Posted by Rabinovitz at May 23, 2007 09:16 AM
“The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force”…
FYI, specially those who live in the west and have little info. Afghanistan is consist of several different ethnic groups such as, Tajik, Uzbik, Hazara, Pashayee, Baluchy, not only pushtoons. In every war and victory over any foriegn occopier, all ethnic groups in Afghanistan were invloved not only pushtoons.
The west supported pushtoons for years militarily and financially, yet they betrayed the west as they betrayed their own country. (They will one day betray Pakistan too)
I think the west is getting smarter now and changing the game. It’s time for other ethnic groups in Afghanistan to get rich and powerfull with western aids.
No offend, but Mr. Marglis sounds like CNN, telling us one side of story and ignoring others in the country as pushtoons did and the problem today in afghanistan is based on that… ethnic superiority… ignoring others…
Other ethnic groups are just testing how good it feels to recieve chrispy US dollar bills. It’s just the begining… stay tuned…
Posted by Js8Me at May 30, 2007 04:10 PM