babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Canadian troops shoot man in taxi in southern Afghanistan city: military

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian troops shoot man in taxi in southern Afghanistan city: military
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 March 2006 09:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*SIGH*

Canadian troops shoot man in taxi in southern Afghanistan city: military

quote:
The incident happened after the driver of the three-wheel vehicle - known as a tuk-tuk - ran an Afghan police checkpoint about four kilometres from this former Taliban stronghold.

"The soldier felt it necessary to use force to protect himself," said Maj. Erik Liebert, deputy commander of the provincial reconstruction team (PRT).

The taxi, with three people inside, ignored verbal and hand-signal warnings to stop, Liebert said.


At least our boys haven't got to the point of saying: "For sure, for sure, it was an insurgent," like the Americans do in Iraq everytime they kill someone.

Remarkable record of success the Americans have in Iraq actually -- 100% of those killed are insurgents, it seems.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 March 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The victim is identified as Nasratali Hassan. His age and other details related to his family were not available.

However, a spokesman for Afghanistan's Ministry of the Interior said relatives were notified.

"We explained that the incident was not an intentional attack," Col. Hussain Andiwal said through a translator.

"They accepted the explanation and said they want coalition forces to be careful in the future."


CBC

If it wasn't intentional I guess the gun went off by accident. Oh, well, as long as they are more careful in the future...

CNEWS:

quote:
But local residents say they're increasingly frustrated with Canadians - who appear to them to be quick on the trigger.

There have been at least 10 incidents over the last 7 1/2 months where Canadian troops have fired into the hoods of vehicles they considered to be a threat.

Much of the mayhem - and now bloodshed - could have been avoided, says a local taxi driver who claims to have been routinely run off the road by coalition convoys.

"We are poor, uneducated people," said Zulmair Gan, 33, who drives one of the three-wheeled tuk-tuks that scoot along Kandahar's dusty streets.

"We are often surprised by the trucks, don't know which way to turn and can't read their signs," he said through a translator.

Other residents have complained that night-time police checkpoints are often not well lit, making them hard to spot until the last minute.

There are indications that Canadian commanders were aware of the concerns even before Tuesday's shooting.


[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 March 2006 10:59 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Callous treatment by Canadian forces
quote:
Canadian troops in Afghanistan fired no warning shots and gave no medical attention to a man they shot and killed in a taxi this week, the man's family says.
....
Canadian troops say they fired warning shots after the taxi came within a metre of a Canadian patrol vehicle, said Lt.-Col Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force Afghanistan.

"Our rules do not allow any Afghans to come within a certain distance," Basinger said.

However, CBC correspondent Patrick Brown, who interviewed the family, said several details are now in dispute.

Brown said the family maintains Hassan was a passenger in the vehicle, not the driver as was initially reported. More importantly, they say, no warning shots were fired and he was not helped by the Canadians who shot him.
....
"...[Hassan] was given treatment at the scene, but was then taken to hospital by Afghan police because the Canadian medics didn't judge that his wound was very serious."
....
"The policeman I spoke to today who took him to hospital said [Hassan] had been shot through his abdomen with a bullet exiting on the side – it's very hard to see how this could be considered as not being serious."


[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 16 March 2006 11:33 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There must be a cover up in progress. (I just wanted to say this before anyone else.)
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 16 March 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
There must be a cover up in progress. (I just wanted to say this before anyone else.)

RCR?


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 17 March 2006 08:57 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
There must be a cover up in progress. (I just wanted to say this before anyone else.)

Too late (look for my post).

Oh my. I was right. The official military press release does not mesh with the family's account. For my next feat, I will predict that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. Kudos to Patrick Brown for following up on this man's death. Lord knows that's rare for an MSM reporter.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since I don't sit at posts with the threat of a real suicide bomber driving at me I'll reserve my judgement.
From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 March 2006 10:17 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you have never been in Toronto traffic?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 10:49 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
So you have never been in Toronto traffic?


Forgive me, I must not be reading the Toronto Star often enough.

The last time a suicide bomber ran a "checkpoint" in Downtown Toronto and blew up their vehicle was?


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 March 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, it has to be a bomber? I thought suicidal and in car would be enough.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 17 March 2006 10:55 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:
Since I don't sit at posts with the threat of a real suicide bomber driving at me I'll reserve my judgement.

Good for you. I'm of the opinion that the military's first reaction upon the killing of a civilian is to lie about the circumstances of the death. This is inevitably the wrong reaction from a tactical perspective.

When the military gets caught lying about these deaths, it more than doubles the political damage spawned by that death. The locals (if they had any respect for the deployed troops) can, will, and should assume that organisations who lie about these deaths don't care about the dead people. Resistance to occupation will be strengthened if a lie or cover-up is revealed. As well, the reaction at home is rarely positive when the military gets caught lying about the circumstances of civilian deaths. If you lose support at home, you certainly aren't helping your cause.

I've never said that this particular military account is a lie, BTW, just that it was a canned response. The "ran a checkpoint, failed to heed warning shots" has been used before. Maybe it's even the truth, on occasion. US troops used this explanation after shooting up a family in a car. In that instance, there was no checkpoint, and the account of warning shots was also disputed. I'm waiting to see if an eyewitness turns up to corraborate or dispute the Canadian canned response.

Regardless of which version of events is true, an innocent Afghani is dead because he was travelling in a rickshaw taxi near a Canadian vehicle. His life is over because all Afghani civilians are viewed as potential enemies. This is a huge problem.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Oh, it has to be a bomber? I thought suicidal and in car would be enough.

You can spin this argument around as illogically as you want but when Canadians are occupying foreign territory there are opposition forces who aren't too happy about their presense.

So when things like this happen


quote:
Suicide attacker injures five Canadian soldiers
Fri. Mar. 3 2006 11:28 PM ET

A suicide bomber drove his vehicle into the side of an armoured vehicle Friday and detonated his explosives, injuring five Canadian soldiers -- one seriously.

The attack -- the first against a LAV III vehicle -- came as coalition forces were mourning the death of Canadian Cpl. Paul Davis, who died Thursday when his armoured vehicle rolled over

link


It's more than a little difficult to take chances.

Trajic yes.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 March 2006 11:01 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can spin this argument around as illogically as you want but when Canadians are occupying foreign territory there are opposition forces who aren't too happy about their presense.

Gee, ya think? Man you have insight.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Gee, ya think? Man you have insight.


You get C- For debating skills.

From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 March 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a duplicate thread.

Unfortunately, although this one began earlier, the other now appears perhaps more substantial.

Up to the moderator, of course.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
I'm waiting to see if an eyewitness turns up to corraborate or dispute the Canadian canned response.

The deceased's widow doesn't count?

From Canadian Press's Murray Brewster (if you haven't already seen this link, let me know and I'll find it again):

quote:
Mr. Ali Hassan's widow, Semen Gul, said the taxi in which she and her husband were riding did not run a police checkpoint, but instead rounded a corner in a city traffic circle -- on the opposite side of the barricade.

They suddenly found themselves in front of the Canadian military convoy and that's when a soldier opened fire without warning, she said.


[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 March 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You get C- For debating skills.

We're getting graded? I didn't know! Try me again? Try me again?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

We're getting graded? I didn't know! Try me again? Try me again?


Try what we weren't trying anything?
The sky is blue.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 March 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Try what we weren't trying anything?
The sky is blue.

Define "what"? You seek the cover of ambivalence to mask the shallowness of your badly needed debating skills. The sky is blue? The sky is as cloud covered as your mental acuity. Save yourself additional embarrassment by slinking back under a rock -- now. Before I get annoyed.

How was that? Better? Or do you think it needs to be more forceful?

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 17 March 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The deceased's widow doesn't count?


I didn't catch that on the CBC report, is all.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 17 March 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:

I didn't catch that on the CBC report, is all.


Was she a witness?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 March 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Define "what"? You seek the cover of ambivalence to mask the shallowness of your badly needed debating skills. The sky is blue? The sky is as cloud covered as your mental acuity. Save yourself additional embarrassment by slinking back under a rock -- now. Before I get annoyed.

How was that? Better? Or do you think it needs to be more forceful?

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


I see you typically enjoy chasing your tail in circles.

Whatever floats your boat

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 17 March 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, it's always so impressive to see people use the murder of an innocent as a cheap excuse to have a pissing contest. A very effective way to win others over to your point of view.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Was she a witness?


Yes, she was in the taxi along with most of her family:

Toronto Star article


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 17 March 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[aside] Was Grape banned? [/aside]
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[aside] Was Grape banned? [/aside]

I think she/he was crushed for wining too much.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 17 March 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[aside2] The reason I ask:

Member Status: rabble-rouser
Babbler Number: 12171
Registered: 28 February 2006
Posts: 61
Location: Eastern Canada
Occupation: Reading your thoughts
Postal Code: N4M 2E3
Gender: Male
Year of Birth: 1979
How did you hear about rabble?: Grape vine [/aside2]

Sorry for the unneccesary interruption. When I first had my suspicions about the military account of this killing, I didn't imagine that disparate accounts would come out so fast. In my experience, it usually takes weeks to see the lies unravel.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 17 March 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[aside] Was Grape banned? [/aside]

Nope. Why would I be?

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I think she/he was crushed for wining too much.


Winning too much?? Oh you, I didn't know you felt that way.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 18 March 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[aside2] The reason I ask:

Member Status: rabble-rouser
Babbler Number: 12171
Registered: 28 February 2006
Posts: 61
Location: Eastern Canada
Occupation: Reading your thoughts
Postal Code: N4M 2E3
Gender: Male
Year of Birth: 1979
How did you hear about rabble?: Grape vine [/aside2]

Sorry for the unneccesary interruption. When I first had my suspicions about the military account of this killing, I didn't imagine that disparate accounts would come out so fast. In my experience, it usually takes weeks to see the lies unravel.




Are all new members scanned in case of dupe accounts? I don't get it?
quote:
Gosh, it's always so impressive to see people use the murder of an innocent as a cheap excuse to have a pissing contest. A very effective way to win others over to your point of view

I under no circumstances condone the killing and I do sympathise with the family. If the Military lies then that is a dishonest, selfish act and they are at fault.

My only comment was the troops are in dangerous territory and there have been mishaps in the past. Whether or not any of us, or any of the troops agree or disagree with the CF's presence, I am still not sitting there at a check point. For me to be an armchair commentator when I'm not in their boots is naive.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
WolfPack
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12286

posted 18 March 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for WolfPack        Edit/Delete Post
I agree. We cannot imagine what those poor troops go through on a daily basis wondering if the next person walking up is wearing a suicide vest - next taxi driving past is going to take out a city block. They have a very short time to make a decision that they are under the impression may be a life or death decision.

I also sympathize with the family of the man killed.

WolfPack

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: WolfPack ]

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: WolfPack ]


From: Western Canada | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 March 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WolfPack:
We cannot imagine what those poor troops go through on a daily basis wondering if the next person walking up is wearing a suicide vest - next taxi driving past is going to take out a city block.
You probably also cannot imagine what those poor Afghanis go through on a daily basis when the latest trigger-happy foreign army comes to town armed to the teeth, wondering if the next soldier they see is going to shoot at them out of imaginary fear.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 March 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WolfPack:
I agree. We cannot imagine what those poor troops go through on a daily basis wondering if the next person walking up is wearing a suicide vest - next taxi driving past is going to take out a city block.

That's what happens when your enemy is the civilian population, rather than some invading army. It's a strong hint that you should catch the next troop shuttle home. It is not, however, an excuse to kill people.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
You probably also cannot imagine what those poor Afghanis go through on a daily basis when the latest trigger-happy foreign army comes to town armed to the teeth, wondering if the next soldier they see is going to shoot at them out of imaginary fear.

Imaginary fear? 4 dead and almost 30 wounded in the last 8 months gives rise to imaginary fear? I have been out on those streets - both in Kabul and in Kandahar - trust me - the threat that induces that fear is real.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Imaginary fear? 4 dead and almost 30 wounded in the last 8 months gives rise to imaginary fear? I have been out on those streets - both in Kabul and in Kandahar - trust me - the threat that induces that fear is real.


I have to agree with Grizzled Wolf on this one. Foreign troops have every reason to fear for their lives every time they show their faces in Kabul or Kandahar.

Their enemies, however, seem to be indistinguishable from the general populace.

Is there a message in there somewhere?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Their enemies, however, seem to be indistinguishable from the general populace.

Is there a message in there somewhere?


One of the messages is that counter-insurgency campaigns are difficult - and that mistakes can and will be made. One mistake led to the wounding of Capt Greeene - another led to the death of an Afghan civilian in a tuk-tuk.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

One of the messages is that counter-insurgency campaigns are difficult - and that mistakes can and will be made. One mistake led to the wounding of Capt Greeene - another led to the death of an Afghan civilian in a tuk-tuk.


Right. I'm on the side of the insurgents. They will win, as they have always done before. Better that they do so with a minimum of Afghani and Canadian casualties.

And without U.S. interference and funding, I'm very confident that the people will be able to return to their pre-1980s democratic experiments in nation-building. But even if they don't, that's their choice.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Right. I'm on the side of the insurgents.


Roger. I, on the other hand, am on the side of the those who fight the insurgents. To each his own...

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

They will win, as they have always done before. Better that they do so with a minimum of Afghani and Canadian casualties.

And without U.S. interference and funding, I'm very confident that the people will be able to return to their pre-1980s democratic experiments in nation-building. But even if they don't, that's their choice.


Fair enough. There is much to admire in the culture and in the people, and I am loathe to impose some idealized version of Western values on anyone. Having said that, our Nation's policy and strategic objective is keep AStan from lapsing into the "failed state' category, and in order to do so, the insurgents must be kept from having an undue influence on the development of the Afghan nation. That is where the whole of government engagement comes in, under the 3D paradigm of defence, diplomacy, and development.

A more useful debate may be how to better harmonise thiose efforts...


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

That is where the whole of government engagement comes in, under the 3D paradigm of defence, diplomacy, and development. A more useful debate may be how to better harmonise thiose efforts...

That's the kind of debate I see Jack Layton calling for. That's precisely why I oppose that call. It's as appropriate as the U.S. Congress debating how they can best harmonize resources to "help" the Iraqi people. Get out and stop torturing and murdering them would be a healthy start.

I call it the "1D paradigm": DEPART.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 19 March 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the insurgents must be kept from having an undue influence on the development of the Afghan nation.
Isn't that what they said about Louis Riel?

Much better to leave the fate of the Afghan nation to the democratically-elected warlords.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic2:
Much better to leave the fate of the Afghan nation to the democratically-elected warlords.

And what set the conditions for those elections in the first place?


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

That's the kind of debate I see Jack Layton calling for. That's precisely why I oppose that call. It's as appropriate as the U.S. Congress debating how they can best harmonize resources to "help" the Iraqi people. Get out and stop torturing and murdering them would be a healthy start.

I call it the "1D paradigm": DEPART.


Okay - in that case, it would appear that the necessary precursor for you to consider any debate on how do best serve both Canadian and Afghan interests is the withdrawal of all Canadian personnel from the country. I assume that would include CIDA, FAC, NGOs, Mr Chris Alexander (Dep SRSG) etc, etc?

And just so I understand what you are saying, do you beleive that Canadians are involved in the mistreatment of detainees in any way shape or form?


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Fair enough. There is much to admire in the culture and in the people, and I am loathe to impose some idealized version of Western values on anyone. Having said that, our Nation's policy and strategic objective is keep AStan from lapsing into the "failed state' category, and in order to do so, the insurgents must be kept from having an undue influence on the development of the Afghan nation. That is where the whole of government engagement comes in, under the 3D paradigm of defence, diplomacy, and development.

A more useful debate may be how to better harmonise thiose efforts...


The insurgents are Afghanis. What you're saying is that Afghanis must be kept from having any 'influence on the development of the Afghani nation'.

And the statement about the 'development of the Aghani nation'. This may come as a bit of a shock, but the cities of Kandahar and Kabul have been around for about 4000 years.

They must be wondering when we're going to start developing as a nation.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 19 March 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
You probably also cannot imagine what those poor Afghanis go through on a daily basis when the latest trigger-happy foreign army comes to town armed to the teeth, wondering if the next soldier they see is going to shoot at them out of imaginary fear.

So now the Canadian Forces are trigger happy because of this mishap. I was under the impression they showed a good amount of restraint.

Doesn't take long for you to label something I see.

I'll say it again. Armchair comments are naive.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Okay - in that case, it would appear that the necessary precursor for you to consider any debate on how do best serve both Canadian and Afghan interests is the withdrawal of all Canadian personnel from the country. I assume that would include CIDA, FAC, NGOs, Mr Chris Alexander (Dep SRSG) etc, etc?


Withdrawal of military personnel is essential. Withdrawal of other (e.g. humanitarian) assets seems like good sense from a self-preservation point of view until such time as Afghanistan has been left alone long enough to establish its own civilian government.

quote:
And just so I understand what you are saying, do you beleive that Canadians are involved in the mistreatment of detainees in any way shape or form?

Well no, I never mentioned detainees in that post. My reference to "torturing and murdering" was to the Americans in Iraq, in the context of a U.S. Congress debate as to how the U.S. should help Iraqis. My only exhortation to Canadian troops was to DEPART. As for involvement of Canadians in mistreatment of detainees, how should I know? Some Toronto Star article from Dec. 2005 claims that some agreement (whose text I haven't seen; I don't even know which parties are signatory) stipulates Canada will hand over detainees to some unidentified Afghans instead of to the Americans. Amnesty International and U.N. Human Rights Expert reports (among others) have reported torture and death of Afghan detainees and U.S. detainees. Until I have more information on the safe and humane treatment of detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, I will assume the worst -- but no, I have no specific scandals to expose right now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

As for involvement of Canadians in mistreatment of detainees, how should I know? Some Toronto Star article from Dec. 2005 claims that some agreement (whose text I haven't seen; I don't even know which parties are signatory) stipulates Canada will hand over detainees to some unidentified Afghans instead of to the Americans. Amnesty International and U.N. Human Rights Expert reports (among others) have reported torture and death of Afghan detainees and U.S. detainees. Until I have more information on the safe and humane treatment of detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, I will assume the worst -- but no, I have no specific scandals to expose right now.


Ok - I have seen the agreement. It is between the GOC and GOA, and stipulates that detainees must be treated in accordance with GC III, and includes a clause in which the GOA agrees to not invoke the death penalty for any detainee that we hand over. Moreover, we (Canada) have embarked on a process of upgrading an existing Afghan run facility to ensure that it meets the minimum standard of GC III. All of this is in keeping with a major tenet of our involvement there, which is to build Aghan capacity (and capability).


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Withdrawal of military personnel is essential. Withdrawal of other (e.g. humanitarian) assets seems like good sense from a self-preservation point of view until such time as Afghanistan has been left alone long enough to establish its own civilian government.

Hmmm. It appears that we agree that development etc (indeed most forms of soft power) needs security in which to thrive - which is provided by the military - either ones own, or someone elses.

Why is it so imperative that Canadian troops depart? I am new here, and am unfamiliar with some of the basic themes...


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

The insurgents are Afghanis. What you're saying is that Afghanis must be kept from having any 'influence on the development of the Afghani nation'.


Are you so sure that all of the insrgents are Aghani? And that they have the interests of the people at heart? My readings (and experience) have led me to the conclusion that the insurgent movement is driven by a host of factors, including transnational narco-criminals, absentee warlords (easy to send someone to their death when you are living in a madrassa in Quetta) and plain old-fashioned power. I do acknowledge, of course, that it also fuelled by the presence of the very Coalition that is trying to provide a stable enough environment for the nation to develop.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Ok - I have seen the agreement. It is between the GOC and GOA, and stipulates that detainees must be treated in accordance with GC III, and includes a clause in which the GOA agrees to not invoke the death penalty for any detainee that we hand over.


Could you please post the full text of the agreement, or a link to it, so that we can evaluate its content for ourselves? Also, are you saying that the U.S. is not a signatory?

Is it the same "agreement" described this way in the Toronto Star:

quote:
"We are kidding ourselves if we think someone important won't be in the front door and out the back," says a source directly involved with framing the agreement. "They wouldn't hold Osama bin Laden very long."

Canada's official position is that Afghanistan is a sovereign state committed to humane treatment of prisoners. Privately, a senior political source is blunt about the agreement's limited scope, purpose and enforcement power.

"It's public relations," he says, arguing that, ideally, both prisoners and this country's sensibilities would be better protected by a Canadian detention centre.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Why is it so imperative that Canadian troops depart? I am new here, and am unfamiliar with some of the basic themes...

I advise you to do some background reading and familiarize yourself with the extremely extensive debate around this issue on babble. It would be unfair to the protagonists for one person to attempt to encapsulate it, and it would be unduly repetitious for most participants here.

Go to this link and check for threads involving "Afghanistan" under (primarily) "News" and/or "Politics". Let me know if you have any difficulty finding the relevant threads and I'll do my best to help.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 March 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
easy to send someone to their death when you are living in a madrassa in Quetta

Or Ottawa. Are both Harper and Hillier absentee warlords?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Or Ottawa. Are both Harper and Hillier absentee warlords?

They were present for a bit, but they're absent now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Or Ottawa. Are both Harper and Hillier absentee warlords?

I can't believe I didn't see that one coming...

In fairness though, neither Mr Harper nor Gen hillier are exhorting Canadians to strap explosives to themselves and kill Aghanis...in exchange for money.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 March 2006 07:23 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some of the corroborating detail in his five-page brief is based on the report of M. Cherif Bassiouni, who was appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights to look into possible human rights violations in Afghanistan. Bassiouni submitted his report to the UN in March 2005.

"Canada is turning over its detainees to the U.S., which does not abide by the Geneva Conventions where they apply to detainees. The U.S. is getting away with it because it does not acknowledge that particular section and does not comply with them."


By Mike Youds
Kamloops Daily News Staff Reporter
March 7, 2006
Reprinted Here

quote:
Tell the Canadian government that if Canada is to be an effective champion of human rights internationally, we must be prepared to criticize even our closest allies when human rights laws and standards are violated. Urge Canadian authorities to speak out for the rights of those detained without charge or trial or Guantánamo Bay. Write in your own words using this sample postcard as a model.

Dear Minister:

Canada, having participated in the conflict in Afghanistan and having turned over prisoners to the United States, has a special obligation to see justice done. Please use your influence to urge that children held at Guantánamo Bay be given access to their families and that all detainees are either released, declared prisoners of war or charged with a crime and guaranteed fair trials.

Sincerely,


Amnesty


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The agreement was signed in October 2005.
From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 March 2006 07:31 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The article was written in 2006.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 07:32 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Are you so sure that all of the insrgents are Aghani? And that they have the interests of the people at heart? My readings (and experience) have led me to the conclusion that the insurgent movement is driven by a host of factors, including transnational narco-criminals, absentee warlords (easy to send someone to their death when you are living in a madrassa in Quetta) and plain old-fashioned power. I do acknowledge, of course, that it also fuelled by the presence of the very Coalition that is trying to provide a stable enough environment for the nation to develop.


Quite true, some of the 'insurgents' are not Afghanis.

Some of them are from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, client states of the US.

It is also clear that suicide bombings, which were formerly unknown in Afghanistan, are undertaken by people trained in Pakistan.

Pre 9/11, suicide bombings were a tactic of al-Qaeda, which had received billions in arms, training materials, and other necessities from the US.

As I've said before, if Canada wants to help out the Afghanis, they should be helping them fight the Americans.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 19 March 2006 07:35 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The mission is also inextricably linked with serious violations of international law in the torture and indefinite detention of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. While Canada has an agreement that allows us to hand over our captives to the Afghan government, rather than to the U.S., it's likely that the Afghan government, which is controlled by Washington, will pass along any prisoners America wants.

Linda McQuaig


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 March 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Whether or not any of us, or any of the troops agree or disagree with the CF's presence, I am still not sitting there at a check point. For me to be an armchair commentator when I'm not in their boots is naive.

During the Vietnam war, we used to call this "gruntism". It asks everyone to suspend judgment, because only the grunt's eye view is valid.

Any soldier, anywhere, feels the danger acutely. And he or she may feel that others, safely back at home, cannot understand, and shouldn't judge.

But back home, we think that it is wrong to drop soldiers into a dangerous quagmire, precisely BECAUSE they will shoot too many innocents.

The soldier who did this may never again be free from guilt. And the family whose provider is gone, may well be future contributors to the movement to get the foreign armies out of Afghanistan.

They are both victims of the war. I have no confidence that the announced purpose of the war, democratization/development of Afghanistan, can ever be accomplished by foreign troops.

This should be our last deployment there.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The article was written in 2006.

quote:
Bassiouni submitted his report to the UN in March 2005

From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

This should be our last deployment there.

If we don't call for an immediate pullout, are we not responsible for every innocent hurt or killed until the deployment is over?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 09:34 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it's likely that the Afghan government, which is controlled by Washington, will pass along any prisoners America wants.

Hmmm. That was certainly not my experience. Linda may know something that I do not...


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 19 March 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its time to offer a ceasefire and a peace deal.
Offer money to tribal warlords in exchange for arms. Like the amnesty offered by police in Canada occasionally, warlords could turn in for money their caches of weapons. Many soldiers of the various warlords may be tempted to desert with the weapons and sell them for hard currency.
The same day anoune new operations to disarm the warlords (all of them) by force.

Seed and money to end poppy cultivation. I dont know what else can be grown on the land, coffee, flowers for bouquets, but whatever it is, Canada and hopefully some other western nations would immidiately sign a one-way free trade pact on whatever it is that can be grown in the poppies place, ensuring markets.

After 9/11 the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third country to be tried as a war criminal but the US refused. It's time to see if this offer is still on the table- for a trial to be held at either the Hague, China (a power outside Western influence) or here in Canada. The Taliban leader must join him at trial. If guilty, they would be placed under a tight house-arrest, and the death penalty would not apply.

Another province must be added to Afghanistan, made up of a good part of southern Kandahar, Zabol, and Paktika, and maybe parts of Khost. This province would be Taliban. Powers of criminal law (except the Stera Mahkama remains the final court of arbritration), while education borders trade remain federal matters. Taxation lies with the federal government which re-imburses provinces like we do in Canada.

We offered peace to both the Germans and Japanese after WW2, both of whom committed much much worse war crimes. We currently have relations with many many countries with views on women as ofensive as the Taliban.

And as offensive as we find those views, they don't deserve to die for them. Those views are not justification for war. Besides, using force to change views never works and never has. That leaves abandoning Afghanistan (now or in the future) or actively hunting taliban to kill them. The Cdn govt is doing the second, and thats called genocide-actively seeking out an identifiable group while refusing all options to negotiate peace.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: up ]


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 19 March 2006 11:45 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Good post, Up. But things are more complex than your solution allows for. The primary mission of Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan is to disrupt/deny/kill al Qaeda operations. There is an overlap for sure with Taliban and Taliban supporters, but I don't think the Taliban per se are the targets of NATO forces. NATO has not signed on to a military mission of cultural re-education in Afghanistan, but rather to capturing or killing those elements of a larger Jihadist movement engaged in war against the modern world. To the degree that it can demonstrate that it is working in the ultimate best interests of the Afghani people, NATO will succeed.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
The primary mission of Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan is to disrupt/deny/kill al Qaeda operations. There is an overlap for sure with Taliban and Taliban supporters, but I don't think the Taliban per se are the targets of NATO forces.

Where did that definition of the "primary mission" come from, Brett? Source, please?

When Rick Hillier said last July that "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," and that he was sending some more Canadians in against the "detestable murderers and scumbags", he was referring to JTF-2, not to our troops as a whole. And even in their case, the media reported that theirs was a dual mission:

quote:
It was the first time Hillier had confirmed that members of Joint Task Force 2 -- Canada's elite and secretive commando unit -- will be involved in combat missions against al Qaeda supporters and remnants of the former Taliban regime [my emphasis].

So, in addition to my question about your characterization of the "primary mission", I have one more: Can you refer me to any reports of attacks, successful or otherwise, against "Al Qaeda" (whatever that is)?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 12:04 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a DDR (Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration) program ran by the UN and ISAF/NATO. Former soldiers (militias, friendly and enemy) would turn in their weapons for exchange of money, training and employment.

Afghanistan 's New Beginnings Programme

Disarming Afghan militias

DDR Flow Chart

From mujahideen to mountain guide


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 12:16 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some successful missions.

Many held in Afghan terror raids

Al-Qaeda suspects held in Kabul


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 12:22 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some successful joint Afghan/Canadian missions.

Canadian soldiers help with Afghan raid

Canadian troops seize guns, drugs in Kabul raid

Canadian soldiers remove


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 12:23 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Here are some successful missions.

Many held in Afghan terror raids

Al-Qaeda suspects held in Kabul


Webgear, honestly, I'm talking about the south Afghanistan mission - the combat mission - the Canadian troops - that's what Brett was talking about when he said "primary mission". And the reason I asked is I can't remember the last time I even saw an allegation of Al Qaeda connection to any such missions. You're kind of confirming that by citing 2-year-old news items talking about "suspected links" to Al Qaeda.

I repeat my question. Is the primary mission of our soldiers to rout "Al Qaeda" -- if so, where does that information come from, and how are we doing so far?!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 12:35 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

I will try and give you some links tomorrow, I know of a few operations from 2002. I am not sure if I can find any recent Canadian missions, the only time a Canadian mission are reported is when there are Canadian press (some time other nation’s reporters)are with the soldiers on the mission.

Like the recent Toronto Star and CBC reports. I will check some of the military sites I know of.

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 20 March 2006 02:58 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The DDr looks interesting, but where do the arms go?
The arms go to the Afghani govt if I understand correctly?

do the arms go to the UN and then destroyed or to the Afghani govt?

If its the latter, there are some real problems involved.

Also why is it being done at the small unit level? why not just offer the warlords a trade-liquidate your assets (guns, tanks etc) into cash?

what groups exactly are included under AMF? All groups/factions/warlords?

quote:
There is an overlap for sure with Taliban and Taliban supporters, but I don't think the Taliban per se are the targets of NATO forces. NATO has not signed on to a military mission of cultural re-education in Afghanistan, but rather to capturing or killing those elements of a larger Jihadist movement engaged in war against the modern world.

Bullshit. The taliban is specifically being targeted as well as Al Quada. In fact, I doubt Cdn soldiers even identify them seperately, or make any effort to do so.
When they meet with tribal elders do you think they ask only about AQ and not the Taliban? That's niave dude.

And I agree, its not really about re-education. Its about plain old fashioned killing. The mission is to wipe them off the map, while simultaniously refusing to offer or negotiate a ceasefore/peace. The two combined mean genocide.

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: up ]


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 20 March 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Star is reporting that the slain man's family is asking for Canadian citizenship. I think it's the least we can do. We better.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RookieActivist:
The Star is reporting that the slain man's family is asking for Canadian citizenship. I think it's the least we can do. We better.

What? Break our laws and make a "deal"? Are they (a) immigrants (in which case they can apply and wait their turn), or (b) refugees - in which case they must be fleeing from the Canadian military and they're headed the wrong way.

Two wrongs don't make a right. It is the Canadian soldiers that should grab the next flight for Canada - not the family whom they've bereaved.

That is asinine.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 20 March 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
The taxi driver had 6 children and a wife. We know that she will not be able to earn money to feed her family in the male culture of Afghanistan, and abandoning the children seems wrong.

In a culture of blood money I look forward to Mr McKay being creative and compassionate.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 09:37 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Up

The weapons receive are either deactivated or given to the ANA or ANP depending on the type, quality and age of the weapon.

Currently any person of any group or faction can turn in weapons and ammunition and becoming part of the DDR process.

All types of weapons are turned in rifles, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, APCs, Tanks, SAMs, Artillery pieces.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

I could not find any media reports like you have requested involving Canadians that have not been mentioned before here or other threads.

But I did find this report for the CBC which is new to the thread however it is not about Canadian’s fighting.

On patrol near Kandahar: The dangers and the diplomacy


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 11:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Unionist

I could not find any media reports like you have requested involving Canadians that have not been mentioned before here or other threads.

But I did find this report for the CBC which is new to the thread however it is not about Canadian’s fighting.

On patrol near Kandahar: The dangers and the diplomacy



Thanks, Webgear - interesting read. Nothing about Al Qaeda, as you know. I haven't seen any indication in a long time of "foreign" insurgents operating in Afghanistan.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 March 2006 11:40 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist

I just found this article. Sorry, I will try and find some others however I am dealing with some other problems at the moment.

“In addition to the madrassa students and local fighters, there is a significant foreign element in the insurgency. The U.S. military has confirmed kills of Uzbeks, Urdu-speaking fighters and fighters from Central Asia. In addition, there have also been confirmed kills of Chechens.”

Afghanistan: The Insurgency Continues


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 20 March 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Afghanistan: The Insurgency Continues

Unfortunately that link is behind a log in wall. If we had the author we could google it.

And BTW -- what could possibly be more important than providing babblers with links??


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Unfortunately that link is behind a log in wall. If we had the author we could google it.

And BTW -- what could possibly be more important than providing babblers with links??


You don't need the author to google it. It's in Google's handy cache:

Strategic Forecasting article on Afghanistan

And there is no author. It's not a factual report, but rather a "strategic forecast" analysis citing all kinds of anonymous sources, and making statements with no source citation at all. The few Al Qaeda and "foreign fighter" references are all undated, unattributed.

Unconvincing.

[shhhhh]But at least we copped a free version of a pay-per-view article. Don't tell the authorities.[/shhhhh]

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 21 March 2006 12:57 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You don't need the author to google it. It's in Google's handy cache:

Strategic Forecasting article on Afghanistan


Oh. What did you google to get into this link?

quote:
[shhhhh]But at least we copped a free version of a pay-per-view article. Don't tell the authorities.[/shhhhh]

Mums the word, then.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 01:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Oh. What did you google to get into this link?


I just selected and copied a representative chunk of text (follow my link and see the portion highlighted in yellow). I love Google.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 21 March 2006 01:32 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tucking that info away for future use. Thanks, unionist.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 21 March 2006 07:07 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Up

The weapons receive are either deactivated or given to the ANA or ANP depending on the type, quality and age of the weapon.

Currently any person of any group or faction can turn in weapons and ammunition and becoming part of the DDR process.

All types of weapons are turned in rifles, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, APCs, Tanks, SAMs, Artillery pieces.



I visited the site but couldn't find any hard data like you semmed to have. The only thing even close I found was the total money spent on the program so far.

From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 21 March 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Up

Here are a few more sites.

Heavy Weapons Cantonment

Heavy Weapons Cantonment

Canada was instrumental in the establishment of a soon-to-be completed process to canton heavy weapons in Afghanistan. Canadians in Kabul, helped to create the momentum and will for a programme many thought impossible. Thanks to Canadian efforts, 97% of these weapons - over 10,800 tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons -are now safely secured.

Heavy Weapons Cantonment continues with Central Forces Headquarters' tanks

"Elements from the Central Forces Headquarters will move their equipment to a cantonment site in Badhe Daud. Up to 25 weapons, including six tanks and three armoured personnel carriers will be turned in at this time."


TEACHER HANDS OVER LARGE WEAPONS CACHE

"A ceremony of appreciation for a former Commander who voluntarily handed over his cache of weapons was recently held in Farah. Ustad Mohammad Alam, who now works as a teacher, gathered his weapons during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan and at the height of his efforts he had enough to arm 300 men."

Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration

"The first time heavy weapons were moved to a cantonment site was in mid-December 2003, when elements in the Panjshir Valley moved their weapons, including surface-to-surface missile systems, multiple launch rocket systems, tanks, and artillery pieces, into the Pol-E-Charki site, a few kilometres west of Kabul."


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 21 March 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist

DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Freakley


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 21 March 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist

INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES BELONGING TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE TALIBAN AND AL-QAIDA ORGANISATION

The Security Council Committee established pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1267 (1999) (hereafter referred to as the 1267 Committee) oversees the implementation by States of the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on individuals and entities belonging or related to the Taliban, Usama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaida organization and maintains a list of individuals and entities for this purpose. In resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002) and 1455 (2003) the Security Council obliged all States to freeze the assets, prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms and military equipment with regard to the individuals/entities included on the list.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 21 March 2006 10:01 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perfect thanks very much. I had no idea this was going on with any seriousness.
From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 March 2006 07:26 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe how many people in this thread are excusing the death of an innocent civilian AND the pathetic attempt to change the conditions under which he was killed. If this man's death was excusable, why did the military lie about the circumstances of his death? Why didn't they say this: "An overstuffed rickshaw full of men, women, and children approached the Canadians at 20 kph. One man aboard that rickshaw was shot without warning, in case the vehicle posed a danger to troops. He was aided on the scene some fifteen minutes later, and was refused passage to an American hospital. He died at an Afghani hospital."

Too harsh? It's closer to the truth than the initial press release.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
unionist

DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Freakley



Thank you, Webgear. This briefing does contain some very general statements about Al Qaeda and "Al-Qaeda -paying youth" (which is a phrase I don't understand) involvement in Afghanistan. But I must say the overall picture I get from this U.S. military chief is that they don't really know the scale and nature of the precise threat facing them.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 22 March 2006 05:38 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sir, Gordon Lubold from Army Times. I wondered if you could just speak to the opium trade. It's never been completely clear to me what the relationship is between those operations and the funding of al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. And if you could, just talk about the coalition's ability to have an impact on those fields.

GEN. FREAKLEY: Well, again, it's a good question. It's a complicated question. The opium trade -- I'm going to talk about that as a separate and distinct aspect of the environment we're in. As you know, we do not conduct counter narcotics operations here in the combined joint task force.

...And with the funding that they get, they then can provide money to primarily Taliban, not so much al Qaeda, in Helmand. They can provide funds to the Taliban to recruit fighters, to train fighters, to buy weapons and arms. And in many cases, some of the farmers are threatened by the Taliban to either continue to grow the poppy to generate the funds or face death.


One is tempted to ask why the US forces aren't going after the drug trade when they themselves claim that the drug money is funding the Taliban, the ostensible enemy.

Allowing the 'enemy' to continue to recruit, arm, and train based on drug money, then decided no to attack the drug trade directly seems kinda weird.

Perhaps there are other beneficiaries of the drug trade the US would rather not offend.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 22 March 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

One is tempted to ask why the US forces aren't going after the drug trade when they themselves claim that the drug money is funding the Taliban, the ostensible enemy.

Allowing the 'enemy' to continue to recruit, arm, and train based on drug money, then decided no to attack the drug trade directly seems kinda weird.

Perhaps there are other beneficiaries of the drug trade the US would rather not offend.


I think the explanation is a bit different. "Going after the drug trade" in Helmand would mean destroying the poppy crops of poor farmers. The US military understandably does not want to be seen to be doing that; they would prefer that the dirty work be done by Afghanis. They do, however, provide protection for the Afghani "eradication" teams. ("We can in extremist [sic] respond to requests to help those who are trying to eradicate the drug.") (I suppose generals are not required to learn latin. Or perhaps he got it right and it was "corrected" by a spell-checker.)

The vast majority of the profits from the opium trade are realized outside of Afghanistan, and the general is choosing his words quite carefully; it is quite possible that the money is re-entering the country and being used to fund "Taliban" forces.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 23 March 2006 03:42 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stumbled across this little piece by Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret.) published in the Feb 24th edition of the National Post.

This paragraph particularly caught my eye:

Time to go on the offensive in Afghanistan

quote:
There is a third option that I much prefer. Leave the ISAF force and move South to rejoin, yes rejoin, the US-led multinational force that we were an important part of in the period following Sept. 11, 2001. This force is conducting the war against terror in the rugged areas of Afghanistan and tracking down the cowards on their own terms.

There is little risk of becoming a victim to suicide bombers out there.

If someone suspiciously runs towards you in the mountains of Afghanistan, you don’t have to hesitate killing him, as you would on security patrol in downtown Kabul, thinking that perhaps he is just a young urban kid wanting some food or to say hello.


A bit prophetic, I'd say.

He also commented on the opium trade:

quote:
The illegal drug trade has flourished since the removal of the Taliban regime, and Afghanistan’s poppy fields have re-established themselves as the world’s number one supplier of opium and heroin (ironically, with another “liberated” part of the world, Kosovo, playing a major role in the drug’s distribution).

Ah yes, Kosovo, another victory for the US...

edited to add:

Just thought I'd add this. In searching the web I've found a number of people, including at least one US General who say opium is a greater threat to Afghanistan than the Taliban.

Seems to me that for the price of having the various troops in Afghanistan for who knows how many years, they could buy the opium crop and destroy it.

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 23 March 2006 11:07 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Seems to me that for the price of having the various troops in Afghanistan for who knows how many years, they could buy the opium crop and destroy it.


Sheesh - why not just give massive amounts of money to the narco-criminals (and their Taliban buddies) instead - it would be more efficient.

There is a virtual feedback power loop, that links economic, military, political, and cultural power. Disrupting those loops is difficult, and certainly a counter-narcotics line of operation is required - it is just not the primary line of operations right now.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 23 March 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Sheesh - why not just give massive amounts of money to the narco-criminals (and their Taliban buddies) instead - it would be more efficient.


That completely fails to recognize the difference between a poppy farmer or farm-labourer, who are simply trying to scratch out some sort of living under very difficult conditions, and the organized drug trade, which is largely non-Afghani.

Poppy farmers earn about US$500 million per year from their crops, in total, which is an average of a bit over US$200 per year per person. They grow poppies because there are no economic alternatives, because there is no market or distribution system for alternative crops, because they have no source for loans other than the narcotics traders which provide loans which can only be paid off in opium, in a few cases (not nearly as many as the US military implies) because of threats of violence, or a combination of the above.

The total revenue to Afghanistan of the opium trade is about five times the farmgate income. The total world market in opiates, which corresponds to the opium supply in Afghanistan, is in excess of US$70,000 million, some 140 times the farmgate income and more than 30 times the total income to Afghanistan.

(All of these figures come from the UN Office on Drug Control, and are frequently quoted by military sources; I think they are as close as we can get to accurate information.)

USAID and some other agencies provide limited funding for alternative production. However, USAID, in particular, requires that an entire community eliminate opium production in one year in order to receive funding, a requirement which many say is unreasonable.

As in the coca-leaf growing areas of South America, the primary victims of the narcotics trade are the poor farmers who are forced (economically) to grow the crops. A more realistic program of agricultural development, subsidies, and promotion of alternatives would do quite a lot to help these farmers.

The current mix of limited and unsustained replacement funding combined with aggressive eradication only serves to alienate farmers against their own governments, and against the proponents of the "war on drugs", which is to say the US and its allies.

In other words, what is needed is a lot more carrots and a much softer stick.

In the long run, however, reducing the production of raw materials in crop-growing countries will not reduce the drug trade; it will simply shift it to other countries. The only plausible solution to the problem is the reduction of demand, not supply, and the demand is almost entirely in North America and Europe, which is also where the vast majority of the revenue is realized.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Disrupting those loops is difficult, and certainly a counter-narcotics line of operation is required - it is just not the primary line of operations right now.

Sounds suspiciously like procropstination to me.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 24 March 2006 01:15 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Sounds suspiciously like procropstination to me.


Ok - show me the organisation that can have an effect on all of those power loops at the same time, and I will foment to have it deployed. Until then, there remains only one way to eat an elephant - one bite at a time...


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 01:48 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 24 March 2006 06:10 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Sheesh - why not just give massive amounts of money to the narco-criminals (and their Taliban buddies) instead - it would be more efficient.

There is a virtual feedback power loop, that links economic, military, political, and cultural power. Disrupting those loops is difficult, and certainly a counter-narcotics line of operation is required - it is just not the primary line of operations right now.


The drug trade is the most serious problem confronting Afghanistan in terms of establising some level of security and stability. This statement has been made by a number of people including at least one US general on the ground, and a variety of other people:

quote:
Doug Wankel, a former Drug Enforcement Administration official who is point man for the U.S. counternarcotics initiative at the American Embassy in Kabul, says the opium industry is "financing terrorism. It's financing subversive activities. It's financing warlordism. ... And if it's a threat to the government of Afghanistan, it's a direct threat to the national security interests of the United States."
****************************

"Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and criminal groups...
[C]utting down the opium supply is central to establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004)

******************************

With drug money penetrating all aspects of Afghan society, Karzai, following his inauguration in late 2004, outlined a reform agenda that prioritized combating the poppy trade over terrorism.

"Poppy cultivation is more dangerous than terrorism, it is more dangerous than civil wars because this crop is not only a source of weakness, dishonor and defeat of Afghanistan, but also an internal danger," he said at a conference of key leaders in December 2004.

*****************************

Jan 8, 2006 - DANIEL COONEY

KABUL (AP) - President Hamid Karzai noted Sunday that several hundred Taliban members had reconciled with the government under a new program, and invited the fugitive militant leader Mullah Omar to "get in touch" if he wanted to talk peace.

...Despite the spike in bloodshed, including suicide attacks that Karzai expected would continue for "a long time," the U.S.-backed leader said the Taliban's resistance was fading. He said that a booming drug trade posed a greater threat to Afghanistan than terrorism and endangered its future as a country.

...The Afghan president said terrorism has been "relegated to little more than a nuisance" when compared with the scourge of drugs that is facing the country.


Having established that some very knowledgeable people (including the current president of Afghanistan) feel that the drug trade is more dangerous than 'terrorism' or the 'Taliban', one wonders why the US doesn't want to fight that drug trade itself.

Given that almost all authorities agree that the 'terrorism' and the Taliban are being funded by the drug trade, one would think cutting off the drug trade would be at the top of everyone's list. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't seem to have made the list at all. 2004 and 2005 were near record breaking years for opium production.

While the overall amount of drug money is pretty huge, that amount that stays in Afghanistan is pretty small (by comparison) - roughly US $2.5 billion, or less than 2% of the total US military budget for a year.

Over the years the US has often offered US farmers money to *not* grow crops, so I don't see the problem with offering Afghanis an amount equivalent to what they'd make growing opium.

That would cut off the most serious source of funding for terrorism around the world.

Just looking at the activities of the US military in Afghanistan, and discounting the rhetoric, one would assume they didn't want to stop the drug trade.

edited to add final quote from Karzai

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2006 08:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca