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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Canadian Offensive Kills Half of Taliban

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian Offensive Kills Half of Taliban
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 20 September 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The spin coming out of NATO in Afghanistan has reached Vietnam-level proportions. Here's the latest inflated body count from the CBC:
quote:
The U.S. general who heads all NATO military forces says a two-week campaign that cost five Canadian lives in southern Afghanistan may have wiped out half of the "hard-core" Taliban fighters in the country.

The Canadian-led push, Operation Medusa, ended on Sept. 15 when Taliban forces stopped fighting and slipped away, Gen. James L. Jones said on Wednesday.

The Taliban "suffered a tactical defeat in the area where they chose to stand and fight" and got "a very powerful message … that they have no chance of winning militarily," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

NATO estimates that "somewhere in the neighbourhood of around 1,000" Taliban fighters were killed, and the number could be higher, he said. "If you said 1,500 it wouldn't surprise me."



Link.

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 20 September 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, great, 1500 dead brown people. The neo-cons must be drooling at the very thought of this...

I'm getting more and more disgusted by this country of ours each day. Am I supposed to be feeling some form of patriotism over the notion that the people our tax dollars train and give guns to are murdering thousands of people in my name?

Boy, do I ever need a joint.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 21 September 2006 05:23 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Taliban "suffered a tactical defeat in the area where they chose to stand and fight" and got "a very powerful message … that they have no chance of winning militarily," he told reporters at the Pentagon.


He then went on to say "So, the only option available for these people is guerilla warfare, normally dubbed 'terr'sm' around these parts. Our military supremacy is creating quite a side industry for bomb-makers! Mission accomplished."


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 September 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Luckily, the 1500 dead Afghans do not have any relatives, children, or tribal affiliations.

Because if they did, we'd just be creating 5000 more Taleban sympathizers.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 September 2006 08:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sympathizers? Not "activists." But as you say, lucky they were all orphaned, so there wont be any blow back.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 21 September 2006 09:27 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gwynne Dyer made this exact, and obvious, point on CBC last night, about the Vietnam-like "kill" numbers game they are now playing: in Afghanistan more "kills" equal even more killers.

It's time to dress Stephen "Macho-man" Harper back up in his Downey fresh flak jacket and send him out in "Operation: Chckenhawks err... Canadians Don't Cut And Run"

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
kulvahs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13141

posted 21 September 2006 09:29 AM      Profile for kulvahs        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
they slipped back into their farmer cloths and went to resupply with Canadian food.


when China is here freeing up our people from their perceived weakness all of us Canadians have ,,

"soft" people will misuse all those resources,,"

as they take these resources, or spread their will, i will be like the farmers.


1500 dead,, as if they don't matter,,

i agree if its true, that we are in for some "major" pain.
thank god none of my children are caught up in this war if you can call it that.

any word on haliburtons gas pipe line through Afghanistan as this is/was the primary objective as i remember.


From: richmond | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 21 September 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think people have to be reminded that the heaviest casualties incurred by any country on earth post world war 2 were the russians in afghanistan. 150,000 soldiers could not defeat them...much less 20,000 that don't have the power of conviction.

Casualties numbers serve no purpose as there are an endless supply of morally convicted people.So convicted they go on daily "suicide missions".Opps that term is obselete in neoconada

Of course with lucrative drug money up for grabs anything can happen. That should get the neocons drooling over there microphones.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 September 2006 10:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree in general, except the most casualties incurred after world war two was incurred by Iran during the 1980 Iran-Iraq War. Also, the Vietnamese lost millions, though I am not sure what the military tally was, but likely higher than the Russians in Afghanistan, also the Afghans themselves lost more during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

So perhaps you mean the most white people killed in a war since WW2.

Iran-Iraq War 1980-1990:
Iran 400000
Iraq 100000

OnWar

[ 21 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 22 September 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do we even have a good reason to trust those numbers? Who is to say that they aren't lying? Who is to say that those numbers don't include quite a few instances of "colateral damage."
From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 22 September 2006 01:32 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ummm,these numbers sound weird.
How would a couple of thousand men be able to kill 1500 Taliban fighters, who know the terrain and have villages and the mountains to serve as a hiding place? Canadian/British units dont seem to have the firepower comparable with USians in Iraq.
The only way I can imagine this happenin if Canadians would pound Taliban positions with heavy artillery barrage and extensive air support
Doesnt sound likely

From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 22 September 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was old enough to have followed the Vietnam war and if I had been American I would have been draft age. I always thought the "funniest" part of the coverage was a couple of years before the Yanks were defeated the official reported "body count" exceeded the population of Vietnam. We should be able to top those numbers in Afghanistan with no trouble especially if we stay another ten years as was suggested by the Afghan President.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 22 September 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
Ummm,these numbers sound weird.
How would a couple of thousand men be able to kill 1500 Taliban fighters, who know the terrain and have villages and the mountains to serve as a hiding place? Canadian/British units dont seem to have the firepower comparable with USians in Iraq.
The only way I can imagine this happenin if Canadians would pound Taliban positions with heavy artillery barrage and extensive air support
Doesnt sound likely

You've hit the nail on the head.

I think the point has been missed in this thread.

1,500 dead Taliban is a ludicrous exaggeration -- and the type of thing we can expect more of as NATO tries to shore up flagging support in Canada and elsewhere.

A few days before, the Defense Minister was saying it was impossible to defeat the Taliban militarily. And the Globe and Mail's embedded reporter during Operation Medusa said NATO found that the Taliban had slipped away, rather than staying to fight.

Yet, mere days later, the story had changed. Now the American general in charge is telling us half the Taliban was killed during Operation Medusa. Which is it?


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 22 September 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Taliban "suffered a tactical defeat in the area where they chose to stand and fight" and got "a very powerful message … that they have no chance of winning militarily," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

Did the good General explain why the Taliban would do such a stupid thing? Why would the Taliban, or really, the Pashtun Afghaniis decide to abandon their highly successful, time tested and combat proven tactics of IEDs, snipers, hit-and-run mortars, suicide bombs, and general mayhem for a Custer's Last Stand against an enemy with superior firepower and resources?

Do the generals in NATO think all natives are so stupid and courteous as to line up and let themselves be killed by the white man?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 September 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Also, the Vietnamese lost millions, though I am not sure what the military tally was, but likely higher than the Russians in Afghanistan, also the Afghans themselves lost more during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Estimates are anywhere from two to six million in SE Asia and Indochina. The doctor and the madman's off the books bombing of Cambodia and saturation bombing of VietNam were meant to kill an idea.

And lest we forget the death toll incurred after the Soviets left Afghanistan ie. when U.S.-backed militant Islamists, mercenaries and power-mad extremists imported from all over the continent tore that country apart from stern to stem and chased millions of refugees over the borders.

Today, UNICEF and the WHO are saying there were anywhere 1.5 - 2 million dead Iraqi's after a ten year medieval siege on Iraq led by the U.S. between 1991 and bombs away. Over 700 000 of them were children. Warshington is unparalleled when it comes to economic warfare, from Nixon's order to "Make the economy scream" to stemming the red tide on Russia's doorsteps to betraying an old friend of George Bush Senior and Donald Rumsfeld's in Baghdad. Soften them up first with malnutrition and disease - commence carpet bombing and suggest that it's all justified in order to remove one man from power. And always-always, refuse news journalists access to the carnage.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
nuclearfreezone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9059

posted 23 September 2006 03:35 AM      Profile for nuclearfreezone     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, what a wonderful world it is! Isn't it?
From: B.C. | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 23 September 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh ya.... it is so wonderful to have guys like bushwhacker and herper as national political representatives.

But the really amazingly, most stupid aspect, of this political hegemony being foisted upon the world at large by the corrupt representative system us is just how many people still believe in and continue to support it to this very day.

This, despite the reality that it has always ONLY represented the interests of the greedy bastards and has ALWAYS treated ordinary citizens as just another eploitable and expendable resource. But hey, what can we expect from a top down hierarchy of decision making?

BTW, have i mentionedDIRECT DEMOCRACY before?


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 September 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Many of the fighters killed -- perhaps half of them, by one estimate -- were not Taliban stalwarts, but local farmers who reportedly revolted against corrupt policing and tribal persecution. It appears the Taliban did not choose the Panjwai district as a battleground merely because the irrigation trenches and dry canals provided good hiding places, but because many villagers were willing to give them food, shelter -- even sons for the fight -- in exchange for freedom from the local authorities.
....
Unconfirmed reports suggest that Taliban fighters continue to lurk around the district, and that police in the area have resumed the abusive tactics that originally ignited local anger. Farmers say gangs of policemen, often their tribal rivals, have swept into Panjwai behind the Canadian troops to search for valuables. They have been described ransacking homes, burning shops and conducting shakedowns at checkpoints.

"This is a case of bad governance," said Talatbek Masadykov, head of the United Nations mission in southern Afghanistan.

"Maybe half of these so-called anti-government elements acting here in this area of the south, they had to join this Taliban movement because of the misbehaviour of these bad guys," Mr. Masadykov said, referring to undisciplined local police.

Police commanders in Kandahar city declined to be interviewed. The allegations from local farmers are difficult to confirm, because it has been only two days since Panjwai was deemed safe enough for civilians to return home, and the area remains too dangerous for Western journalists to visit.

But even politicians who generally support the government concede that the situation in Panjwai was aggravated by the missteps of local authorities.

Read the whole story



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

posted 23 September 2006 11:58 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Taliban" ain't what they used to be.
quote:

Whatever they are today, it is best not to fix in your mind a hard definition of the Taliban. Because tomorrow they will change. And change again the day after that.

...longtime Afghan watchers say the new Taliban is morphing into a broader movement of seemingly contradictory forces wed by mutual self-interest.

Money, as much as any concept of jihad, is the driving force today behind an unholy alliance of religious radicals, drug-running militias, smuggling cartels - and, in many cases, apolitical young Afghans simply looking for work - who have enlisted in the confrontation with foreign troops.

As it evolves militarily, so too is the Taliban evolving politically, deploying itself as never before with an increasingly sophisticated media message designed to exploit the shortcomings of the pro-Western government of Hamid Karzai.

The political pitch to ethnic Pashtuns, disseminated by Internet and on the streets of the rural enclaves under its control, pledges the rise of a kinder, gentler Taliban regime than the one that ruled Afghanistan as a stone-age theocracy, circa 1996-2001.

Though veterans of the five-year effort to glue together the pieces of a broken Afghanistan condemn the machinations of the neo-Taliban as "a false promise writ large," many worry how it may resonate with Afghans still trapped in crushing poverty.

Others, like Chris Alexander, the former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan who now serves as the United Nations Special Representative to Kabul, wonder if the time hasn't come to abandon the word Taliban as a catch-all for a far more complicated enemy.

"The concept of the Taliban has evolved every week I've been here," Alexander told the Toronto Star. "As of now, I've come to the conclusion we have to be careful about even using the word."
....
"The fact is we want there to be a Taliban here after (leader) Mullah Omar and (military commander) Mullah Dadullah are gone," said Alexander, "because none of us want to be perceived as hostile to the Islamic traditions of Afghanistan.

"We are fighting a network that calls itself Taliban, and they do it with the support of terror networks, just one of which is Al Qaeda. They cannot be allowed to express a monopoly over Islam."


What right do we have to determine, by force, who is to speak for Islam?
quote:
"At this point, we refer to Afghanistan's enemies as Tier One and Tier Two insurgents," a Canadian military source at Kandahar Airfield told the Star on condition of anonymity.

"Tier One, to put it simply, is the hardcore. We believe they are a mix of the old Taliban fighters and products of the madrassa school system and they remain relatively small in number. But they are showing a degree of sophistication, including the ability to stage co-ordinated fights in groups of up to 20 fighters."
...
Tier Two Taliban, by contrast, equate roughly to "local hires" - young Afghan soldiers of fortune driven by despair and joblessness into the ranks of the insurgency.

...Canadian officials acknowledge they have no way of knowing what sort of fighters died at Panjwaii.

"We are confident this was a major setback for the Taliban, and that a significant number of mid-level commanders were killed. But how many were Tier One and how many Tier Two? We will never know," the Canadian military official said.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 23 September 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And, as usual, Thomas Walkom has some very insightful comments:
quote:
Karzai clearly concerned about NATO's strategy
Afghan's speech not entirely gung-ho
Sep. 23, 2006. 01:00 AM
THOMAS WALKOM

On the face of it, Hamid Karzai's eloquent speech to Parliament yesterday provided a crucial boost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's war effort.

The Afghan president was gracious and, at times, witty. He thanked Canada for helping his country. In particular, he thanked the families of Canadians who have died there.

He articulated, perhaps better than Harper, Ottawa's official reasons for sending troops to Afghanistan — to help rebuild that country as well as protect Canada from terrorism.

And in a news conference later, he firmly dismissed those, such as Jack Layton and his New Democrats, who would bring Canadian soldiers home, repeating Harper's argument that the civilized world must attack terrorists before they attack it.

But Karzai is a subtle politician. His speech, if listened to carefully, was not quite as gung-ho as the Prime Minister might have wished.

First, it's clear that the Afghan president has serious reservations about NATO strategy.

"We will not succeed in eliminating terrorism unless we seek the sources of terrorism," he said. "Our strategy ... has so far been mainly focused on addressing the symptoms of terrorism, on killing those who come across our borders.

"This strategy is bound to fail unless we move beyond military operations in Afghanistan to address terrorism's political, ideological and financial basis.

"Unless we go to the roots of terrorism, to where they are trained, where they are equipped, where they get their inspiration ... the world will not be a safe place."



http://tinyurl.com/qge7o

From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
avataristhenewblog
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13209

posted 23 September 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for avataristhenewblog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't it be rather obvious to Karzai that anti-west "terrorists" are the result of western state-sponsored terror having been carried out through the decades previous?

I don't really understand how he could keep a straight face and say that we (in the west) must move past militarism and "go to the roots of terrorism...where they get their inspiration".

I guess over time you can convince yourself that anything is true - if you keep telling yourself to believe it.

Perhaps he's been blinded by UNOCAL paycheques, heroin export dollars, and US pipeline gratuities?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 23 September 2006 11:12 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He can't bite the hands that feed him!
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

"We will not succeed in eliminating terrorism unless we seek the sources of terrorism," he said. "Our strategy ... has so far been mainly focused on addressing the symptoms of terrorism, on killing those who come across our borders.

"This strategy is bound to fail unless we move beyond military operations in Afghanistan to address terrorism's political, ideological and financial basis.

"Unless we go to the roots of terrorism, to where they are trained, where they are equipped, where they get their inspiration ... the world will not be a safe place."


So Karzai seems to contradict himself and Steve Harper on how best to abate the problem at the source. If our troops are only there to plug what is a dyke holding back terrorists from entering Afghanistan from other countries, then for how long does this thing continue ?. How long does the west plan on playing footsy with our soldiers against what could be millions of proxy fighters being funded by the Saudi's, and possibly Kuwait, Iran? Russia? and possibly through Pakistan's ISI ?. What happened to the billions of U.S. dollars that were once funelled to militant Islamists in the 1980's-90's ?. Where did the love for Afghani's disappear to ?. Does Steve and his stetson-hatted cowboy caucus have any idea what in hell they are getting us into over there ?.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 23 September 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Unless we go to the roots of terrorism, to where they are trained, where they are equipped, where they get their inspiration ... the world will not be a safe place."

So Karzai is suggesting going after the u.s. intelligence community??? Hot damn... go get em tiger lol


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 26 September 2006 07:43 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
You've hit the nail on the head.

Who knew....Prince is a babbler!

Dude I thought you got your name back.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 September 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
1,500 dead Taliban is a ludicrous exaggeration -- and the type of thing we can expect more of as NATO tries to shore up flagging support in Canada and elsewhere.

1500 dead is not ludicrous... Calling all the people that were killed 'Taliban' is ^^

The words 'Taliban' and 'Enemys of Afghanistan' were at one point in time seperate entities, but they have evolved to mean the same thing and are now completely interchangable as this event outlines. But what can we expect? When the entire goal of deployment is to 'Kill all the enemys of Afghanistan', we'll never acheive the goal, we'll just find new people to call enemys of Afghanistan.

If you think 1500 is an unreasonably high number... Remember This one post thread from FM? NATO declared all (ALL) people in a province as 'enemies of Afghanistan' at one point during this war afterall. 1500 is probably accurate, if not an understatement. 1500 dead Taliban is a flat out lie.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Infocus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12535

posted 26 September 2006 06:25 PM      Profile for Infocus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, great, 1500 dead brown people. The neo-cons must be drooling at the very thought of this...

Fascism doesn't come in 'colours' - except perhaps for bloody red. Would you have responded to the deaths of 1500 Nazis' as '1500 white people'? Or 1500 enemies who are out to enslave and conquer the world.

Oops. I forgot. The Islamic Fascists are just blowing smoke and don't really mean what they say.


From: Nanaimo, B.C. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 September 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Infocus:

Oops. I forgot. The Islamic Fascists are just blowing smoke and don't really mean what they say.


There's no such thing as an 'Islamic fascist', because that would mean they are 'Islamic people who believe in the marriage of the corporation and the state', which is nonsensical.

There are intolerant, violent extremists in the Islamist movement, but they are not fascists. Painting them as such is just a rhetorical tool to simplify things for the non-reflective who don't really 'get' stuff.

Personally, I find the use of the 'Islamic fascist' label as a good way to identify people who don't know what they are actually talking about.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 September 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And when Taliban tanks roll into Czech, Slovakia and Poland, we'll say that Infocus told us so.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 26 September 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

If you think 1500 is an unreasonably high number... Remember This one post thread from FM? NATO declared all (ALL) people in a province as 'enemies of Afghanistan' at one point during this war afterall. 1500 is probably accurate, if not an understatement. 1500 dead Taliban is a flat out lie.


Good point.

I remember a reporter in the Vietnam war going on a patrol with an American unit. The unit commander saw a chicken and wrote it down as a "Communist infiltrator". The day's work done, the unit went safely back to base, and handed the report up the chain of command, telling their superiors exactly what they wanted to hear.

I wonder if the American general who made this statement is receiving such reports about "Taliban chickens."

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have so many single post threads. But I think this one is more relevant to the current topic:

quote:
Many of the fighters killed — perhaps half of them, by one estimate — were not Taliban stalwarts, but local farmers who reportedly revolted against corrupt policing and tribal persecution.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=002180

So it seems we are very good at killing farmers and villagers who resist mistreatment by corrupt offials associated with rival clans. Hurray! We've brought Guatemelan style democracy to Afghanistan.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 September 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ditto
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 26 September 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think people have to be reminded that the heaviest casualties incurred by any country on earth post world war 2 were the russians in afghanistan. 150,000 soldiers could not defeat them...much less 20,000 that don't have the power of conviction.

I think this may be referring to total casualties: Russian casualties were of the order of 60,000 with 13,000 or so fatal. Total casualties are estimated at well over 1 million.

quote:
Iran-Iraq War 1980-1990:
Iran 400000
Iraq 100000

Total casualties are usually considered to be around a million.

quote:
Estimates are anywhere from two to six million in SE Asia and Indochina. The doctor and the madman's off the books bombing of Cambodia and saturation bombing of VietNam were meant to kill an idea.

Some estimates are even higher. It depends on what you include (i.e was the Cambodian civil war part of the Vietnam war).

Vietnam War Casualties

This covers only from 1960 to 1975 and not 1945 to 1960, the other half of the "ten thousand day war".

Another brutal war that was largely unreported:

DR Congo

This over only five years.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 September 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
5 million in Laos ? keyrrrist almighty. I remember reading an article entitled, Laos down the drain, and maybe it mentioned the dead and MIAs but havent remembered. Nixon and Kissinger should have been drawn, quartered and strung up by the nuts.

quote:

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has caused more deaths than any war since World War II - some 3.3 million between 1998 and 2002 alone.

Yes, and another poster once nailed up a link that put the number of Congolese killed during the period of Belgian imperialism at over ten million.

Patrice Lumumba was the Congo's first and last democratically-elected prime minister in the late 1950's. As Fidel Castro had done, Lumumba sought recognition from western democracies. They turned their backs on him. He was the first black person to speak at a UN assembly and spoke accusingly and critically of the Belgian imperialists. His speeches about a strong and united Africa were becoming too popular as far as western capitalists were concerned. He was caged like an animal and tortured to death.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 September 2006 07:21 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anybody see the interview of Pervez Musharraf? Did he ever make some interesting statements, especially regarding Karzai. Flat out, he has said that Karzai is denying the reality of the situation within afghanistan (as he put it 'Warlordism') to gain (or just keep) additional foriegn support going. Heh, as the US has proven quite well, gaining popular support at home and proper military tactics tend to be at the other sides of the spectrum.

The statement that stood out to me from Musharraf was when he said the reality that Karzai denies... The 'fact' that he has a 1.5-2 million Pashtun uprising currently within Afghanistan (Wiki on Pashtun). The deaths referred to within this thread are Pashtun's apparently. I guess they're the newest enemies of Afghanistan (or Taliban, whatever same thing). I'm curious though, does the Taliban draw a good deal of support from this group, or are they kinda the third party involved in the invasion?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 September 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Karzai sounded a little like Bush especially when he said last week if we don't see this to the end, then the terrorists will be able to strike anywhere at a time and place of their own choosing.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 27 September 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

There's no such thing as an 'Islamic fascist', because that would mean they are 'Islamic people who believe in the marriage of the corporation and the state', which is nonsensical.

There are intolerant, violent extremists in the Islamist movement, but they are not fascists. Painting them as such is just a rhetorical tool to simplify things for the non-reflective who don't really 'get' stuff.

Personally, I find the use of the 'Islamic fascist' label as a good way to identify people who don't know what they are actually talking about.


I must disagree that there are no Islamic Fascists. Saudi Arabia is the best example and indeed is a brutal marriage of Islamic fundamentalism and corporate control.

The Taliban of course does not fit the criteria.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 27 September 2006 09:49 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

The statement that stood out to me from Musharraf was when he said the reality that Karzai denies... The 'fact' that he has a 1.5-2 million Pashtun uprising currently within Afghanistan (Wiki on Pashtun)... I'm curious though, does the Taliban draw a good deal of support from this group, or are they kinda the third party involved in the invasion?

I believe the Taliban are primarily ethnic Pashtun. (But not all Pashtun are Taliban).

I guess what Musharraf is saying is that painting the conflict as the pro-Western Karazi government vs. Islamist Taliban is not accurate (and probably also NATO propaganda, for that matter).

There appears to be a broader ethnic rivalry that has no doubt been exacerbated by the corrupt and thuggish way Karazi and his supporters (i.e. the Northern Alliance warlords) have conducted business.

The fact that most NATO-inflicted casualities are also Pashtun is probably also feeding the Pashtun insurgency Musharraf describes.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 28 September 2006 07:46 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There appears to be a broader ethnic rivalry

It doesn't appear to be overtly ethnicly driven... It's warlordism instead. It would make sense that all people under a certain warlord were the same ethnicity, but I couldn't verify such a statement.

On the Afghan side, theres the nearly 2 million Pashtuns... On the Pakistan side, theres 4 million. The 'Pashtun uprising' Musharraf is referring to would have more numbers behind it from Pakistan (and this is the group thats coming over the border and into Afghanistan).

Western media puts the blame fully on Pakistan and Musharraf for the soldiers jumping the border into Afghanistan to fight as 'enemies of Afghanistan' (no clue if thats Taliban anymore). Musharraf is releasing his statements to combat the 'Western perception', saying that Karzai is denying the reality there (and deflecting blame to Pakistan)... It is Karzai's actions that is causing the 'Pashtun Uprising' making it exceedingly difficult for Pakistan to control that border. Musharraf is attempting to set the record straight on above.

Musharraf's book might be worthy of it's own thread as well... Though he could be just blatantly using his position to promote book sales, he seems more motivated by combatting the Western Media portrayal of Pakistan and Afghanistan than by money (my read).

In Musharraf's interview he grilled the interviewer for silly lopsided questions too... And they were horribly lopsided too, it really displayed how biased our media and reporters are. In the interview of a few major muslim leaders by Western Media (Ahmadinejad is the best example), the interviewers all took a couple cheap shots at the person they were interviewing (Anderson Cooper did the Ahmadinejad interview, they are talking about the holocaust and semi-abruptly Cooper switched the subject. Ahmadinejad asked if Cooper was done with that subject and Cooper replied that he was running out of time and needed to ask the next question. Ahmadinajad asked if Cooper was just reading the questions he was being told to ask or conducting an interview. Cooper replied 'Hey atleast our media is free unlike Iran' and went on. )


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 29 September 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More from Musharraf:
Source is CNN, but whateve ^^
quote:
Musharraf said Pakistan had been trying to separate the Taliban into moderates and extremists, and to co-opt the moderates into helping to identify the militants.

"The most dangerous possibility for us is that the Taliban gets converted into an ethnic people's movement," he said Friday. "We cannot let the moderates drift to the extremists. That would be a disaster."

Musharraf criticized Karzai this week for ignoring a "popular uprising" among Afghanistan's majority Pashtun ethnic group, which includes members of the Taliban militia.

He suggested that Pashtuns were feeling disenfranchised by the U.S.-backed Afghan government, which replaced the toppled Taliban regime, and felt victimized by the anti-Taliban military campaign in Afghanistan.

Pakistan's government, he said, has invested heavily in the reconstruction of tribal regions to prevent such a drift.

Musharraf declined to comment on a report by human rights watchdog Amnesty International, which accused Pakistan's government of illegally detaining innocent people on suspicion of terrorism, secretly imprisoning them and transferring them to U.S. custody for money.



From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca