Afghanistan insurgency surges

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Maysie Maysie's picture

Hey! Jingles and Fidel! Back off the personal insults.

From Jingles: increasingly delusional , increasingly incoherent jibberjabbering

From Fidel: What lunatic parallel universe have you come from?, you moran, and get a clue

Jeebus.

 

Fidel

Thanks Maysie,

What we have are a couple of babblers who have tried to suggest to us that the Taliban are identical to Vietnamese freedom fighters of yesteryear.

Don't dare ask them why the Taliban are running around murdering landlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan who don't support them or refuse to pay them protection money.

Don't ask them to explain how the NVA might have been similarly trained in terrorism and religious fundamentalism by way of US and Saudi funded madrassas, because I think they would be hard pressed.

The NVA and VC were volunteers. They weren't paid to fight. They didn't traffick in drugs with the cooperation of the American CIA. Drugs were the CIA's  business in the Golden triangle as it is today in Afghanistan and partnering with the same drug barons they've propped up since the 1980s.

And surely don't ask them if NVA/VC ran around burying women alive for wearing nail polish and offending the diktats of a religious fundamentalism that US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds says is still being funded to the tune of billions of dollars every year in those countries.

But what I resent is being told by the same two babblers as always that this is all off topic by some kangaroo rules they've made up on the fly. Leave it to these people to start a conflict in a thread about a long-running conflict still being fueled by the CIA and their ISI partners in Pakistan. And, as usual, it's all the NDP's fault. We can't mention the NDP either for they will fly off the handle with a barrage of the usually rabid anti-NDP rhetoric. And I think I can say for sure that other babblers are tired of the flinging of bullshit by the same anti-NDP bullshit artists as usual. We'd be fine if it was just the same rabid anti-NDP rhetoric as usual - we can deal with the non-facts and smelly bullshit handily. But then they have to double-up the bullshit with personal attacks. And I think that is a window of opportunity for moderators to intervene.

Thanks Maysie

Unionist

[moved forward to try to get away from thread drift]

Unionist

Britain withstood Nazi V2 rockets attacking its population centres - but it's being defeated by home-made mines thousands of km from home:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8695585.stm]British army's top bomb disposal expert quits[/url]

Quote:

The BBC understands from army sources that Colonel Bob Seddon, of the Royal Logistic Corps, quit over fears bomb disposal training could be compromised.

There has been pressure on the Army to produce more bomb-disposal experts quickly as a result of the threat of roadside bombs in Afghanistan.[...]

In an interview with the BBC's Panorama, Col Seddon, who held the post of principal ammunition technical officer, said he was concerned about the impact on his team of a shortage of soldiers trained to defuse homemade explosives.

He also said he is also worried about the length of tours and the lack of rest for his elite unit.

He was interviewed for the programme - which is due to be broadcast later - by Christina Schmid, the widow of Staff Sergeant Oz Schmid, who was killed in Afghanistan in October 2009.

Col Seddon, who won a Queen's Commendation for Bravery in Iraq in 2006, said: "I'm very concerned that in the longer term that some of my people who have done phenomenally difficult and dangerous work in Afghanistan may pay a deeper psychological price for the work that they've conducted."

He said measures are in place to bring in more explosives experts but it takes at least six years to fully train a specialist operator, meaning the pressure on existing units is not easily abated.

Fidel

Pfff! I wonder who taught them how to make anti-personnel devices and car bombs since the 1980s?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Pfff! I wonder who taught them how to make anti-personnel devices and car bombs since the 1980s?

Pfff! Someone, I forget who, once said: "Capitalism creates its own gravediggers." The U.S.-Canada-NATO invaders create more and more gravediggers every day. But one thing for sure: the homemade "blow their ass off" device is definitely a local product.

 

Fidel

I really do wish that this thing would end soon for Afghans' sake. I don't believe it will though.

NDPP

Faster Troop Pullout Urged by UK

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/22/afghanistan-britain-ministers-v...

"The visit comes after Fox told the London Times newspaper he would like the forces to come back home as soon as possible. 'We are not a global policeman. We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy of a broken 13th century country"

Afghan Nato Base Comes Under Attack

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/05/2010522164950107673.html

"The attack is a huge blow for NATO.."

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

So what have the insurgents gained at the end of the day?

Attack prevents ministers' visit to NATO base:

Claire Sweeney wrote:

Cabinet ministers were forced to abandon their plans to visit Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan after the massive Nato base came under rocket attack from the Taleban.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7134217.ece

NDPP

Suicide Bomber Can Hardly Be Called a Coward

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1183948.html

"...It was definitely self-deceiving jingoism that led some Canadian editors to denounce the suicide bomber in this instance as a 'coward'. You can label him a 'fanatic' or an 'extremist' but to drive a vehicle into an oncoming convoy of enemy soldiers with the intent of blowing yourself up and taking as many of them with you as possible takes an incredible amount of courage by any martial definition.."

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

How do you believe the insurgents are [sic] wining, how do you decide who is losing or winning?

Results of Kandahar offensive may affect future U.S. moves:

Karen DeYoung wrote:

The Obama administration's campaign to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's second-largest city is a go-for-broke move that even its authors are unsure will succeed.

The bet is that the Kandahar operation, backed by thousands of U.S. troops and billions of dollars, will break the mystique and morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war and validate the administration's Afghanistan strategy.

There is no Plan B.

... Public descriptions of the balance between the offensive's military and civilian aspects have fluctuated in response to Afghan sensibilities in a region that is arguably more hostile to foreign intervention and the government in Kabul than to the Taliban.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR201005...

Why We Can't Win in Afghanistan by Charles V. Pena:

http://original.antiwar.com/pena/2010/05/23/why-we-cant-win-in-afghanistan/

Hey Webgear, have you seen or heard of the powerpoint flow chart that's in the article?

Fidel

[url=Afghans">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/25/afghans-b... Believe US is Funding Taliban[/url] "The US has an interest in prolonging the conflict"

by Daniella Peled

Quote:
Intellectuals and respected Afghan professionals are convinced the West is prolonging the conflict to maintain influence in the region.

It's near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan who doesn't believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it's the highly educated Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media organisations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced. [...]

The proof is manifold, they say (although it does tend to include the phrase guaranteed to dismay every journalist: "everybody knows that …").

Among the things everybody knows are that Afghan national army troops report taking over Taliban bases to find identical rations and weapons to their own US-supplied equipment. The US funds the madrasas both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which produce the young Talibs. US army helicopters regularly deliver supplies behind Taliban lines. The aid organisations are nothing more than intelligence-collecting agencies, going into regions the army cannot easily reach to obtain facts on the ground. Even the humblest midwife-training project is a spying outfit.

One political scientist, who works as an advisor to US agencies in the north of the country, recounts how people fear the continuing influence of the warlords, illustrating his point with descriptions of violence and corruption that extends into the realms of banking, government and trade.

Afghans hate these warlords, he says, but the US wants them kept in place. "If they were removed, and competent and clean people brought in, we would bring in revenues of our own. We could have our own economy, and demand foreign investment with transparency. We would have a true army, to protect us and serve Afghanistan."

And without a transparent Loya Jirga mediated by neutral interests, what else can Afghans be thinking about this long and drawn out conflict? Afghans continue to be kept in the dark as is the rest of the world. This is a phony war. This is a deniable war. This is an illegal war with no end in sight and without any clear purpose for at least one of the combatant nations leading the illegal military occupation of Afghanistan.

Jingles

You're right, Fidel. After the "fighting", the Taliban and NATO soldiers larf it up at our expense over coffee at the Timmy's. They're all in it together, and the "insurgency" is just a nudge nudge wink wink affair to keep all us dupes confused.

Or...perhaps the resistance actually knows what they're doing better than some western liberal apologists. Mayhaps the resistance is getting all those

Quote:
identical rations and weapons to their own US-supplied equipment.
because they're smart enough to let the stupid [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-jones/meet-the-afghan-army-is-i_b_2928... continue to give it to them.

Quote:
 When I was teaching in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2006, I knew men who repeatedly went through ANA training to get the promised Kalashnikov and the pay. Then they went home for a while and often returned some weeks later to enlist again under a different name.

But you have the answer the Afghan people are looking for:

Quote:
And without a transparent Loya Jirga mediated by neutral interests

Sure. a neutral interest. I hear Gordon Brown is looking for a new job. Or maybe Halak. He couldn't stop Philly, but maybe he can stop the war.

Fidel

Jingles wrote:

You're right, Fidel. After the "fighting", the Taliban and NATO soldiers larf it up at our expense over coffee at the Timmy's. They're all in it together, and the "insurgency" is just a nudge nudge wink wink affair to keep all us dupes confused.

Or...perhaps the resistance actually knows what they're doing better than some western liberal apologists. Mayhaps the resistance is getting all those

Quote:
identical rations and weapons to their own US-supplied equipment.
because they're smart enough to let the stupid [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-jones/meet-the-afghan-army-is-i_b_2928... continue to give it to them.

You sound like Zbigniew Brzezinski's twin brother. Maybe it's time to go to Afghanistan and tell them, as Zbigniew did, that their fight is a good fight, and that Allah is proud of them for providing colder warriors with a legitimate enemy now that the Sovs are no more. Shareholders in military-industrial capitalism might even want to kiss you for giving Afghans such a pep rally to continue to good fight, and the holy war for kick-back and graft and wholesale corruption of a desperately poor country if only for the sake of a handful few corporatists. Allah is great! And Mammon is greater, you might want to tell them.

Quote:
Let me repeat that: The Clinton administration, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, created the Taliban…” Rep. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

Quote:
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/06/eveningnews/main5367884.shtml]"It seemed like a great idea, back in the '80s to-- embolden-- and train and equip-- Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support-- this group-- including, at that time, Bin Laden,[/url]... defeated the Soviet Union. Drove them out of Afghanistan, eventually. - Hillary Clinton to Couric, CBS News

Quote:
MCDERMOTT: It certainly is an improvement for the women of Afghanistan. [url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/10/cf.00.html]But you've got to remember that of American policy, we put the Taliban there. We gave the money to the..[/url] 

CARLSON: I beg your pardon?

MCDERMOTT: ... Pakistanis.

CARLSON: You're breaking news here, Congressman. I don't think this has ever been reported before in the United States. -- Dem. Congressman Jim McDermott, CNN Crossfire, 2002

Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

This war is being orchestrated by the US CIA and Pakistani ISI who have controlled the Taliban from the start. It's a phony war, and desperately poor people are caught in the middle as it usually is with US-orchestrated wars on democracy.

Jingles

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. That the US funded and supported the Mujahedeen? No shit, sherlock. Way to scoop 'em, Ace.

I'm guessing that it is your contention that the resistance to the Crusader armies is a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. You seem to argue that the people of Afghanistan are not capable of defending themselves, or are too childlike to understand the forces at play. Worse than that is that you seem to believe that the actions of Afghan resistance can only be understood in a western context: i.e. they do not have their own culture or motivations outside of how we perceive them, and only if they act in ways that accomodate our worldview. Hence your deep desire for some sort of peace talks supervised, of course, by responsible, civilized people.

Please, post more links on how the US supports criminal groups. I'm sure everyone will be shocked! Shocked!

Anyway:

Quote:
A large explosion has rocked the city of Kandahar in southern [url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/05/201052682429305825.html]A... injuring two people and destroying several vehicles in front of a building used by Nato forces....

Shafiq Afzali, the Kandahar police chief, said that the blast was in a parking lot used by Afghans visiting Camp Nathan Smith - a base that houses hundreds of US and Canadian soldiers and government employees.

"Aww jeez Gord, dey gaht de drivetru at de Timmys, wa?!"

 

Fidel

Jingles wrote:

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. That the US funded and supported the Mujahedeen? No shit, sherlock. Way to scoop 'em, Ace.

I'm guessing that it is your contention that the resistance to the Crusader armies is a fraud, a hoax, and a lie.

Well I can certainly understand your point of view from a western world, white liberal person's perspective - that Afghans are fighting a noble war for freedom and to rid their country of fascist invaders. It's "VietNam all over again." And as far as you can tell from a quick comparison, this is a carbon copy of the US war in South East Asia. And sometimes history does repeat itself, no doubt about.

But that's not entirely the case with the CIA-ISI-Saudi radicalization and Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan since the 1980s and 90s. And there are similarities, don't get me wrong. The US and Brits did pave the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, and US Military did escalate the war into Cambodia and committed cross-border war crimes as is happening today in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the NVA and VC were real enemies of the US-CIA and Military then. The Taliban foot soldiers today really are shooting at US and Canadian soldiers. But the Taliban higher chain of command is without a doubt controlled by the American CIA and Pakistani army intelligence agencies. As Daniella Peled says, everyone knows it. Everyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is. And these phony enemies love this war, too. They are becoming rich with arms dealing and drug traficking as are the CIA's other fundamentalist friends in Kabul, the remnants of the Mujahideen in Karzai's government. Malalai Joya refers to the Northern Alliance warlords in power and their Taliban rivals as "brothers in creed" They are the same in more ways than one.

But your notion of what's happening there isn't the way the people interviewed by journalist Daniella Peled see things. And those people are Afghans. Some are highly educated. Some of the people she's talked to are employed by USAID and ISAF. But I think what's important is that they are Afghans telling the world what they think about the conflict and US Military occupation of their country and life there in general.

And in addition to this we have US Congress men and women admitting that the Taliban is a US-Pakistani creation as were the Mujahideen before them. The CIA propped up the most vicious drug barons and war lords, and they chose the people they did mostly because the ruthless fundamentalists had no popular support base among the Afghan people in the 1980s and 90s or today. The CIA and ISI knew that because of this, those war lords and drug lords could more easily be controlled by the CIA and ISI and Saudi financiers. Without money and weapons they were nothing.

Another similarity between the US military interventions/invasions of VietNam and Afghanistan are that the CIA and their CIA-friendly newz agencies said that the communists had no political support bases in VietNam or Laos. That was a lie. They said that the Afghan communists had no support base in Afghanistan, and that was a lie. And they are saying today that their hand-picked puppet Hamid Karzai enjoys wide support among Afghans. Well that's a lie, too. In fact, we've been lied to for over 30 years about Afghanistan and Pakistan, and as it was with VietNam and Cambodia, Laos etc. Seeing through the vale of lies for the left hasn't been easy we  must admit.

Thanks for your most astute and well researched comments on the matter, Jingles. And I think that at some point you should consider what some of the people involved actually have to say about recent and current history of their own country. We could learn a lot about Afghanistan from Afghans themselves and people from that region of the world in general. Tariq Ali's is another pertinent voice on the left. And there are more.

NDPP

Afghanistan - A Saga of Lopsided Death and Destruction

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Afghanistan-War---A-Saga-by-Abdul-Maj...

"Afghanistan provided Western forces a theatre for an impressive and flashy demonstration of its military might with no hindrance and virtually no fear of retaliation. US and NATO waged a deliberately disproportionate attack on a country that had zero capability to defend itself...."

Afghanistan, Reading Between the Lines

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19365

"But the Canadians are very much high-and-dry after their base in Kandahar came under heavy attack three times in the past weekend and as they solemnly hoist the flag-draped coffin of their unfortunate guest Colonel Paker aboard a jet for Canada..

To expect that they and the Karzai government will prevail is a fantasy which surely no one any longer believes.."

Fidel

[url=http://www.thenation.com/article/how-us-funds-taliban]How the US Funds the Taliban[/url] The Nation 2009

Quote:
What NCL Holdings is most notorious for in Kabul contracting circles, though, is the identity of its chief principal, Hamed Wardak. He is the young American son of Afghanistan's current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was a leader of the mujahedeen against the Soviets. Hamed Wardak has plunged into business as well as policy. He was raised and schooled in the United States, graduating as valedictorian from Georgetown University in 1997. He earned a Rhodes scholarship and interned at the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. That internship was to play an important role in his life, for it was at AEI that he forged alliances with some of the premier figures in American conservative foreign policy circles, such as the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Wardak incorporated NCL in the United States early in 2007, although the firm may have operated in Afghanistan before then. It made sense to set up shop in Washington, because of Wardak's connections there. On NCL's advisory board, for example, is Milton Bearden, a well-known former CIA officer. Bearden is an important voice on Afghanistan issues; in October he was a witness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Senator John Kerry, the chair, introduced him as "a legendary former CIA case officer and a clearheaded thinker and writer." It is not every defense contracting company that has such an influential adviser...

So we have former "freedom fighters" who fought the Sovs, working hand in glove with "former" CIA officials, and arm-in-arm with their their Taliban friends who the CIA-ISI created in the first place. And they're all gettin' rich by dealing weapons, drug running, and ripping off US and Canadian taxpayers to keep this bogus war going.

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html]U.S. Rep. Ron Paul[/url] wrote in 2001:

Quote:
Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world's single largest donor to Afghanistan. Rest assured the money went straight to the Taliban, and not to the impoverished, starving residents that make up most of the population.

It's a bullshit war.

Caissa

A group of MPs visiting Afghanistan has left the door open for an agreement in Parliament to keep some Canadian troops in the country after the current mission ends next summer.

At the end of their five-day visit, members of the parliamentary committee on the Afghan mission said that they were surprised at the level of success the Canadians have had militarily, as well as in terms of development.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/03/mps-afghanistan-military-2011.html#ixzz0poJuM1Xn

Frmrsldr

Thanks Caissa.

It says "At the end of their five-day visit, members of the parliamentary committee on the Afghan mission said that they were surprised at the level of success the Canadians have had militarily, as well as in terms of development."

Yet no demonstrable evidence of this 'success' is given.

... Rae said. "The door is open to serious discussion in Canada - and between Canada and NATO - about what the future [in Afghanistan] looks like."

NATO is like the French Foreign Legion: it is an army of international mercenaries. Naturally the recommendation will be continued training of the Afghan National Army and Police. Canada SHOULD NOT have discussions with NATO over Afghanistan's future.

I hate to point this out, but it looks like the NDP is caving in from its 2006 OUT NOW stance:

"NDP defence critic Jack Harris said a post-2011 role for Canad is in the works, but suggested a military presence was not the only option on the table."

Why is the continued military presence option on the table in the first place? By this point in time, it SHOULD NOT be there.

"A parliamentary motion passed March 13, 2008, calls for Canada to "end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011" and for all forces to have left by the following December."

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper subsequently said that the vast majority of troops would be out of Afghanistan,..."

What part of "ALL forces" does Harper not understand?

Slumberjack

Caissa wrote:
A group of MPs visiting Afghanistan has left the door open for an agreement in Parliament to keep some Canadian troops in the country after the current mission ends next summer. At the end of their five-day visit, members of the parliamentary committee on the Afghan mission said that they were surprised at the level of success the Canadians have had militarily, as well as in terms of development. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/03/mps-afghanistan-military-2011.html#ixzz0poJuM1Xn 

From the same article:

Quote:
NDP defence critic Jack Harris said a post-2011 role for Canada is in the works, but suggested a military presence was not the only option on the table.

"All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan," he said.

"Whether that involves military or not is another question indeed. There are lots of other ways that we can help build institutions."

The NDP proposes colonialism-lite as it's answer to the Afghanistan quagmire.

Frmrsldr

What the hell's the matter with our MPs? They just couldn't leave the Afghan issue alone. They just couldn't let military disengagement by the end of 2011 to quietly happen.

Aw hell, what am I thinking? Canada isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy. The arms (and oil and mining and resources, etc.) industry finances, puts governments in power and controls them. That is who our governments work for. So I guess this most recent development is no surprise.

Slumberjack

It isn't just the current governing regime Frmrsldr.  And no, it comes as no surprise at all, as I've mentioned the perfidy of the NDP position on Afghanistan several times over the past few years.

Frmrsldr

Yeah, I know. The NDP wants to get its snout in the trough when it comes to military contracts and consequently jobs for workers and soldier workers. Take the announcement of the Cons spending $35 billion for expanding Canada's navy.

ETA

A mataphorical psychological explanation for this bs, perhaps?

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2010/06/03/doubling-down-in-afgha...

Croghan27

Frmrsldr wrote:

Yeah, I know. The NDP wants to get its snout in the trough when it comes to military contracts and consequently jobs for workers and soldier workers. Take the announcement of the Cons spending $35 billion for expanding Canada's navy.

ETA

A mataphorical psychological explanation for this bs, perhaps?

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2010/06/03/doubling-down-in-afgha...

 

Easy now - that is somewhat over $100 billion --- this is the third time they have announced it, by my count. $35b X 3.  (Oh - not a weld in place yet, but that is not what it important). The memory of the press is short.

Polunatic2

Kandahar Airfield hit by rocket attack - Small number in military injured Thursday night

Quote:
 ISAF said a small number were wounded after a rocket was fired at the base Thursday night. Most of the most injuries were minor and the wounded were receiving medical treatment.

It is against ISAF's policy to report on the nationalities and number of those injured in rocket attacks. The Canadian military also does not release information on whether Canadians were injured in rocket attacks.

Canadians would probably be aghast if the injury reports were made public.

Webgear

 

Why would they be aghast? The general population of the country never really seemed to care about the number of wounded and killed over the last few years. Why would they start now?

Just us political/military/blogger types care.

Polunatic2

Perhaps "aghast" is an overstatement but if I'm not mistaken WG, the majority in Canada would like to see the troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. The problem is that most are not willing to do anything about it. 

Quote:
 "All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan," he (Harris) said... Whether that involves military or not is another question indeed. 

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is a vicious circle. The entire mission has been for naught. Buying into this meme only plays into the hands of the hawks who argue that for every Cdn soldier killed, another two need to be sent to Afghanistan to avenge their deaths or the mission will have been "for naught". It is the formula for perpetual war (despite what Harper has been saying to the contrary). 

I would like to see the NDP support the call from Afghan MP Malalai Joya for a complete, immediate withdrawal of EVERY LAST invading soldier, no matter what their "role" in Afghanistan. 

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Just us political/military/blogger types care.

If you care about the number of wounded, consider demanding that your CF colleagues disclose this information to the Canadian people.

Or perhaps revealing that number could endanger the lives of our men and women in uniform?

The Taliban are so f***in' clever and devious, we can't really afford to release any information at all, can we?

 

NDPP

Harper Remains Firm On 2011 Deadline For Afghan Military Mission

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-rema...

"Bob Rae can say whatever he wants but Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't listening. He said today Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.."

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Typical rocket used by the Taliban

 

Here is the most common rocket fired by the Taliban... it's spin stabilized area fire weapon and losses accuracy the farther out you shoot it.

The reason behind the lack of information is more to not show the Taliban how effective their indirect fire aim is with those rockets than to hide the number of casualties from our counties populations. The rockets we are talking about are indirect area fire weapons which are not that accurate; especially the way the Taliban fire them. Their mortar fire isn't that much better due to a number of reasons I'm sure you don't want me to bore you with. What this all means is those firing the rockets can't see what they hit so they need another way to find out how effective their aim points are; so they use casualty reports provided no less by their target. (Kind'a smart if you ask me.)

So, yes, the Taliban are clever enough to use casualties' reports to adjust their aim points for those rockets. I'd imagine it kind of goes like this: we shoot at these area coordinates and we don't hear about many real casualties... we shoot at these area coordinates and we hear 10 guys got hurt so there must be something there; let's keep firing there.

I'm not for us being in Afghanistan (with our regular armies), it's a waste, but I'm also not up for helping the Taliban neither.  

 

Slumberjack

In this situation, it would be considered treasonous to provide information on the number of casualties and the locations where they occurred.  In essense, it would amount to being a forward artillery observer for the insurgent rocket teams.

Polunatic2

I will acknowledge that this explanation does make some sense.

Here's a solution. If we were to withdraw our troops, there would be no further casualties to report. 

Fidel

Jeez, I think the Taliban may or may not expect that our vicious toadies in Ottawa are honourable lackeys and lap dogs who keep their word and could possibly withdraw Canadian troops in 2011. And there are all kinds of examples where Canada's party in power have kept their word in various matters, most of the time. Newly elected governments in Ottawa have even gone above and beyond all expectations of Canadians and done things that were never even promised tduring election campaigns, our old line parties are that good.

 But I'd bet the Taliban don't care all that much seeing as US troops will still be there occupying their country, dropping weapons caches and supplies to the Taliban as usual. It's a bullshit war, and what ordinary Afghans need after 30 year's worth of foreign meddling in their country are transparent UN-mediated peace talks. The phony conditions for a ceasefire for both sides need to be laid out in multiple languages, and phony conditions for troop withdrawals made clear to both sides as well as the people of Afghanistan. The principals in this phony war and their anti-democratic agendas need to be revealed to Afghans and the world.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

 But I'd bet the Taliban don't care all that much seeing as US troops will still be there occupying their country, dropping weapons caches and supplies to the Taliban as usual.

You really need to get this vital information around. Maybe a twitter account? Maybe an audience with the Secretary-General of the U.N.? or is he in on it too?

 

Slumberjack

Naw, he's been assigned another gig.  Running plutonium concealed in designer diplomatic pouches between Dimona and Pyongyang.

Unionist

Laughing

Who's supplying whom? Ah, the mysteries of life.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 But I'd bet the Taliban don't care all that much seeing as US troops will still be there occupying their country, dropping weapons caches and supplies to the Taliban as usual.

You really need to get this vital information around. Maybe a twitter account? Maybe an audience with the Secretary-General of the U.N.? or is he in on it too?

Unionist knows better than Afghans themselves, we can be sure. Unionist, would you be willing to travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and tell them they are wrong about the US aiding and abetting the Taliban to keep this phony war going? And you could take Slumber-J with you. Apparently SJ wants to inform Afghans of the way it is in their country as well. How wrong the brown people have have been according to our in-house experts on all things Afghan.

[url=http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=12365091581... of Peace[/url] 2009

Quote:
The UN, Pakistan and several Western countries have signaled support for peace talks with the Taliban to restore stability to the war-ravaged country.

Yes, apparently some in the UN are for transparent and accountable peace talks to end this phony war. Did we mention that Jack Layton supports UN mediated peace talks? Now there is a real leader who understands international diplomacy and that Ottawa has an obligation to use diplomatic channels, and to work hard toward peace. Meanwhile our stooges continue following orders from Uncle Sam. Stooge-o-rama in Bananadian Republic as usual.

Unionist

Jack Layton had better stay out of Afghanistan. There are no cheering garland-throwing crowds awaiting his "solution" to their problems. He should be careful when strolling on country roads, too.

What is it about condescending, paternalistic, racist, colonial aggression, occupation, and murder "for their own good" that is so hard to understand for an otherwise progressive person?

 

Webgear

Unionist wrote:

If you care about the number of wounded, consider demanding that your CF colleagues disclose this information to the Canadian people.

Or perhaps revealing that number could endanger the lives of our men and women in uniform?

The Taliban are so f***in' clever and devious, we can't really afford to release any information at all, can we?

I know the number of wounded soldiers, I believe we should release the numbers.

Bec.De.Corbin and Slumberjack makes good release for not releasing the numbers pre incident however a bi-monthly or monthly report should be released

Not that most Canadians would care to know the numbers.

We never released the numbers while on Peacekeeping missions so I do not see why the large urge to now.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Jack Layton had better stay out of Afghanistan.

Right! This is between Uncle Sam, his puppet in Kabul, the dope dealing CIA, Wali, and all their brothers in creed, the drug trafficking, weapons dealing Taliban leadership becoming wealthy and powerful by this phony war. Even the Taliban must be chiming in with the warfiteers, Four more wars!

By this reasoning,  the conflict in 1930s Spain was between Franco's fascists and the Republican coalition only, and everyone else should have just let it happen.

 

Unionist wrote:
What is it about condescending, paternalistic, racist, colonial aggression, occupation, and murder "for their own good" that is so hard to understand for an otherwise progressive person?

Your disdain for Afghans and what they understand to be true of past and current events in their own country is on full display. So what do you believe, really? Is this a real war with honest to goodness armies of darkness and luminoso duking it out to the finish for control of Afghanistan? The Yanks have been embroiled in that country for over 30 years already! Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Jingles

Quote:
The rockets we are talking about are indirect area fire weapons which are not that accurate;

Like the old joke says "who's we, Kimosabe?"

I wish the resistance every success in driving out the Crusader, using whatever method works. Like Plutonic2 says, "If we were to withdraw our troops, there would be no further casualties to report." 

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Apparently SJ wants to inform Afghans of the way it is in their country as well. How wrong the brown people have have been according to our in-house experts on all things Afghan.

They didn't listen the first time around, and I'm too easily discouraged to make a return trip.

Jingles

Not to worry, Slumby. Fidel and Taliban Jack will show them the way. 

Slumberjack

Jingles wrote:
Not to worry, Slumby. Fidel and Taliban Jack will show them the way. 

That of course being a standard 101 of military indoctrination. No one is irreplaceable so long as reinforcements make themselves available. And for Fidel and TJ, there's an added bonus, as we often refer to ourselves as comrades....in arms mind you.

Fidel

So from now on if anyone wants to know what Afghans think and have to say about a phony colder war on that side of the world, google it. And digest what burdensome white-male babblers have to say with a large grain of salt. Wink

Slumberjack

Webgear wrote:
Not that most Canadians would care to know the numbers.

Sure they do.  All that capital being flushed into nothingness is bound to cause a stir eventually.  Then you'll see.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
So from now on if anyone wants to know what Afghans think and have to say about a phony colder war on that side of the world, google it. And digest what burdensome white-male babblers have to say with a large grain of salt. Wink 

That'd be swell.  Thanks.

Jingles

I know I shouldn't....but...

what's you point?

Fidel

Jingles wrote:
Not to worry, Slumby. Fidel and Taliban Jack will show them the way.

Let's see, there were:

1950's: Cuban Campesinos vs US-backed fascistas

1970s: NVA and VC vs US Military and Khmer Rouge(US Military was actually outnumbered in VietNam wrt on the ground numbers of troops)

1980s: Sandinistas vs US-backed Condoms, er Contras

Afghan PDPA vs  US-backed "freedom fighters", some of who are Karzai's puppet government today

2000s: Today we have a few thousand "former" US proxies, the Taliban versus US-led NATO forces outnumbering the Taliban by tens of thousands of troops, as well as the Pak Army far outnumbering the Taliban in that country

Can anyone say phony war? 

Pages

Topic locked