Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Mullah's death leaves Kandahar exposed

OMAR EL AKKAD AND GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:14 PM EDT 13/10/07

Tribal strongman was a key buffer between Taliban territory in the north and Canadian-guarded south ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Afghanistan is run by tribal thugs and religious nutbars. This is how people there have had it for hundreds of years. Period.
  2. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Sounds like this guy had a lot of 'pull' and influence. If his death means Canucks will have to be spread thinner...it sucks.
  3. Bland Blonde from Blue Bend, Canada writes:

    Doesn't sound like these guys want Canada's troops to leave quite yet.

    Hmm...

    They must be Bush-Harper puppets or something like that.

    I'm gonna call Coderre and find out the real truth about these guys.
  4. siren call from Canada writes: I wonder if there are any rules for speeding up a shura and the process of picking leaders.

    (Bland Blonde from Blue Bend, give it a rest. The entire world isn't consumed with simple steve's fate. There are more pressing problems on the agenda.)
  5. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Bush/Cheney are gone two months before this mission ends. Their influence will decline next year as the U.S. goes into campaign mode and then post-election, realizes they have a domestic economic mess.

    The justification test for Canada to be in Afghanistan is two-fold:

    1 - Is it an humanitarian mission?

    2. - Do the forces acting upon the Afghan people require armed intervention?

    Forget the imposed democracy B.S. - it doesn't work.
  6. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: So a tribal leader dies and there is a power vacuum that threatens security in the region. So what are our troops doing there again? Oh right, they've totally got things under control.... yikes!
  7. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Larry Robinson:-- Do you think that Pamela Wallin et al can answer these questions to everyone's/anyone's satisfaction?
  8. Trish Taylor from Canada writes: diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Larry Robinson:-- Do you think that Pamela Wallin et al can answer these questions to everyone's/anyone's satisfaction? I'm sitting here with my morning coffee before I head out for a run and I read this comment. Snide shot at the committee AND at Wallin. Pamela Wallin is not the entire committee and I wouldn't be so quick to write her contribution off just yet nor that of the committee. I think if this committee was struck by Dion, the attitude towards it would be entirely different by some of the pollsters on this board. The parliamentarians in the HoC have not yet been able to agree on a unified policy and I welcome some independent study by a mixed group of people. Whether THESE people can bring some clarity to the situation remains to be seen but partisan bickering in the House that panders to their electorate isn't getting us anywhere. I would rather see people on a committee who's jobs don't depend on getting elected. I respected Manley when he was in government even though I never noted FOR his party and I would suspect that Manley takes this role rather seriously and is not interested in sucking up to Stephen Harper. I at least give the Liberal John Manley that much credit. I would like to see what this committee can bring forth.
  9. Trish Taylor from Canada writes: Actually, I take back that one part. I DID vote for Manley's party once during that time. Held my nose and voted because Harper was too unknown. I was one of those.

    Back to the article. Interesting to note that this large district has been trying to keep themselves OUT of Taliban control and that they require our assistance to do this. Very simple observation. It has often disturbed me to read those on here suggesting we should just get out and leave them to their fate. While I have my concerns about how the mission is being handled overall from my armchair quarterback perspective, I remain convinced that we have a job to do in Afghanistan and we are not done yet.
  10. David Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Our' government is intervening militarily in a foreign civil war it does not understand, in order to appear pallsy with one of the world's most dangerous and frightening bullies -- against our wishes.

    Here is the problem of democracy. Not there.
  11. Trish Taylor from Canada writes: Diane Marie: My comment was a bit harsh in your direction and it's pricking my conscience. I could have expressed myself without resorting to that and I apologize.
  12. love power while lesser men love their country from Canada writes: siren call from Canada writes: I wonder if there are any rules for speeding up a shura and the process of picking leaders.

    (Bland Blonde from Blue Bend, give it a rest. The entire world isn't consumed with simple steve's fate. There are more pressing problems on the agenda.)
    Posted 13/10/07 at 2:14 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    Like Canadian troops being used as bait to allow British , German and American special forces to kill scumbags and collaterals without invading Pakistan ?
  13. love power while lesser men love their country from Canada writes: David Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Our' government is intervening militarily in a foreign civil war it does not understand, in order to appear pallsy with one of the world's most dangerous and frightening bullies -- against our wishes.

    Here is the problem of democracy. Not there.
    Posted 13/10/07 at 9:09 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    You are pretty clever for a taronta libby eastern canadian trudeau lover fresh from stealing real canadian (non ontario) money .

    You are also to young to remember chinese trains and russian /chinese ships being given free passes to supply the killers of our troops .

    Shrub and his boot lickers were not involved in that little scam either .
  14. Nick B. from Canada writes: Larry Robinson - the answer to both of your questions: "YES".
  15. love power while lesser men love their country from Canada writes: Ultra Right Conservatives are either too stupid to know the story of death but a thounsand cuts or do not care because it is not their cannon fodder .

    Either drop the gloves and fight or get off the pot .
  16. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: HOW many MPs have children and grandchildren in Afghanistan ? I forget.
  17. .... Neocynic from Canada writes: More irrelevant reportage from the G&M's devotee of NATO press tent donuts and coffee. Mullah Naqib was a major backer of the Taliban before they were overthrown, and seeing which way the wind was blowing, aligned himself and his Stinger-equipped 3,000 fighters with brokering various ad hoc deals with Karzei for cash, and lots of it. Now that he is gone, and Karzei is on his knees as President of Kabul (at least during daylight hours), Naqib's former followers will now take this opportunity to see which way the wind is blowing, and that wind is blowing mightily strongly to rather than from Kabul.
  18. .... Neocynic from Canada writes: Between scarfing yet more NATO donuts and slurping Tim Horton coffee over NATO press releases, Smith may do us all a favor and tell us what the local ramifications are of the largest anti-Taliban military operation in the region since 2003, with Pakistani forces killing more than 600 mostly civillians (who else) in North Waziristan. This op was spurred by US intelligence reports of massive Taliban formations poised to re-enter the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, Paktika, Gardez and Ghazni, and then Kabul. In light of these looming developments, I look forward to another report from Afghanistan detailing the favorite pet tricks of Khandhar camels (what's in those humps anyway?).
  19. globe Insider from GTA, Canada writes: Mr. Justice, have you eaten all your baby pablum this morning?

    Now go pee, wash your hands, and then go for a little snooze.
    You are really sickening.

  20. Western Canadian from West of Winnipeg, Canada writes: Another example that things in Afghanistan are not as rosy as we are told to believe by Stephen Harper and his propaganda machine.
  21. love power while lesser men love their country from Canada writes: globe Insider from GTA, Canada writes: Mr. Justice, have you eaten all your baby pablum this morning?

    Now go pee, wash your hands, and then go for a little snooze.
    You are really sickening.

    Posted 13/10/07 at 11:20 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    I went to the bathroom , washed , had a twenty minute snooze and dreamed of the Canadian Council of CEO's buying all that military eqipment $40 - $60 billion to protect their childern over there .

    I woke up sick and ashamed of my previously unpatriotic posts .
    Thank You Mr. Justice , I shall work on right thinking .
  22. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Western Canadian from West of Winnipeg, Canada writes: Another example that things in Afghanistan are not as rosy as we are told to believe

    No, its is another example of the complexity of the mission.

    As for how "rosy", over 50% of Canadians do not listen to the truth and want our soldiers out, even though it is our and NATO soldiers who maintain the overwhelming force with is keeping over half the Pastun leaders in the south supporting thier fellow Pastun leader in the national Presidency.

    Kudos to neocynic, you seem to have a better then average grasp of the internal political considerations in Southern border regions.
  23. OZZY RULES THE WORLD! from Canada writes: They had this guy on the propaganda box a few weeks ago calling us chickens if we leave. Well sir we are not chicken, just not interested in a oil war any longer. Its too bad anyone has to die but if he didn't help them at first they (Taliban) may not be as strong as they are now.
  24. .... Neocynic from Canada writes: A good Canadian from Canada:

    Believe it or not, the Afghan Embassy posted a rebuttal of one of my posts on its website. LOL!
  25. Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: After reading most of the comments I see the shallowness in their thoughts. How can they win any battle, when they have no vision to
    see others with an open mind. They have failed to comprehend their
    own values and remain hollow like empty reeds.
  26. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Careful, Neocynic! Don't let recognition blunt your cutting insights. :)
  27. John Rowell from Nelson, B.C., Canada writes: I don't understand why this is a one-man show. Didn't he groom any successors? Aren't his troops still there?
  28. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, the criteria for judging the judging the validity of a foreign military intervention are hard to apply. The one's you've proposed sound reasonable, but open to all kinds of interpretation and abuse.

    1. Is it a humanitarian mission?

    Almost any military intervention (with good intent or bad) can claim a humanitarian aspect. Sometimes nations will invade another for nothing more than political and economic reasons, while claiming that they had to intervene to "protect" civilians. For example, this was how it played out in Bosnia. Yugoslavian Serbs claimed that they had to intervene in Bosnia to protect Bosnian Serbs... such a lovely, humanitarian gesture. But what they actually did was ethnically cleanse areas of Bosnia. Even the Nazis claimed humanitarian aspects to their ransacking of Europe and Russia.

    2. Is armed intervention required to protect the citizens of the foreign land?

    Again, any nation that wished could claim this as justification for an invasion. All that's required is some existing violence on the foreign soil, et voila! you can say that armed intervention is needed to protect people. And if the violence isn't already happening, you can help things along by fomenting it yourself. That little trick has been used repeatedly throughout history.

    The criteria you propose are well-meaning, but subject to political manipulation. This isn't hypothetical: it's been done many times.

    If you haven't already done so, may I suggest you have a look at "The Duty To Protect." This study by eminent jurists, diplomats and scholars was sponsored by Canada some years ago as a response to the genocide in Rwanda and other humanitarian disasters. In short, it concluded that there is but ONE CASE where unilateral armed intervention by foreign nations is legitimate and justified: the overwhelming disaster of genocide/ethnic cleansing.
  29. Bohemian Grove Club Member from Canada writes: A sad day for all freedom loving Afghians, and a blow to everything our soldiers are fighting for. May he live on for his long fight for the people of Afghanistan and be remembered as someone willing to do what is right in the face of death at the hands of the Taliban. Someone I, as a Canadian, respect more then every single lefty here with more convictions about what his people need then any of us.
  30. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: globe Insider Chickenhawk: . . . Consider posting a substantive comment. COWARD.
  31. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaUSA, Canada writes: I guess there is a difference between Shura and Sharia/Sharia being in Ontario.
  32. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Actually, while this story is significant, I would like some opinions from religious scholars on the meaning of this:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00218/Openletterfrom_M218459a.pdf

    Written by 130 Muslim scholars and sent around the world a few days ago, I think this should be getting a lot more coverage.
  33. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaUSA, Canada writes: Neocynic: You have a good memory! I applaud your posts!
  34. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaUSA, Canada writes: Lovepower: Are you on the extreme opposite site of extreme right. Does that make you an extreme leftist pinko? I am sorry if I offended you. You label and I hope you can accept your label.
  35. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: While my knowledge of Islamic treatises, etc. is moderate at best, does this not appear do be Da'wa based on the hadiths regarding relations with the kuffar? Fascinating 29-page pdf documents issued by the Islamic scholars. Recommended reading for anyone interested in the topic of Islamic-Christian (infidels, including atheists and agnostics) relations.
  36. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaUSA, Canada writes: Rahim: Your platitudes sound like a rote: It doesn't say anything meaningful or decisive about the article.
  37. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Would not the departure of Canadian forces further threaten the supporters of Mullah Naqib? The whole point of having Western forces in the region is to deny the Taliban a stable geographic base of operations. The death of Mullah Naqib should strengthen our resolve to clear that land of Taliban elements.
  38. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: New York Times confirms Israel struck a Syrian nuclear porject:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
  39. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: And what about those Haitians trying to escape that lawless murderous country who couldn't even get an interview for refugee status?

    Weren't there cries for help from there long before the US decided to invade Afghanistan?

    Did they not want democracy and civility? A life without the fear of random murders or rapes?

    Instead we are trying to impose western standards on a country where our ideals are not and never will be accepted. No matter how much it costs us.

    When Osama left, so should have we.

    This has become one very costly and deceptive mission that will change nothing in that country and will benefit nobody. Here or there. Except maybe the corrupt government and the war lords.
  40. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: This has become one very costly and deceptive mission that will change nothing in that country and will benefit nobody. Here or there. Except maybe the corrupt government and the war lords.

    ----

    How much would another 911 cost? A resurgent Taliban would be in nobody's interest. Freedom ain't free. Just think how your (our) civil liberties could potentially be rolled back if another 911 type event occurred. My mind shudders at the thought of another 911 and if it means denying these barbarians ground in Afghniastan to prevent it, then I support the mission.
  41. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Michael, you mean Al Quaida don't you?

    They're spread out across the globe. The Taliban? Their interest is Afghanistan.

    We're in Canada. The Taliban has neither the air force nor the navy to invade us.

    Give up the 'here or there' argument. It's both stale and invalid.

    Besides, isn't this a 'rebuilding' mission? Or does that reason only apply for the one of the many other excuses for being there since Osama left?
  42. Kathleen Degelder from TacomaUSA, Canada writes: Michael Jahonnsen: I concur with you. There were 12 Canadian citizens killed amongst the total of 3,000. Then there is the 7/7 in London. It is not military strategic to cut and run.---If we do cut and run then that would mean noone travels anywhere and we would just close all borders and sit at home. That would mean labour and jobs lost on a massive scale--of which would cause a depression unlike ever witnessed since the 1930's.
  43. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Neocynic from Canada writes:

    Believe it or not, the Afghan Embassy posted a rebuttal of one of my posts on its website. LOL!
    --------------------------------------
    Hey, I never said you were right, just better than average. ;)
  44. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Wow Kathleen, I never realized that invading Afghanistan saved the world.

    Then again I never knew that Hussein had WMD's until GWB told us.

    Good thing we have such military wizards.
  45. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Michael, you mean Al Quaida don't you?

    They're spread out across the globe. The Taliban? Their interest is Afghanistan.

    We're in Canada. The Taliban has neither the air force nor the navy to invade us.

    Give up the 'here or there' argument. It's both stale and invalid.

    Besides, isn't this a 'rebuilding' mission? Or does that reason only apply for the one of the many other excuses for being there since Osama left?

    ------

    In case you missed 911, they trained in Afghanistan and flew our own airplanes. So, yes, inasuch as the Taliban and al Qaeda are symbiotic organisms, it is a here or there argument. They must be deprived of real estate. Rebuilding, in my mind, is a secondary argument to appease those who have no idea what a miltary strategy is or can not stomach the idea of us protecting our interests. And, right now, our primary interest is keeping Afghanistan as barbarian free as possible. If we happen to hand out a lollipop to an Afghan and consequently make a hippie happy, then that is good also.

    I never said invade. They could, given their bases back, launch terrorist attacks. As they have done before.
  46. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Wow Kathleen, I never realized that invading Afghanistan saved the world.

    Then again I never knew that Hussein had WMD's until GWB told us.

    Good thing we have such military wizards.

    -----

    How do you know Saddam did not ship his WMDs to Syria. I do know that Saddam used gas on the Kurds. That is a fact. And speaking of Syria, did Israel just knock out one of their nuclear projects....
  47. Mike Bush from Toronto, Canada writes: What's scary is that Afghanistan shows that NATO is not dependable as an ally. If Canada ever got invaded (Russian planes are probing Canada's arctic) or got into a civil war or insurgency (how many terrorists have snuck into the country?), Canada would not get any help from NATO, except from the Dutch and a few British (for a couple years before they pull out).
    And the anti-American Canadian majority would certainly not ask the Americans for help, because that would be enormous hypocrisy (all the arguments that pertain to not helping Afghanistan would pertain to not helping Canada). Besides the US would probably like to see a few million anti-American socialist Canadians get killed.
    If the Canadian military can't handle a few thousand roving illiterates in an Afghan province the size of Nova Scotia, how could we defend Canada? Would the socialists even fight? (Jack Layton? Stephane Dion?) Probably not. The end is nigh.
  48. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Nice try Michael, but your bleating out stale propaganda. Yes Al Quaida trained there, as they did in the US where the learned to fly those massive 'bombs' into the WTC's and Washington. They also train in many other parts of the world, but I don't see NATO following them anywhere else and starting battles. I have noticed one thing though, Al Quaida did follow the US into Iraq which makes me think that the best target in their eyes is the US government and the fact that they can't keep their nose out of any body's business. As for bases, why can't they have them elsewhere in the world? Like Somalia where they have a good presence and have been training there for some time now. In case you haven't noticed, most of the US government's enemies are form allies they helped build up to be the military problems that now plague them. Also don't give me that crap about helping the Afghan's, since our own military leaders stationed in A-stan and commanding our troops have said themselves that most areas don't welcome or want NATO's help or presence. As for Iraq and them 'shipping out the WMD's to Syria, don't you think that Saddam would have used them on the US rather than take another loss and probable capture during their invasion? You're playing a fear monger and using very weak explanations for defending your beliefs.
  49. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Mike Bush, ????

    What the h3ll was that?

    That was about as inane as you can get.

    Is George your uncle?

    Canada and the US would readily defend the North American continent together. Whether it be the US being 'invaded' or Canada. Regardless of governing parties.

    The odds of a military attack on us is slim to none. Terrorist attacks can and do occur from anywhere. Ever hear of Timothy McVey?
  50. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: You're playing a fear monger and using very weak explanations for defending your beliefs.

    ----

    Sorry, that is Gore's role. LOL. And it sounds like you just made the made one of the best argument for staying in Iraq: fighting al Qaeda there. That is what Bush has been saying, isn't it? As far as Afghanistan, NATO must stay to prevent al Qaeda reconstituting. NATO would also be in Pakistan, but Musharraf is at least trying. You should pray every day that Pakistan has Musharraf.
  51. Western Canadian from West of Winnipeg, Canada writes: Conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have small chance of success as long as the West tries to solve them by military force. US should learn a lesson or two from its Vietnam fiasco. But GWB had never served in Vietnam and it is unlikely that he was an ardent history student. Despite lack of tropical jungles of the South East Asia in Iraq and Afghanistan the pacification of Iraq and Afghanistan is far from completion

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top