Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Foreign agents behind spate of Afghan killings: UN

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 10:36 AM EST 15/05/08

Official says he is aware of at least three recent secret raids that have killed civilians ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. A good Canadian from Canada writes: 'Killing civilians'?

    Oh, you mean the IED facilitator or the Taliban commanders who do not have a distiquishing uniform who are caught in thier homes in the middle of the night. Those same people whom after intensive secruity and intellegence screening fit the pages of criteria for Afghan security forces to go capture and put into prison. If they are killed, then that means they were attempting to fight back.

    These 'civilians' are the same persons who build the bombs that kill Canadian and NATO soldiers, and multitudes of innocent Afghan civilians.
  2. A good Canadian from Canada writes: 'foriegn agents' Oh, how dramatic. Just proves how ignorant UN officials can be.
  3. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: They're called 'death squads' in South America, and they rely for cover on people like A good Canadian, who don't know what they're talking about, but automatically assume that 'our guys' can do no wrong--at least as long as it's someone else's relatives getting the chop in the middle of the night.
  4. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Civilians beware. There is a war going on. You know the consequences. Behave yourselves and get out of the way.
  5. Chris W from Toronto, Canada writes: Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

    No law, no free speech, no free religion, no accountability and no responsiblity- all in a foreign land ruled by a former employee of Unocal. [It has been alleged that Unocal aided the Taliban power grab in the mid-90's.] That said, the term 'death squads' is the most fair and accurate one that can describe this sort of despicable behaviour.

    Now, move along. Nothing to see here.
  6. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Assasination, like torture, is part and parcel of the US war on terrorism , which Canada has allied itself with in Afghnaistan. I think hiring hit men is more effective, and no more immoral than using misiles, drones and bombs to assasinate , I guess the UN disagrees?.The moral cowardace of justifyig our actions because the 'other side' is bad , has accompanied warring armies throughout history .
  7. nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada writes: takes one to know one i guess.
  8. Richard Soley from writes: Who is the un official? Why are these reports by unnamed officials without proof, or cause filed as 'news'? Sounds like schoolyard rumour mongering. If there is a story it's in the lack of information that can make the newspaper!
  9. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: Wait....so people die in wars?

    No way!
  10. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    This reminds me of the U.S. Vietnam War era Hearts and Minds Campaign. Intended to win popular support machine-gunning innocents proved counterproductive.
  11. Paul Bowler from Canberra, Australia writes: I think the situation reported by the UN official is called 'black ops' by the various 'security services' around the world, using 'special forces' to conduct them. ('In the event that any of your men are captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of this operation. This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, Mr Phelps!') The Americans, British and Australians certainly have and use them - I don't believe that the Canadians don't have them! And I'll wager that the government of Mr Karzai is using them!!
  12. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    TROOPS OUT NOW!
  13. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'll wager that Mr Karzai has absolutely zero say in any operation conducted by the US, Canadian or British forces. I'll also wager that those same forces don't trust the ANA any further than they can spit. I'll also wager that they just want Hammy to go on being our quiet little Quisling puppet while he's allowed to run his drug empire under our protection.
  14. J Law from Canada writes: That article by a reporter said no more than some of the wild accusations I see on the comment page. No facts, not proof, just an accusation spewed out on paper.
  15. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Are we supporting death squads again?
  16. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Joe Canada, Thanks for the link to the story about the suicide bombing. What's interesting in this is that the bombing was in Herat, which had been relatively stable. The Taliban said that the target was a Police commander and four Police were killed.

    As for 'Hanoi G&M is publishing speculation and unfounded accusations', the source is United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Professor Philip Alston from New York University. He was invited by the Government of Afghanistan to produce a report about the situation there. He reports directly to the United Nations Human Rights Council. In his speech about the report he was actually fairly friendly to western efforts. You can read his speech here, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/
    LSGZ-7ENDJ3?OpenDocument
  17. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Robin Adams, you will win all those bets if anyone's foolish enough to take your wager. :)
  18. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Well actually, Robin, I see agc/Richard Soley/Joe Canada are here. You could stand to make a lot of money.
  19. jamie yavis from Canada writes: The uglier, real-side of war and occupation that is a little different than our politicians and generals accounts/fairy tale stories of chocolate bar gifters and school builders.

    It's time to accept that we are the bad guys! Or as bad as those we accuse, if only all the truths were known.
  20. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Richard Soley, perhaps you might read the story prior to composing all your questions next time.

    The UN spokesman is clearly identified in the second paragraph, and for those expressing dismay about reporting without a lot of actual proof to back claims up, I'm still waiting for one of the thousands of daily newspapers, who in 2003 ran banner headlines stating 'Mission accomplished' only days after the now five year old Iraq quagmire began, to step up and do the mea culpa.

    That aside, our tarnished record in Afghanistan as an agent for the US military, is only going to get worse unless these targeted assassinations by death squads are halted.
  21. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: At the end of the day, does it really matter if its the ANA, the CIA, the SAS or even the Canadian army killing civilians extra-judiciously? Canadian support for this whole enterprise makes us just as guilty as the hit teams cruising around the Afghan countryside. Now some posters are wondering why having government sponsored hit teams is bad... well, for one thing it runs against about thousand years of the Western struggles for human rights and democracy for starters. Another good reason might be that the need to engage in extra judicial killings seems to give proof to the lie that we are there to build a decent pluralistic civil society. Another reason one might be concerned is that it signals the total collapse of any attempt at 'winning' the public mind. Or in other words population control through terrorism. So some posters are arguing that they are 'guilty'.... ok, I'll bite. Guilty of what? I'd say that if you intend to violate the laws of our land to execute civilians then the burden of proof falls pretty heavily on the perpetrator. Clearly our government supports this mission and this now apparently includes the assasination of civilians... So if these individuals crimes are so egregious that they deserved to be capped in the middle of the night perhaps you should tell us why. We might even agree with you. On the other hand... if you can't tell us why then I'd have to suspect that they are being murdered on suspicion of some crime. If that's the case and its now ok in Harper's mind to kill suspects we have a problem since anyone can be a suspect and the hit teams may be used in other areas outside of Afghanistan...
  22. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Lies and propaganda, of course. You can never trust the UN to tell it like it is. So even though this special UN investigator found evidence of foreign death squads murdering innocent Afghan civilians, it's obviously all a pile of garbage. And presumably this same penchant for lies and propaganda extends to the whole military occupation of Afghanistan that the UN authorized.

    -------

    By the way, the G&M just published a story on how Canada's spies in Afghanistan work without any rules. It's available in the Afghanistan section. The lead sentence goes like this:

    'Canada's spies working in Afghanistan are doing so without a rulebook, the watchdog that reviews CSIS's operations says.'

    Put the two stories together, and what does that tell you?
  23. Dominik B from Canada writes: Richard. It tells nothing other then thet parameters should be set soonest to protect our agents. This article, accurate or not, leaves too much to speculation. More details would be welcomed.
  24. Random Observer from GTA, Canada writes: Paul Bowler - There was a news article recently 'Former commando's tell-all book in question'. It mentioned that JTF2 (Canadian special Ops) was conducting operation in A-tan even before Sept 11, 2001.

    Richard Roskell agree with you regarding rules for spies. Spies should not be deciding policy for the country. To use Paul Bowler's analogy, there is line from Mission Impossible about Mr. Phelps commenting on - how dare the President decide to make a decision without input from spies.

    Canada already has enough Politician to make that mistake.
  25. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: dominik, I agree, more details would be very welcome. However, I wonder if we're not reading two different articles. The one here in the G&M does not refer to 'protecting' Canada's spies in Afghanistan, although one must assume that safety of Canadian personnel would be considered.

    Here's a quote from the Auditor-General's report which gives an indication of its nature:

    'The Service should now be well-positioned to develop a suitable policy framework to guide future [CENSORED] activities in this theatre. I do believe that those who serve in this environment deserve to be equipped with the policy framework to guide their work.'

    I surely don't need to point out that [CENSORED] activities is hardly going to be about safety programs for Canada's spies.
  26. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Richard Soley - dude, either you didn't read the story or your short-term memory is shot. The name of the official is in the story - UN special rapporteur Philip Alston.

    BTW Richard, did you know that about 1/2 the innocent civilians killed in A'stan are by NATO/US forces? That's 50% by another measure.

    About these civilians killed in secret raids, We should see Joe Canada here shortly, blaming the Afghan civilians for getting killed. Whoops! He was already here trying to deflect the story..... too late.

    Perhaps Joe Canada would like to explain why Canada is propping up a corrupt Islamic government run by druglords and warlords, where women STILL have to wear Burkas when they go out in public for fear of retribution.
    Perhaps he'd like to explain why government officials in Kabul are building giant mansions, coincidentally similar to the mansions of various drug lords, and why Canada is supporting these people.

    (sound of crickets)

    Oh, yes, that's right! It's all lefty nonsense, no need to refer to any reports of NGO's, human rights organizations, or careful studies. They all must be wrong, since they contradict the official doctrine of the War on Terror, or is it the playbook of Oceana?
  27. p b from Canada writes: Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    TROOPS OUT NOW!

    And so, what would you prefer?
    TALIBAN IN NOW?
  28. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Byron, about half the REPORTED civilians killed in Afghanistan are due to NATO/US military operations. I don't believe for a minute that we hear about all of them; I believe that many go unreported.

    In addition, there is a strong motivation for NATO and Afghan security forces to blame their own killings on the Taliban. Who, after all, is going to investigate what NATO says? You know the drill: black ops visit in the night, Afghans are executed, blame the deaths on the Taliban.

    Another way that the civilian deaths are disguised is when Afghan police and other corrupt officials have their own little vendettas. They protect their drug business or whatever by killing off the competition. Then those deaths are blamed on the Taliban.

    Dollars to donuts, the civilian deaths attributed to the Taliban are over-estimated and the civilian deaths attributed to Canada, the U.S. and NATO are under-estimated.
  29. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:

    This is just more of the same in Iraq there were the British SAS car bombers in Basra, I believe that the British imported this nastuy trick after perfecting it Northern Ireland.

    Canadians in Afghanistan hanging out with USA and British forces are in very bad company, they should be brought home pronto.

    Screw the heirs of the turd Reich!
  30. Dominik B from Canada writes: Richard. No we read the same article. Without a set framework, some initiatives, or consequences of initiatives, by agents might fall in a gray area that can see them prosecuted/charged. This is unfair if Canada sent them in an operational environment without proper parameters for that theatre. Hence, the guideline protects the agents as long as they operate within those parameters. That's what:'I do believe that those who serve in this environment deserve to be equipped with the policy framework to guide their work.' is all about. Furthermore, as long as the guidelines don't handcuff agents, I believe it protects them as much as the afghan civilians (if we were to link the two stories).
  31. sherry smith from Canada writes: Death Squads are an accepted institution of the CIA and various agencies including Blackwater and other private contract killers. I agree with the person above who suggested a hit man for taking out a target who is proven to have done something wrong rather than the shock and awe and murder/slaughter of 100's of thousands of innocent civilians, and the pollution of the Tigris/Euphrates and surrounding land. Yes, the Yanks can always put on a show, including the Mai Lai slaughter in Vietnam, death squads in South and Central America, etc, etc, etc. There are a lot of great people in the U.S. just not the ones who are in power right now. Karzai squeeks once in a while about the injustice of these incidents by the U.S. but his little speeches are probably written by someone in the Bush Admin. who is snickering in the background. I can't tell you just how incensed I am by our Government getting us involved with this obscene, disgusting, agenda of the U.S. Government. Everyone in Canada is less safe and looked upon with more hate everyday because of it.
  32. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: -
    Wake-up call! Have any of you armchair warriors taken the time to find useful information regarding ''night vision gear'' which is being stolen and-or sold to the enemy in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

    Have any of you found time to look into this matter where it is widely reported in mainstream U.S. media that a few dozen contractors-enterprises have been fined for selling such ''night gear vision'' to the enemy....

    THINK THINK THINK What about our brave troops in Afghanistan who go out on night missions and faced the enemy who is supplied with ''night vision gear''....

    Good day.

    -
  33. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: Regardless of who is doing it... CACI, Blackwater, SAS, US Special Ops, JTF, ANA... we're either 'working with', 'protecting' or 'engaging in' extra-judicial murder. No matter how you spin it, under Canadian law, even in the most gracious case, your still complicit in the crime.

    OK, OK... its a war zone. Yeah I got it. But even in war there are still rules. The Canadian Constitution that we all live under didn't suddenly evaporate and the military is also bound by it. The NDA actually puts a higher burden on military personnel than civilians, espeacially in a war theatre. Hence the use of mercs and shadowy organizations to do 'dirty work'. Invariably though, using any organization that operates outside any system of justice runs against argument that you would use in a democratic society to convince people to support the campaign in the first place. Allowing any shadowy organization to make up their own rules of engagement will ultimately undermine the 'justice system' of the country in which they ooperate, and our own.
  34. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: About these civilians killed in secret raids, We should see Joe Canada here shortly, blaming the Afghan civilians for getting killed. Whoops! He was already here trying to deflect the story..... too late.

    Perhaps Joe Canada would like to explain why Canada is propping up a corrupt Islamic government run by druglords and warlords, where women STILL have to wear Burkas when they go out in public for fear of retribution.
    Perhaps he'd like to explain why government officials in Kabul are building giant mansions, coincidentally similar to the mansions of various drug lords, and why Canada is supporting these people.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lesser of 2 evils perhaps? We constantly here from Canadians that we in Canada voted for a political party we dislike the least.

    Did Chretien invade A-stan with the intention of 'propping up a corrupt Islamic gov't'? Or perhaps it was to oust an even worse group.

    East meets West, is the wearing of a Burka the standard for Islamic society...yes. Would your average Afghany women prefer to wear a Burka on her way to school and to work, or would she prefer to wear a Burka locked in her cage while being savagely beaten?

    Yes, we never see Governments in any other society or country building large government facilities, parliaments and official residences as a representation of a successful country, government and society.

    There, easily done. You must try harder Byron, not sure why you hate the citizens of Afghanistan so much, its very un-Canadian of you. And by the way, I must have missed all your references to NGO's, aid groups, human rights organizations and careful studies of which you speak.

    (crickets) Oh yes, thats right, it's just the righty war-mongering mentality.
  35. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: OT - I see that Palestinians are commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, where up to 750,000 lost their homes in various cities and villages.

    No story in the globe....

    You'd think it would at least merit a mention.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/15/aspalestiniansmark60thanniversary_of
  36. John E7 from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: My precious Canada has devolved into thuggery.
    Why not use death squads to take out the drug lords? Or would that leave any Afghan government?
    I'll wager that NATO has killed more civilians than the evil Taliban ever did before we arrived! Who are we saving - with all the spinning I have forgotten?
  37. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...they are obviously counting the NATO forces among the 'foreigners'......
  38. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: OT - I see that Palestinians are commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, where up to 750,000 lost their homes in various cities and villages.

    No story in the globe....

    You'd think it would at least merit a mention.

    ----------

    Yes, they should write an article that in 1948 all the Arab states simultaneously attacked Israel and tried to wipe the Jews out and failed. And the Arabs told the 'Palestinians' to move and get out of the way so they could wipe out the Jews. And I am sure you are concerned about the 750K-800K Jews who were tossed out of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other Arab nations when Israel came into existence? No?

    But, hey, you get an 'A ' for revisionist history.
  39. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Joe C - why on earth would you conclude that I hate the Afghan citizens? Because I don't like the fact we're supporting a corrupt and ineffective government?

    Very, very strange (or nonexistent) logic on your part, I'm afraid.

    Here's a quote from Amnesty International for you 'Violence against women and girls in Afghanistan is pervasive; few women are exempt from the reality or threat of violence. Afghan women and girls live with the risk of; abduction and rape by armed individuals; forced marriage; being traded for settling disputes and debts; and face daily discrimination from all segments of society as well as by state officials' (2005)

    Joe, that's UNDER the government we are dying for. Open your eyes, after first taking your head out of the sand ;).

    I think you misread the info about mansions, Joe. Here is what is going on: druglords are building large PERSONAL mansions with their drug money; Afghan government officials are also building large PERSONAL mansions, in which they live.

    These are not government buildings. Please do not attempt to confuse the two. Only a fool would do that.

    You seem to have a marginal grasp of logic, certainly marginal intellectual integrity, which likely explains your bizarre tin-foil-hat style conclusions.

    Get some help.

    ps I see that your earlier troll posts were removed. Very appropriate.
  40. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: My mistake, JC's smear of 'Hanoi G&M' is still there. I must've missed it.
  41. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Joe C - why on earth would you conclude that I hate the Afghan citizens? Because I don't like the fact we're supporting a corrupt and ineffective government?

    -----------

    And, despite its deficiencies which are vast, it is a government that is vastly superior than its alternative. You do understand that the number one reason we are there is to ensure that an AQ-infested land does not coalesce to attack Western targets again? Withdraw now and I can guarantee we (the West) would have to return again in the near future.
  42. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Hans Ulster - I believe that is a non sequitur, since Al Qaeda has long since moved to Iraq and remains deeply entrenched within Pakistan, immune from prosecution (thanks to Dictator Musharref).

    Actually, Al Qaeda is making somewhat of a comeback, and likely will do so as long as foreign troops are occupying these territories. The US State department has recently reported ' a corresponding rise in the number of people killed, wounded or kidnapped by terrorists last year in Afghanistan. It says that Al Qaeda has rebuilt to some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities in Pakistan's remote tribal areas.'

    Hans, there is also fairly reliable info that the US is offering clandestine support to Sunni militant groups, some with close ties to Al Qaeda, in Iraq. Much as it has in the past, the US seems to be feeding both sides of the conflict simultaneously, whether deliberate or not.

    A fair conclusion is that Western intervention since 1980 has greatly increased Islamic terror, not the opposite. The logical response would be to reverse the current policies which are inflaming the problem, not continue them.

    Don't you think?
  43. Wilf Young from BC, Canada writes: what the hell are our troups doing in Afghanistan they are supose to be peace keepers and as long as they dress like ,and live with the most hated country in the world they are are going to be treat the same as the Americans. All they doing there is trying to open a line so the Americans can run a pipe line through Afghanistan which the taliban would not let them have.We were never attack and neither was the States.Canada was a respected country all over the world I do believe they have now lost that respect. A lot of people blame Bush but hell he and Harper to are just mouth pieces.There is a country behind them that is the boss and tell them what to do. They can pass stupid laws like makeing Canada,Mexico and USA one country We sure as hell do not want that.And now the bill C51 the natural health foods and there is more to that bill than what they are telling us.. They are just as big of lears as is the government south of us.
  44. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Hans, in response to your claim that this current government is 'vastly superior', here is a quote from AI. ''Government security bodies committed human rights violations with impunity. There was little reform of judicial, law enforcement and security agencies. Women continued to face violence. Human rights defenders, including women, were targeted and killed. It became increasingly dangerous to speak out against human rights abuses and for justice'

    The evidence is far from conclusive. Don't forget that the Karzai gov controls only about 30% of the country, with tribal warlords the majority.

    Look at reports from NGO's and you'll see that there is a lack of basic security for most citizens, with rampant crime (rape, abduction, murder) and other horrendous problems.

    This is after almost SEVEN years of our 'help' and 'improvements'. I'm not claiming that there's an easy solution, far from it. But considering that much of the country is now a war zone, with attacks from both insurgents and NATO and US forces on civilians, and the economy of the entire country is pretty much reliant on opium, it's really, really hard to wave the cheerleader pom-poms and claim that life is so much better.

    We're fooling ourselves if we think so, IMHO.
  45. Bubbles McBubbles from Trawna, Canada writes: Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: 'And, despite its deficiencies which are vast, it is a government that is vastly superior than its alternative.'

    Superior in what respect? Bribery and opium production?
  46. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Dominik B., those are reasonable comments and I see where you're coming from. However, who is going to charge a Canadian spy operating in Afghanistan, even if he does venture into improper conduct? It's a non-issue because no Canadian spy is going to be prosecuted there. The Canadian government insists that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't apply to Canadian personnel acting in Afghanistan, anyway. The only way a Canadian spy could be prosecuted is under Afghan law, which obviously isn't going to happen, or under humanitarian law at the International Criminal Court. And that's not going to happen, either.

    Your concern is for Canadian spies getting caught committing a crime in Afghanistan. My concern is for the victims of the crime.
  47. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: Word of mouth is not evidence.
  48. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Kathleen - Alston reported that 'They had told him figures for civilian casualties caused by troops were 'either not available in Afghanistan ... or that they are secret and cannot be provided to me.'

    He was also told the outcomes of investigations into soldiers suspected of unlawful killings were not tracked in Afghanistan, so it was hard to know if anyone was held accountable.'

    We can't hold it against him if he is denied access to government information, can we? You may recall the debacle about secret CIA prisons, which were at first officially denied, after their existence was discovered.

    It was later confirmed that the reporting was indeed factual (it usually has to come from unnamed sources speaking unofficially). But I remember clearly that globe commenters ridiculed the initial reports as baloney.

    This has happened many times before, with similar outcomes: CIA and the Nicaraguan Contras; CIA and Bin Laden connection, etc....etc...

    You're one the wrong side of the truth again, Kathleen. This report is much more than mere speculation, it is a reasonably accurate account of reality in Afghanistan, whether you like it or not. Yes, we don't know exactly how many innocent civilians have died, that is also true. No thanks to the secrecy of military operations.
  49. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Who said they're 'innocent civilians'?

    Are they 'innocent civilians' like teachers or aid workers who the Taliban knock off for assisting Western rebuilding efforts?

    Do you special ops. go about knocking anybody simply to test their sights?

    This is the only effective way this mission can be carried out.

    Pure Gripe and Wail propaganda which I am in favour of because possibly the wacko liberals/Liberals will start believing it and force an election.
  50. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Ed Long - you'd make any fascist proud. Indeed, they're only innocent if our leaders say so, otherwise they must be guilty.

    Finish off your koolaid and run along...LOL
  51. Kathleen Degelder from WashingtonUsa, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiller: Who in their right mind would reveal secret CIA installations? After the bombing of the UN office in Iraq, the Un has no offices there now. CIA and Bin Laden? Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA. Usama bin Laden is a black sheep of the Saudi government. You are easily led by the 'misinformation war propaganda' Right now there is a $million dollar bounty for Osama bin Laden (Usama arabic spelling) requested by the USA. Or are you going to say Usama is innocent. After 9/11 with 24 Canadian casualties. It's just like you to say that Saddam Hussein never invaded Kuwaitt. Or that there was never a bombing in 1993 of the World Trade Center. Do research. France just charged 7 for association with Al-Qaeda affiliates. Or is it now Frances fault? Or what about the Islamic revolutionary in Iran, the instigator is now the President of Iran? What about Evin prison? A female Iranian photojournalist from Canada was murdered for taking a picture of the said prison. A male physcian who assessed her had to flee for fear of disagreeing with government. You have no idea . As for Tibet. It is difficult since the Chinese has offered to help with disarming North Korean nuclear facilities. You agree with Muzadi?
  52. matt mcnaughton from Canada writes: Afghanistan will be a frightening country to live in, especially for women, as long as fundamentalist Islam is the law of the land. We're not there to modernize and liberalize it - that's impossible. What we can do is prevent jihadist training camps from opening and operating with the support of the government, which is the reason NATO invaded and toppled the Taliban. That's all the West can reasonably accomplish and we should be happy to do even that. As to this story, and who was killed, and why - there's not enough information to justify the number of comments here.
  53. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Kathleen - have you been living under a rock? You deny that the CIA helped Bin Laden during the 1980's?

    Here's one quote for you inn the words of Robin Cooke , British Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001,

    ' Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians'

    There you go Kathleen, the British Foreign Secretary, not some misinformation as you claim.

    And you've completely missed the point about secrecy: of course the officials will deny the truth, that's why one doesn't get the information spoon-fed, but has to rely on other means, like eyewitness accounts, or leaks from the military.

    As I pointed out, several times in the past we have had stories leaked which have proven to be reasonably accurate, and I gave you several examples.

    But you seem more interested in discrediting the UN report than learning something. Oh well.
  54. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Matt McNaughton, you know not whereof you speak. It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate fundamentalist Islam from the nation of Afghanistan. Why? Because it's their form of Islam and because it's written into their Constitution. And the Afghan Constitution was created in 2004, under the watchful eyes of NATO and with the help of Western experts! Islam is not going to leave Afghanistan any time soon.

    Here is what the first three articles of the Afghan Constitution have to say:

    Article One

    Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

    Article Two

    The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.

    Article Three

    No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.
  55. matt mcnaughton from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, you are right. Islam is the law of the land in Afghanistan, and we helped write it. Were those watchful Western experts aware of exactly what Islamic law entails? As I say, there is no hope to reconstruct, modernize, pacify, or liberalize Afghanistan, at least not as long as jihad is written into their constitution. All we can do is occupy and try to keep a lid on the worst manifestations of that law. I didn't say that at first because I try not to pour all of my dreary conclusions into a single posting, but thanks for stimulating some further discussion.

    Anyone have ideas on how we're going to make peace in a country whose citizens are legally obligated to fight us?
  56. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: RE Foreign [Christian] agents behind spate of Afghan killings: UN

    Matt McNaughton asks: 'Anyone have ideas on how we're going to make peace in a country whose citizens are legally obligated to fight us? '

    How about: 'get the f#@k out and stop murdering the locals?'

    We are waging wars on another religion. Is this what Jesus wanted?
  57. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Turf wars in the Poppy/Opium/Heroin biz. Various intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic are raking in the cash
  58. matt mcnaughton from Canada writes: John Ishmael - how charming that the first response to my question is an obscenity from Brampton. Of course Jesus doesn't want his followers to fight other religions. That's why there are no Christians left in Afghanistan - they don't fight. However, not* being in Afghanistan is what got us attacked in the first place. As I said, they are legally obligated to fight us. It doesn't matter where we are. Do you have any ideas on how to *win? We already know how to lose.
  59. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: matt mcnaughton - to be precise, 'we' as in Canada, were not in Afghanistan, but 'we' as in the US was. The US set up the Islamic militants in the first place, gave them billions of dollars to fight the Soviets.

    We (the West) were there. We were on the side of the Islamic militants.

    Gotta pay attention to history.
  60. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Matt - just in case the irony was lost, the US took a secular government in Kabul and destroyed it to hurt the Soviets. It was replaced with an Islamic regime, which we helped install.
    Then we had to de-install that one, and try to reinstall the new, improved, but still Islamic government.

    Reminds me of doing multiple installs on my computer - sometimes the result is a big mess that can't be fixed.

    But computers are much more complicated than mere countries with 100's of ethnic tribes. I'm sure we'll get Afghanistan 'fixed' quicker than you can say 'Windows Vista Security Features are great except that it doesn't work as well as Windows XP'.

    Y'know, someone in the ME should freeze out our access to stop us screwing up the politics there. The glitches we've caused there are coming back here to haunt us.

    OK, enough with the computer analogy.
  61. matt mcnaughton from Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler, 'we' are in Afghanistan, because 'we' were attacked. The US is our closest friend and ally. NATO is an instrument of that alliance. Hence 'we'. Are you saying that we should not have supported the mujahideen against the Soviets? Should we have let the Soviets push through Pakistan to build a port on the Indian Ocean? Do we have to let Osama bin Laden do whatever he wants from now on, since we found him useful once? You are right, paying attention to history is vital. It's even better to understand it. Hey, this is OT, but we haven't heard an appeal from you to Hans Ulster yet on your 'A' grade in revisionist history regarding Israel.
  62. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Matt, should we have let the Soviets transform Afghanistan? That depends whether you believe what you're writing. If the goal was to modernize Afghanistan, give women equality, moderate the influence of Islamic extremists, improve health benefits for the population, bring in education... YES, that's exactly what should have happened.

    Socialism is superior at delivering those goals to a backward, agrarian society.
  63. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Sorry, Matt, I overlooked your question. Yes, the Western experts knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they assisted Afghans in defining their country as an Islamic nation.
  64. matt mcnaughton from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, I would argue that Afghanistan under a successful Soviet occupation would have ended the same as Chechnya, with a continued waging of jihad against the former Soviet occupiers. Socialism only brings the people good things as long as the state can continue to make the goods. Socialism itself corrodes that ability, as we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed. That would have left Afghanistan in the same parlous state it is in today.
  65. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: They're called 'death squads' in South America, and they rely for cover on people like A good Canadian, who don't know what they're talking about,

    ------------------------------------------
    One of us doesn't know what they are talking about. If you're in doubt who, then I'll just have to toss out the "I've been to Afghanistan, how 'bout you?" card.

    BTW, feel good about possibly calling other Canadian's "death squads"?
  66. Hugh Lawlor from New Botwood, Canada writes: "BTW, feel good about possibly calling other Canadian's "death squads"?"

    Of course it feels good to them, they only know what they read from the fringe and have no idea what made this country great (hint, it wasn't socialism, or losing wars to madmen).
  67. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: A good Canadian: I'm sorry, your "I've been there" credential is not the show-stopper you'd like it to be. This idiotic war has been going on too long and has cost too much for that credential to be worth much in a debate. If you military types are so smart and informed, why are things going so badly? After all, our current government has given you almost sole responsibility for our foreign policy in Afghanistan.

    Do you really think it a good strategy to have death squads running around, killing people in their homes in front of their families, in rural Afghanistan, given the history and culture of the country and its people? Have you learned nothing yet, read nothing? If you know so much, can you tell us whether you know the people who were killed, who killed them and why? If you don't, then maybe you don't know what you're talking about, as I said earlier.

    If you're all too ready to dismiss, without any evidence, a UN report that the raid by unknown Afghans and U.S. special forces killed people the Afghan government said had no connection to Taliban insurgents, then I suggest that you didn't learn much while you were "over there," and that you were--and still are--a willing pawn in a futile game--one that is guaranteed to turn against us the very people we are trying so hard to convert to our version of reality.

    Slogan-style thinking and stunted curiosity are unfortunately not uncommon in our democracy. The real problem begins when those traits become prevalent at the higher levels of authority--e.g., "killing scumbags" as a military strategy in pursuit of . . . what national policy?

    From the point of view of Canada's interests, the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan as it is currently being carried out is already a disaster, one that will continue to manifest as a slowly unfolding debacle--unless we begin to tell ourselves the truth. Death squads are not a hopeful development.
  68. Hugh Lawlor from New Botwood, Canada writes: Nick, conversely, how are you able to ascertain that things really are going so badly there? Believe it or not, as a Canadian you are being poorly served by the amount of info you're able to glean about what is really happening in Afghanistan.
  69. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Being there seldom makes someone an expert. In almost all cases it simply makes someone a tourist.
  70. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: matt mcnaughton - invading and occupying Afghanistan was not the only reasonable choice in dealing with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, the former US protege.

    But for what it's worth, you and I would disagree that it was the right thing to do to support those murderous Islamic thugs in the first place.
    We should never have stooped so low, but of course, 'we' didn't - the US did, then dragged us into the mess it created, while pretending to be the innocent victim. Bullsh%^t, I say.

    So you don't like socialism. That's too bad for you. It doesn't give you the right to destroy other societies because you don't agree with their system of organization. That's where you and I differ. I don't agree with murder and war as instruments of foreign policy, as tactics. They should only ever be as a final, last resort after all other options have been exhausted.

    If Canada were indeed attacked, then it has the right to defend itself. Does any country have the right to instigate civil wars in other countries, then claim innocence when it is attacked in retaliation? Hell no.

    Time to grow up and stop pretending that we're wearing the white hats, and admit we're just as devious and destructive as those we claim to be superior to. But we don't have that kind of honesty in our society, due to our great arrogance and narcissism. We really do think we own the world, and that we're better than the other societies (which have, incidentally been around a lot longer than Canada's).

    btw, now that we're in A'stan, we've got no exit strategy, do we? Some vague idea that, once we've established a utopia over there, we'll be able to leave. But we're not succeeding in our nation building concept, for a number of reasons. You can pretend we are, if it makes you feel better. I personally don't need the story to be sugar-coated - I want the truth, not some vacuous spin designed to console me. That's all.
  71. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Matt - two other things (must go to bed now) 1) You want to talk revisionism? You don't have the stones to get into a discussion of Israel, otherwise you would have already. Any time you want to look at the subject, issue by issue, I'll take you on.
    The only revisionism I've seen today between the two of us is you trying to whitewash the last 20 years of US bungling and cruel geopolitics which is directly responsible for the plight of Afghanistan.

    2) Ask the Americans about Bin Laden; how they let him slip away, very conveniently, or was it ineptly? Who knows? They screwed up - again. And again, when they invaded Iraq and turned it into a breeding ground for new terror tactics like IED's.
    And just who is Bin Laden's best friend in the whole wide world? Hmmm, the Saudis? I dunno, but the Saudis are very hot on funding Sunni militant groups with US approval right now...deja vu?
    The Pakistanis? Yes, the dictator Musharref, whose government received billions from the US over the last few years, while aiding and abetting both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

    Oh, yeah, our buddies the Americans have been doing a swell job of it, haven't they? Gee, they even forgot about Afghanistan for a few years as they rampaged in Iraq, and you're questioning MY criticisms?
    Matt, you just aren't paying attention, my boy.

    How many times does the US have to screw up til we say 'enough!'? Apparently you have an infinite faith in the wisdom of the White House, as you appear to go along with their grand plan for the world.
    Bravo for you.
  72. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Nick Wright - another salient point is that in a democracy we should be able to decide whether or not to go to war, and to remain at war, depending on the circumstances.
    It seems Canadians have lost control over the process, first during the hysteria after the 9-11 attacks, now as the leading parties keep us away from any kind of voting mechanism which could give us control.

    There is never any serious talk about a referendum, even though it would allow the country to ratify the mission extension. Nor is there a general election offered hinging on that topic.

    It seems we have freedom, but not much power, as citizens in this country in 2008.
  73. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: If you military types are so smart and informed, why are things going so badly?
    ---------------------
    Going badly? By whose account. On what grounds do you assume that it is going badly? Because it is taking a long time? Short memory forgets that Canadians soldiers were in Bosnia for 15 years, Cyprus for over 30. 6 years is a drop in a bucket when you are rebuilding a country.

    It is too bad you believe all the antiAfghan mission propaganda.
  74. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Do you really think it a good strategy to have death squads running around, killing people in their homes in front of their families, in rural Afghanistan, given the history and culture of the country and its people?
    --------------------------------------------
    Seemed to work very well for the Taliban. Don't want to dose them a taste of their own medicine?
  75. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: If you're all too ready to dismiss, without any evidence, a UN report that the raid by unknown Afghans and U.S. special forces killed people the Afghan government said had no connection to Taliban insurgents.
    --------------
    How do you know that report is credable? It is quoted in the article that the UN investigator was given this info by an "Afghan govt official". There would be a huge difference between that official being the Governor of a province or a clerk in an office. And whose to say the "official" in question was totaly loyal to the government and not the Taliban. And then ask yourself, what burden of proof does the UN official have to say that these persons were accually innocent, verses teh 2nd hand account of some "official".
  76. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Being there seldom makes someone an expert. In almost all cases it simply makes someone a tourist.
    -----------------------------------

    Udom,
    Can't argue your logic, until you take account that if you live closely to and work directly with a segment of the population for months would make you a big more aware than the average tourist.
  77. John Fedup from Canada writes: UN official equals $hit for brains.
  78. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Every credible agency is saying the same thing; however, instead of arguing with you, here are some things others have said.

    From the Guardian UK, Jan 31/08: "Two independent reports from Afghanistan's former Nato commander, General James L Jones, for the Atlantic Council of the United States warned today that the country risks becoming a "failed state" due to the continuing violence and economic instability. A third report from Oxfam, in the form of an open letter to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, warns the situation in Afghanistan could lead to a humanitarian disaster.

    "If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against Jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."

    "Another stark forecast comes from the Afghanistan Study Group, created by the Center for the Study of the Presidency. The group is co-chaired by Jones with Thomas Pickering, a former US ambassador to Russia and other countries.

    The report says the progress gained from six years of international efforts in Afghanistan "is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country."

    The strategy for Afghanistan is clearly lacking a winning formula as there are "too few military forces and insufficient economic aid", it said. But beyond that, the report criticised a centralised power base in Kabul, which left the rest of the country open to the destabilising forces of the Taliban, ousted in 2001, and al-Qaida, as well as the strong opium industry and "stark" poverty suffered by the majority of Afghans.

    It doesn't sound to me like it is going well.
  79. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: A good Canadian: Also from opening statement of The Atlantic Council document:

    “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. Unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact.”

    www.acus.org/docs/012808-AfghanistanbriefwoSAG.pdf
  80. Random Observer from GTA, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler, I have read the discussion above and I don't have any disagreement with the history of US/AQ/Pakistan fest. The question I have is: After Sept 11, 2001, regarding A-tan, Canada made a choice to support NATO action. What other reasonable choice was there?

    Please remember Canada choose NOT to participate in Iraq. We don't dictate US policy, we can only talk about Canada's action. My opinion is that talking with AQ is not an option, since AQ is not interesed in discussing this.

    I disagree with your statement regarding referendum. We elect government to make these kind decision. The decison was made by libral party and extended by conservative when they came to power. If I am not mistaken, it was again extended by support of both parties. So I am assuming (repeat my assumption) that support exist from both side of spectrum. NDP and Bloc don't like it, but let us be serious (meant as a joke LOL).
  81. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes:
    Thanks for that reference. If you read all of it, you will see that the proposals for the REST if NATO forces is exactly what Canada (less antinarcotic ops) and Britian have been doing already in Kandahar and Helmand provinces for the last year.

    Because this document is full of dire warnings, does not mean that the situation is irreversable. Tactics change with time and strategies must be rethought in order to continue on the long path to success. What was working in the past stopped working, and new goals must be assessed and implemented. Also without direct, pointed statements like the one you quoted above, politicians would find wiggle room out of further commitments to the mission and providing resources to it.

    Nothing in that document says that the mission is unwinnable or unachieveable.

    BTW, did you note the photo of one of your "death squads" on the first page?

  82. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: A Good Canadian writes, "How do you know that report is credible? It is quoted in the article that the UN investigator was given this info by an "Afghan govt official".".... True the article is short on detail. Mr Alston gave a speech about the report in which he said, "I have spent 12 days in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Government and I am deeply grateful to them for the full cooperation I received. I have visited Helmand, Kabul, Kandahar, Kunar, Nangarhar, Jowzjan, and Parwan and met with victims and witnesses, Provincial Governors, Ministers in the national Government, senior international military officers, civil society, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the UN, and many others.".... I can see that in 12 days he only had time to rush from one meeting to another, but he did talk with a lot of important players.... That speech is here, http://www.reliefweb.