Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canadians claim victory over Taliban

GLORIA GALLOWAY

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 5:47 PM EST 30/08/08

Canadians destroyed Taliban command HQ from which insurgents engineered planting of explosives, military says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:

    MAJOR VICTORY: One Taliban taken into custody!

    Desperation for good news drives this latest piece of hilarious war prop for our NATO stenographers, aka the Canadian press gang.

    Were the Taliban "Headquarters" akin to NORAD's Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. installation, this indeed would be cause for great joy and jubilation amongst the pro-war mob. But "Headquarters" for an indigenous insurgent guerilla organization is nothing more than a tent in which lines are drawn in the dirt.

    I fail to see in the body of the article anywhere any reference to specifically Canadian forces being involved, and furthermore, the lame reference to "some military officials" claiming the deaths of yet more "Commanders" could mean nothing more than loose talk at a military latrine (which it usually is).
  2. Julie Wellington from Canada writes: Russians would declare victory in Afghanistan on a daily basis, for those old enough to remember, it was false then as it was now. Propaganda is still propaganda no matter what country says it.
  3. Random O from Canada writes: The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands & Julie Wellington from Canada, since both of you are always expressing your hate for CF and for Canada's part in UN sanctioned mission in A-tan, when would you like to give-up your Canadian citizenship (assuming you are citizen of Canada).

    Or are you here just to take advantage of Canada's generocity?
  4. Jeff T from Canada writes: Yes, more expert commentary from Neocynic. We should all pay attention... Because he once watched Full Metal Jacket.
  5. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Unfurl the "Mission Accomplished" Banner, on the deck of HMCS "Minnow"

    Oh, wait, the Minnow was decommisioned; obselete you know.

    How long til the next IED? 24 hrs? 48 Hrs?

    Victory will be when the Troops come home, and not before.
  6. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:
    "Desperation for good news drives this latest piece of hilarious war prop for our NATO stenographers, aka the Canadian press gang."
    ----------------------------
    I totally agree. How any journalist is willing to allow their name to be put on such an obvious and pathetic piece of blatant propaganda is beyond me.
  7. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Great - its done - now come home right away and end this foolish effort.

    I am completely willing to believe this rubbish propaganda if it means we are leaving this stupid war.
  8. Rob Scheid from Canada writes: Any sign of progress in that clusterf^% over there is a good thing. Too many losses have happened there, if only we had been in there from the begining and no dicking around following president puppet head (and his primeminsiter lackeys) on his crusade in Iraq. I too wait for the time to come when we can salvage whats left of our troops and let rest those who died.
  9. A Taxpayer from Montreal, Canada writes: This 3 day operation began on Thursday, according to the article, thus ended on Saturday. Then on Sunday, the very next day, we get this headline, which is posted on the CBC news site:
    "6 Canadian soldiers, 2 journalists injured in Afghan roadside attack"
  10. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: hopefully the polititians are stupider than the americans and hold off replacing the dead Canadians so that we can pull out by attritian, nato style. Ya, lets defeat the enemy for the glory of nato. ya right. go boys, over the top!

    I think the 401 should be renamaed "highyway of folly".

    Canada's mission was to send in 2000 men and women to a non nato country and write off their lives so as to remain part of nato and get a fair softwood lumber deal. Why not just scrap nafta and cut off the oil supply to america instead. What is wrong with that as a Canadian strategy?
  11. Delicate Snowflake from Toronto, Canada writes: Eh Whenever troops are killed a bunch of people declare that the Taliban are resurging and dealing grevious blows against Nato. Whenever taliban troops are killed (Apparently 40 in this case), I see quite a few people claiming it as propaganda and a vile piece of journalism. Pretty one sided to me
  12. Random O from Canada writes: Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: ......What is wrong with that as a Canadian strategy?

    Michael Kahu, you missed a large part of history. Go read about Sept 11, 2001, US (UK) action in A-tan to remove Taliban, UN sanctioned ISAF, Canada's role decided by elected governments of Canada number of times.

    Canada has been to some other non-NATO countries also as part of UN sanctioned missions.

    If you have some more time, read about what happened in A-tan in 90's, how Taliban came to power and what they were doing in A-tan.
  13. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Afghanistan has achieved a great deal over the past six years. Even with modest capacity, strong leadership in the ministries of public health, education, and rural rehabilitation and development has begun transforming the country. The health ministry, outsourcing through nongovernmental organizations, is supplying basic services and has cut mortality for young children by 26 per cent. It is saving 80,000 lives a year. New schools offer classes for 6 million students, the highest level ever, and more than 35 per cent of students are girls, up from less than five per cent in 2001. Almost 500,000 Afghans have benefited from micro-finance.
  14. Jeff T from Canada writes: RO shame on you. Demanding a fact filled discussion... Shame. This is a forum for fantasy and fiction.
  15. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: My comment above isn excerpt from the Montreal Gazette. Good news. It will fall on deaf ears for the lefty pinko dudes who love to embrace every story of T-ban resurgence and victory. C'mon Neo, J. Jenneth et all - embrace the good news for once;)
  16. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: random O, why is this supposed to be my business? Or yours?

    who cares what the taliban do in taliban land and who cares if the Americans ground their air defences to allow a 911 to proceed? really, why should any of this be Canadians business? We are not proposing to control the world.

    If you ask Canadians in a poll "should we support America's conquest of the world" the answer currently is NO! Government is off side.
  17. Random O from Canada writes: Jeff T from Canada writes: RO shame on you. Demanding a fact filled discussion... Shame. This is a forum for fantasy and fiction.

    Jeff T, LOL, you would think I would have learned by now. Somehow these truthers keep coming back with new names. Heck there are only 4 of them in Canada, but they keep crawling from under their stones.
  18. Random O from Canada writes: Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes:..... who cares if the Americans ground their air defences to allow a 911 to proceed?

    Michael Kahu, please continue in your conspiracy world.

    I have no desire, interest or time for this kind of non-sense.
  19. Rob Scheid from Canada writes: Random O, Sure you do. You wouldn't keep replying if you didn't.
  20. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: and so the good news is actually about health care, education andf womens rights....oh and killing 40 odd of the t-ban is icing on the cake!
  21. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: UCant Haveitall:

    When you post statistics, you ought to post their source. Numbers without attribution are literally useless, or so say 75% of Canadians who are against this foolhardy mission.
  22. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: A Taxpayer from Montreal - you need to read things more carefully for the details. The operation that is mentioned here took place in the Zhari District. The roadside incident that took place Sunday as the group was returning to Kandahar Airfield from a forward operating base in Panjwaii District. .............................................................................................................................................................../
    Michael Kahu - It is not the US that has a global agenda in mind - it is the jihadists of the oil rich countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar (and to a certain extent Iran following a slightly different but similar agenda). They have invested their vast oil profits in an effort to spread Wahhabism around the world. They are one who have funded the madrassas that teach their boys hate and fighting and not much else in Pakistan (and previously in Afghanistan). They have been in far more control of the international agenda than US has been. Check out Walid Phares who has been trying to warn Western countries for years. Another good source is Ahmed Rashid in terms of the Taliban and Al'Qaida in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Like it or not this as a threat to all Western/democratic nations - and all non-theorcratic Muslim nations.
  23. vince moren from oilsands, Canada writes: Any raid that ends in no Canadian causulities and dead bad gusys is a huge succes.
  24. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Catherine, so how does this benign view of American world aspitations jibe with the trumped up invasion of Iraq?
  25. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: well if we count the blasted bits of t-ban....yep 40 or so
  26. Jeff T from Canada writes: I love that, Neocynic, true to form. "When you post statistics, you ought to post their source. Numbers without attribution are literally useless, or so say 75% of Canadians who are against this foolhardy mission." Were you being funny? Or did you forget the source? Where do these 75% reside? Who are they? Because, frankly, last peace protest in Toronto had what? 100 in attendance? (Source? I was there.)
  27. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    My god but you're thick Jeff. I'm afraid the joke is on you there.
  28. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff T, last poll I saw on the issue had 62% of Canadians opposed to extending the mission in a'stan beyond Feb. 2009. I suspect Neocynic was engaging in a little ironic hyperbole.
  29. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: Random O, how do you get your name to be blue? HTML tags in your online name?
  30. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:
    .

    OK - 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' - BRING OUR MEN HOME - SAVE THEIR LIVES
  31. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    Jan 16, 2008
    "The poll showed that only 17 per cent of Canadians want troops to continue in their combat role and 31 per cent said Canadians should remain in Kandahar but turn over the combat role to another NATO country."

    http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/294469
  32. Jeff T from Canada writes: "Jeff T, last poll I saw on the issue had 62% of Canadians opposed to extending the mission in a'stan beyond Feb. 2009. I suspect Neocynic was engaging in a little ironic hyperbole. " Which explains the "MASSIVE" protests in Toronto of late. Canada's largest city can host up to a couple of dozen anti-war protestors (many of whom wave Iraq related prooducts, but who cares). And if I have to accept your poll, you have to accept mine. Unequivically. Full stop.
  33. Delicate Snowflake from Toronto, Canada writes: "J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff T, last poll I saw on the issue had 62% of Canadians opposed to extending the mission in a'stan beyond Feb. 2009. I suspect Neocynic was engaging in a little ironic hyperbole." I don't think opposing an extension to the mission means they don't support the current war in Afghanistan. Most people I've met around here complete support and faith in the mission to "meh, go troops" feeling. Certainly some don't support it but they're the minority. At least that's the feeling I'm getting from people I know.
  34. Random O from Canada writes: The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: .....Catherine Medernach, the Plagiarist, posted "They have been in far more control of the international agenda than US has been."......

    Ahh..you need spoon feeding. What did you think happened after Sept 11, 2001. The war on terror, Afghanistan were result of that action by Al Qeeda. Do you recall Bin Laden / Al Zawahari press conference from A-tan calling for global jihad against civilian targets in 1998? below is a link:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

    Do you know why was Al Zawahari jailed in Egypt and why is Muslim brotherhood banned in Muslim countries? here is a link for that also:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/alzawahri.html

    As I said last time to you, please do some research before you feel the need to demonstrate your ignorance.
  35. Random O from Canada writes: B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, I use the HTML tag in my name. click on "edit my details" beside your name and put the tag for color
  36. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    People oppose the extension of the mission past 2009. The government has committed to extending the mission in spite of the fact that the polls consitantly indicate that the majority of Canadians do not support this. When asked whether or not they support Canada's combat role in the Afghan mission the poll results are equally consistent in their lack of support for a combat oriented (ala Harper/Hillier) mission in Afghanistan.

    Clearly this should be put to the public as a referendum. I am confident that at the least the public would demand the withdrawal of CF from combat operations.
  37. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Delicate Snowflake, opposing the war does NOT mean opposing our troops or wishing them ill. I oppose the war that our political leadership (first the Libs, then the Cons) foisted on us.
  38. Random O from Canada writes: The Phantom from Canada, Canada's foreign policy/other policies are not set by polls, otherwise we would all be paying NO TAXES.

    Our elected leaders decide the policy. Both political parties that have any chance of forming government support A-tan mission. These parties represent majority of Canadians.

    In US also both parties support A-tan mission. Obama while he doesn't support Iraq supports A-tan mission. And A-tan is not about OIL. Iraq is about OIL

    Is it possible that all these people know something that you don't?
  39. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Phantom writes: When asked whether or not they support Canada's combat role in the Afghan mission the poll results are equally consistent in their lack of support for a combat oriented (ala Harper/Hillier) mission in Afghanistan.
    ___________________________________________________________

    When characterizing the war as a Harper Hillier mission, please do not neglect to note that the combat role was accepted and implemented by PM Martin, and the extension was done as a connivance between Harper and Dion. A plague on both their houses.
  40. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: RO, when you say Afghanistan is not about oil, on what basis do you make that claim? Is oil in no way involved?

    For what reasons do you think the US and NATO are occupying and making war in Afghanistan?
  41. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    J Kenneth

    Agreed, a pox on both their houses. The NDP are the only party that has consistently advocated for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from combat operations.
  42. David Stanley from Canada writes: Our boys are the best trained and worth their salt but
    History of war in Afghanistan

    1839 British invade Afghanistan to install compliant king
    1842 British retreat from Kabul; 16,500 troops and civilians killed; one survivor. the arrogant ones died with their boots on
    1878-80 Second Anglo Afghan War again the British learn theyu are not the master race.
    1979 Soviet forces invade to prop up Communist Government they learn too they can not win
    1988-89 Soviets retreat
    1989-92 Civil war among warlords
    1996 Taleban take over
    2001 US led invasion topples Taleban Government the arrogant ones will leave in defeat.

    Despite the presence of 70,000 foreign troops, the Taleban have advanced on Kabul this year and hold territory just outside Maydan Shar, the capital of Wardak province, 20 miles southwest of the capital.
    SO while we have won a battle, are we winning the war?
    The idea of running the pipe line through Afghanistan is a pipe line too far .they will fill it full of holes anyways So instead of making enemies and killing people all the time would it not have been better
    to make friends and gotten the pipe lines peace fully
    well George W Bush has made a real mess of the geostrategic plan hasn't he. his pipe dreams reduced to one pipe in Georgia ,should
    the Georgians and the Israelis continue to arrogantly think that Russia is a push over ,they will find that not only Georgia and the pipe line is gone for ever but Israel itself will go up in smoke.
    The pipe dreaming is over no pipe lines will pass Afghanistan you way as well pull out of Afghanistan .
  43. Bob Cajun from the glorious nation of coboconk, Canada writes: Two words: TROOP SURGE!
  44. Delicate Snowflake from Toronto, Canada writes: Fair enough Kenneth But in the event of complete troop withdrawal, it will be seen by the Taliban as a victory and our nation as cowardly and inspire greater attacks around Afghanistan (Specifically IEDs, suicide attacks and kidnappings), greatly compromising the small progress that has been made. What is your opinion in such an event? The Afghanistani army is in no shape to take over our combat operations and many members of NATO won't start pulling their weight. Do we abandon Afghanistan and consider it a waste of time?
  45. Random O from Canada writes: Richard Roskell, Shall we go through this AGAIN. Iraq has lots of OIL and Iraq war was NOT justified and was for OIL. Canada is in A-tan as part of UN sanctioned ISAF. We are not in Iraq. Let us not confuse A-tan with Iraq.

    Now question of oil in A-tan, I am assuming you are refering to TAPI. There are number of reason why A-tan is not about TAPI:

    First, TAPI will sell resource from Turkeministan to Pakistan. Turkeministan owns the resource and Russain GAZPROM has development rights. They will make bulk of the money. US is NOT going to spend billlions so that Russia can benefit. A US company will have one time revenue of $8 billion, after cost the profit is lot less. The cost to US is $150 billion and counting.

    Second, US could have bribed Taliban with money (Pakistan was paying Taliban about $1 million a month, this is not even pocket change for US/CIA). US could have also bribed Taliban with weapons, they supplied Mujahadeen with stingers. Or Toyota trucks. All this would be taxpayers money and a fraction of what US is spending now in A-tan.

    Third, US won proxy war with USSR in A-tan. They could have easily put a puppet regime in A-tan. But they choose to leave A-tan; A-tan is NOT of any strategic importance for US. Why leave A-tan if they really had imperlistic designs.

    Fourth, US already had a strategic partner in that region. Pakistan has been living on US handouts since its inception. That is also risk now.

    Last under Taliban, the pipeline region was stable. A-tan action has destabalized the area. If US wanted the pipeline so bad, this was the worst action they could have done.

    On top of all this you also have to account for 9/11, since A-tan was a direct result of 9/11. If you assume US went in A-tan for TAPI, then you have to assume US did 9/11 - NOT a defensible proposition IMHO.
  46. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: A massive victory.

    Can we compare this outstanding victory to Battle of Waterloo where the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon?

    Great work!
  47. Random O from Canada writes: Delicate Snowflake from Toronto, Canada writes: ....Do we abandon Afghanistan and consider it a waste of time?

    Leaving A-tan for the locals to sort out the problem was tried last time in 90's. The result were the warlords and then fundamentalist Taliban getting power by gun, masssacare of other minorities

    Here is a link for Mazar-i Sharif http://tinyurl.com/57r7m8

    Another impact of last time abondening A-tan was Al Qeeda getting a shelter in A-tan. Increased terrorist training camps and attacks ending in 9/11.

    About 58% of non-Pashtun tribes and numebr of Pashtun tribes that are part of governement DO NOT support Taliban. They will pay the price for us running away.

    Abondening A-tan again would result in worse for both A-tan, Pakistan and us.
  48. Random O from Canada writes: David Stanley from Canada, Taliban when they got power in A-tan were about 25% Pakistani or Arab. They were also occupiers. They tried to impose their fundamentalist religion on Afghan.

    USSR got kicked out because US was funding Mujhadeen and giving them weapons. Taliban are not fighting with pitch-forks, they are using IED's and suicide bombers. Who do you think is funding them today? It is Pakistan and drug money.

    One of the main reason Pakistan (B. Bhutto's government in 1994) funded Taliban was to get the pipeline. Bhutto was trying to sell this idea to US. Taliban, when they were in power, were also trying to get US to fund the pipeline.

    If they TAPI was the reason then US made the mistake of destabalizing the area. There are lots of more reason above 3:44 post, why pipeline is a strawman argument.
  49. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: RO, there may well be substance to the points you make, but the indefensible position is your own. That's simply because you make absolute claims, without admitting the possibility of other rational reasons. I'm of the view that there are a good number of strategic reasons why the US is occupying Afghanistan. I also believe that the least of those reasons is because of Islamic terrorists.

    Your analysis of the importance of oil to that occupation is lacking both in scope and substance. For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but the pipeline through Afghanistan would be owned by an American company, would it not? That same company has had a pipeline proposal in Afghanistan for at least a decade. How then can you say the US occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil?
  50. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: But that is the least of the shortcomings of your analysis. The US is a country that is economically, politically and militarily dependent on oil, yet they have little of their own. While there is no single source of oil on which the US completely relies; they (and everyone else) are affected by the worldwide supply of oil as a whole.

    It doesn't matter if the US gets not a drop of oil from, say, the Caspian Basin. If Caspian oil is taken out of the market, the worldwide cost of oil would skyrocket for everyone, including the US. It's in the US's interests that the flow of oil proceeds on an orderly basis everywhere, because if it doesn't it immediately affects the cost of the oil they buy.
  51. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Without oil- and I'm referring to readily available and readily affordable oil- the US's ability to economically, politically and especially militarily dominate the planet is severly compromised. That means that EVERY foreign supply of oil being sold into the market is equally important to the US as any other. It doesn't matter where the oil is or where it goes... if that oil doesn't come to market for any reason, it will severely affect the US in a number of ways.
  52. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: Random O, I don't see your logic but let's assume 911 was caused by the saudis who trained the men and flew the planes. Why invade two other countries instead of Saudi Arabia?

    I have no problem supporting a US mission to uproot the monarchists in arabia who paid for 911 as long as they leave withing 5 days..... It's the injustice of directing our army to the wrong place that just makes no sense to any thinking person. How can we possibly beat the saudis if our army is in Afganistan? it defies logic.
  53. Jeff T from Canada writes: No lil dick. 9/11 had nothing to do with it. The fact that OBL was known, and an acknowledged guest of Afghanistan prior to and during 9/11 hadnothing to do with it. The fact that OBL published many, many videos on the internet and on TV news media taking full responsibility for NUMEROUS terrorist attacks which killed hundreds of human beings at a time, and was living in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

    The aiding and abetting of terrorism had nothing at all to do with it.

    It is actually all about the lil green men from Roswell. See, they were kidnapped by the Northern Alliance, and we are simply trying to gain their trust to get our lil green men back.
  54. Random O from Canada writes: Richard Roskell from Canada, indefensible comment was related to 9/11 being a US conspiracy. I know from previous discussion that you don't believe in conspiracy theory, have you changed your mind.

    What are "good number of strategic reasons why the US is occupying Afghanistan"? I have not heard one yet. Also keep in mind that US left A-tan in 90's.

    I have NOT said that oil is not of importance. I have said the pipeline is natural gas and the resource is owned by Turkeminstan and conrolled by Russia now.

    I have also argued that there are lots of easier options to get control over pipeline without invasion. Do you know of an instance where US has not bribe local puppet or established local puppet. I have a document somewhere where Taliban were begging US to provide money and support. Why take the most difficult option.

    I agree with you that "It's in the US's interests that the flow of oil proceeds on an orderly basis everywhere". A-tan invasion is the WORST approach to get the pipeline. By bribing Taliban this pipeline would have been in operation sometime late 90's.
  55. Random O from Canada writes: Michael Kahu from Scarborough, the terrorist traininng camps were in A-tan. Base of Al Qeeda was in A-tan. Bin Laden / Al Zawahari was giving interviews from A-tan. Saudi had kicked out Bin Laden long time back, they also took his Saudi passport away. Here is a list of 33 different attempst made by US to get Taliban to kick out bin Laden, all failed. This is a PDF file.

    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal40.pdf

    What do you suggest be done after 9/11 that has not been tried previously. UN sanctions were tried, giving proof was tried, cruise missile attacks were done, black ops to kill Bin laden were done. All before 9/11, none of them worked.
  56. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T from Canada writes: "I love that, Neocynic, true to form. "When you post statistics, you ought to post their source. Numbers without attribution are literally useless, or so say 75% of Canadians who are against this foolhardy mission." Were you being funny? Or did you forget the source? Where do these 75% reside? Who are they? Because, frankly..."

    You crack me up. As Bugs Bunny would say "Sheeesh, what an ultra maroon!" ...and 99.9% of Canadians would agree...
  57. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: take that Taliban suckas.. :0)
  58. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: Random: I'm glad you asked "What do you suggest be done after 9/11 that has not been tried previously. UN sanctions were tried, giving proof was tried, cruise missile attacks were done, black ops to kill Bin laden were done. All before 9/11, none of them worked." I suggest viewing 911 differently for starters. and reviewing the effectiveness and purpose of un sanctions based on wmd posession. but first, I would suggest that the people who shouted down the "root cause" people in the debate that followed sit down. Their approach has been tried and has failed in that their ememies' goals have been acheived - the destruction of the US economy by overreach which was the shout downers' reaction (a military one) - and your defense of it puts you in that camp. Not a good listening group I might add but with no offense intended. And now the root cause people should have their chance to react to it. Maybe by changing the leaders since they are so inflexible themselves. I am in the root cause camp. I believe that we should take the attack as a signal from Islam that we (in this I mean US business)have gone too far into their world. And I believe that we should respect the message as one coming from an equal but different world, while condeming the act as a criminal one. I am afraid the reaction from the shouter downers (republicans generally) was to see the message as a takover or caliphate in incubation, while ignoring the business aspect completely and so obliviously. Therefore nothing has been resolved whatsoever so far.
  59. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: ok, I will concede that the terrorists have succeeded in goading the US into a military reaction thereby designing the bankruptcy of their economy. That, and isolating the United States of America by forcing them to spend every last bit of diplomatic currency they have accumulated.

    What is your tally Random? I would like to know what you think was worth it.

    I personally feel like any afgan I see might kill me, citing me as an enemy. I did not feel like this in the 90's. I don't feel safe because of your people's reaction.
  60. Jeff T from Canada writes: It was once said that 99% of all stats are made up on the spot. Neo, you do not ever site sources for your garbage.
  61. Jeff T from Canada writes: Actually Michael, it has been my expereince that the averae Afghan would thank you. The terrorists that took up residence in Afghanistan always wanted to kill you.
  62. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Michael Kahu,

    "and isolating the United States of America"

    When ISAF has troops from 40 nations, how is that isolation?

    CHeers

    Mikey
  63. The from Cayman Islands writes: Hmmmm,
    bold
    italics
    Blue?
    blink?
    well
  64. Jeff T from Canada writes: Way to go genius. Clearly you do not know what you are doing with HTML editing... As you have corrupted the site.
  65. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:

    LOL!

    I'm seeing colors!
  66. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:

    I wonder if this works: delete .JeffT.
  67. Steve I'm Not an Alberta Redneck from Calgary, Canada writes: "Canadians claim victory over Taliban"

    Just what the US should have done in Viet Nam. Declare victory and go home. Can we expect the troops to be home by Xmas?
  68. Random O from GTA, Canada writes: Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: .... I suggest viewing 911 differently for starters. and reviewing the effectiveness and purpose of un sanctions based on wmd posession....

    Michael Kahu, I have limited time right now, but for starters, WMD was Iraq reason, nothing to do with A-tan. Different war, different countries, Canada is in A-tan, we choose not to support Iraq. A very good decision as history proves.

    UN sanctions in A-tan were before 9/11.

    As to US going too far, did you know that most people killed by these global jihadist are Muslim? Al Qeeda has not gained any ground in Middle East. ME groups have rejected AQ. AQ also failed in Iraq, Muslim in Iraq rejected its indiscriminate killing. Now the suicide bombers are killing innocent Afghani and Pakistani. Al Qeeda is NOT FOR Islam, they are AGAINST Islam. That is why they keep getting rejected in Muslim countries.
  69. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Nematullah Shahrani, the Afghan government minister, has said that an investigation found that more than 90 civilians were killed in American led NATO air strikes early Friday in Azizabad, a village in Herat province. "Most are women and children" She continued: "They have claimed that Taliban were there. They must prove it, so far, it is not clear for us why the coalition conducted the air strikes."

    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/
    Afghangovernment:Morethan90civilianskilledbyUS_airstrike

    Nary a word in the Globe and Mail......where no news is indeed good news.
  70. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Michael Kahu,

    "I believe that we should take the attack as a signal from Islam that we (in this I mean US business)have gone too far into their world."

    That is akin to saying that the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity.

    We are dealing with an extreme fringe group within Islam.

    Just look at Abu Dhabai or Bahrain!

    CHeers

    Mikey
  71. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: US deaths reach 101 for the year in Afghanistan
    Taliban insurgents once derided as a ragtag rabble unable to match U.S. troops have transformed into a fighting force one advanced enough to mount massive conventional attacks and claim American lives at a record pace.

    The U.S. military suffered its 101st death of the year in Afghanistan last week when Sgt. 1st Class David J. Todd Jr., a 36-year-old from Marrero, La., died of gunfire wounds while helping train Afghan police in the northwest. The total number of U.S. dead last year     111 _ was a record itself and is likely to be surpassed.
    http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080825/ap/d92p3u0g0.html

    As we near the symbolic 100, has the pro-war mob made any plans to celebrate their glorious 100th?

    How about a grand ceremony in front of the Parliement Building, with 100 buckets of blood, which after the playing of the national anthem, a speech from a member of our quisling government, and in order to signify to all what has been accomplished after 7 years, billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousand dead Afghans, and of course, with our 100 dead, the 100 buckets of blood are poured, to the cheers of all, ...down the gutter.
  72. Jeff T from Canada writes: No cynic. It is up to you and the rest of the inbred lying garbage from babble to celebrate the deaths. We remember our lost, for the work they have done towards making Afghanistan a better place for Afghans.

    Do yourself a favour, and do not bring up the subject again. Not with that condescending mocking tone. To be blunt, I have been kind and gente on you till today.
  73. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Michael Kahu, those were interesting comments. Thanks.
  74. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands,

    "As we near the symbolic 100, has the pro-war mob made any plans to celebrate their glorious 100th?"

    Have no idea, but the pro-peace mob will be marking Remembrance day on Nov 11th again this year.

    Maybe you should try your stunt in front of the veterans at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. I'd say let us know if you survive, but that won't be an issue!

    Cheers

    Mikey
  75. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Dear Random O,
    Check the roolazs (sic).
    Maybe Cayman will fuc* up and try to do something.
  76. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: Richard Roskell,

    if Caspian oil (perhaps you mean gas?) was so important that it warranted a pipeline across Afghanistan then the US would have allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan and then offered them diplomatic recognition in exchange for allowing the pipeline to be built.

    Everyone in the energy business knows that pipelines require stability so it it makes NO SENSE to wage war (against experienced guerrilla fighters no less!) in order to build a pipeline.

    Would the US like to see a pipeline in Afghanistan? Sure they would, as would Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

    Is the pipeline a main reason why the US/NATO invaded? Given how there's been no construction to date and still not enough troops to secure the region, I have a hard time imagining how anyone could think it is.
  77. Jeff T from Canada writes: Jan, you are argueing facts with a fantasy filled malcontent. Facts do not figure into the mind of lil dick at all.
  78. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: roskell... another aspect that you may not be thinking about in your black and white world is the fact that oil deprived America could exploit its resources asnd suck their coasts dry. In twenty years, according to your rationale, the war-mongering, depraved americans bent on hegemony will have succeeded in their take-over of the world's resources. Think:Newfoundland. Think: Nova Scotia. Your fantasies are sweet but... . Oh? Yeah. I hear-tell there's gas in Afghanistan?
  79. desiderio manzanal jr from laval, Canada writes: I don't think so. Why so dishonest with one self. Aftganasthan is a big place ! The staging area is in Taliban Alley border between Aftganasthan and Pakistan. Pashtuns , Talibans, Drugs Smugglers....whats is what !
    OK one of the primary excuse for invading was irradication of drugs ...right..
  80. Jeff T from Canada writes: desiderio manzanal, I have no idea what you are trying to say... Perhaps you are experimenting with the product?
  81. Random O from GTA, Canada writes: Michael Kahu from Scarborough, It seems from your comments that you are confusing Iraq and A-tan war. US bankruptcy is due to Iraq war. And I have said before that Iraq war was a very bad decision and I am glad Canada did not support that war. So let us try to discuss A-tan war.

    You raise question of "root cause". You make assumption that 9/11 was somehow related to ME policies. Would you like to explain why ME terrorist groups like Hamas and Hez have rejected Al Qeeda ideology. AQ is not really helping ME.

    If this is about ME policy, why are suicide bombers mostly killing innocent Muslim - last week about 100 people died in Pakistan, most suicide bombers in A-tan kill innocent Afghan, another 100 dead in Algeria due to same radical fundamentalist.

    On the other news about suicide bombing in Iraq 25 dead today. Quote from it "al-Qaida in Iraq conducted almost 300 bombings, killing more than 1,500 civilians and wounding more than twice that many in 2007, compared with 28 attacks that killed 125 Iraqi civilians in the first half of this year." Al Qeeda failed in Iraq because Muslim in Iraq realized that these guys like to kill for no reason.

    How does the death of all these innocent Muslim by radical Islamist relate to "root cause"? Al Qeeda is not really interested in helping ME. They makes the ME statements same as Bush makes statements about spreading democracy. Both are liars.

    You also asssume US is responsible for ME, how about ME countries take some ownership of the problem. Do you think they lack resources or money or land? What solution have they really tried to help fellow Arabs. NONE.

    Those countries have vested interest in not letting ME problem resolved. That is not to say that Israel or US are pure. I am not a fan of US ME policies or republican policies, but they are not alone to blame for this.
  82. Random O from GTA, Canada writes: desiderio manzanal jr from laval, Canada writes: OK one of the primary excuse for invading was irradication of drugs ...right..

    Wrong. You might want to lay-off the strong stuff.
  83. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Canadians claim victory? Thanks. Go troops. Go!
  84. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: I said: "...there may well be substance to the points you make, but the indefensible position is your own. That's simply because you make absolute claims, without admitting the possibility of other rational reasons. I'm of the view that there are a good number of strategic reasons why the US is occupying Afghanistan."

    And Jan replies: "Is the pipeline a main reason why the US/NATO invaded? Given how there's been no construction to date and still not enough troops to secure the region, I have a hard time imagining how anyone could think it is."

    There is no statement expressed so clearly that Jan can't misunderstand it.
  85. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Richard Roskell and Random O: the root cause of the war is not about oil - it is about idealogy. The war started before Al'Qaida even existed. There are two violent strains of jihadism, both embracing violence and seeking world domination: the Salafists(Wahhabis, Takfiris, Deobandis and others) and the Khumeinists. The Jihadi powers, both regimes and organizations are fueled by radical religious establishments and backed by endless oil revenues. The problem is that Western society never realized an ideological war was being waged against it by an ideological movement. (source Walid Phares: The Confrontation) He also has a couple of earlier books on the the issue - and is very clear that the US is not the aggressor or he root cause. If you Google his name- one hit is the American thinker(only recently, he was born and raised in Lebanon but finally compelled to leave) where you can read several of his articles. He puts the whole issue of oil into a different perspective along with the war on terror - and the real terrorists.
  86. Trudeau's Apricot poodle from Canada writes: This action has been started and it will be finished in a manner satisfactory to all parties concerned. Those unconcerned are a liberty to vote in favour of more taxes for selectively subsidized day care, then attend it.
  87. A Taxpayer from Montreal, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, , I do red thing carefully, but I also read front diffrent sources. This article claims that the injured were coming back from the Zhari district where the great victory took place.

    http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Canadian Forces deal huge blow to Taliban official/Home/ContentPosting?isfa=1&newsitemid=CTVNews%2F20080825%2Fvehiclebomb080825&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True
  88. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Catherine says, The root cause of the war isn't oil.

    That would depend on from whose perspective you considered the causes. The Islamic militants who have declared war on the US aren't doing it to secure a supply of oil. But to suggest that the US isn't waging wars because of oil as a root cause is absurd. The invasion of Iraq was not about dealing with Islamic jihadis, Catherine.

    It's simple, really: the US and the Islamic militants are not fighting each other for the same reasons.

    Islamic militants fight against the governments that the US supports in a number of countries. Some of those governments are brutal dictatorships and at the same time very important to US strategic interests, including the vital matter of petroleum. Hence the conflict.

    The Islamic resistance movements want change in their lands. The US doesn't want change, because it's vital to them that things remain as they are. Oil is the main motivating factor for the US to repress the Islamic resistance movements in some countries, but in others different strategic reasons are in play.

    I'm not of the view that oil is the main reason why the US is in Afghanistan, but to deny that it plays any part at all ignores the global reality in the market for oil.

    "Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon."

    "In 2003, the US military allocated $49.1 billion ANNUALLY to maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf."

    Energy Bulletin, Feb 17, 2007
    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194
  89. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    END THE OCCUPATION!
    ALL FOREIGN TROOPS OUT NOW!
  90. Michael Kahu from Scarborough, Canada writes: Random, to understand the suicide bombings that target muslims, you have to first understand why America is in Iraq. They are there ultimately to take the oil, or guard it, same thing because they can print the money to buy it so that's not the issue. America's goal to permantently guard the oil is to create an excuse to be there - in this case the excuse is to "fight insurgents and alqeida" or something like that. But there was no sectarian war before they got there. The United States of America pays one side and arms both sides and encourages this violence. It is all because of America full stop. once you get this, you get the rest. Al Qeida can't be proven to be an organization larger than my volleyball team. It's a made up bogeyman and the fact that you can't defeat them is because they are not there. It's a ruse to justify a war footing, the war machine being fed, etc etc. There is no such thing as a threat from alqeida and the will go away when America stops printing that word. I know the Iraq war is different from a-stan, but the us pays for both, and these 10 guys known as al-quieda are propped up by the us, but they tricked the us into both wars and the us is paying a dear price with their ecomomy and their reputation plus losing. the a-stan war is a coalition of the un-willing, no population stands behind their leaders going there except the us but they don't have good enough intelligence to make the call because of the spin over 911.