Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Taking 'baby steps' in the PR race to win the confidence of Kandahar

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:09 AM EST 02/09/08

Sergeant says he has observed a big difference in Afghan attitude toward Canadian patrols over past three months ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: He wants the ANA to be like you guys. Awesome. Go troops. Go!
  2. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes:

    great point NC ; of course the 'news' no one want us to hear is the rising civilian deaths, or so called 'collateral damage'.
    No doubt this will increase when Obama adopts 'his' war and US troops 'intensify' the Afghan 'initiative'.
    Also, watch for alot more CF forces f riendly f ire deaths as the US rolls out the big guns. They care not whom they hit.
    Good reporting G&M; up to your New standard- those of the National Enquirer.
  3. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Brad Fgroupthinkn:

    I guess the pillowtalk musings of a sergeant is more newsworthy than, say:

    1) New allegations that NATO has murdered another 70 civillians in yet another artilleru barrage into a village;
    2) A riot in downtown Kabul by AFghans protesting the slaughter;
    3) the 45-troop death toll for the month of August, equalling the record for the entire war;

    etc etc etc.

    Nope, nothing more important happening today in Afghanistan than a boyfriend's two cents worth.....LOL! Pathetic, indeed.
  4. Karunaratne Jeyatilleke from Canada writes: NeoCynic, what do you expect from Embedded Journalists??
  5. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Wow - way to go crapping all over a good news story. God bless these fine men & women. Support the troops! They are YOUR sons & daughters doing YOUR country's bidding!
  6. Interested Observer from United States writes:
    Monday, September 01, 2008 THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS

    PESHAWAR: At least 500 civilians were killed or wounded during the five-day US-led troops' ground and air operation in the Sangin district of Helmand province, a member of Afghanistan's parliament said on Sunday.

    'Foreign forces have been conducting operation in Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district for the last five days in which artillery and aircraft are being used,' Dad Muhammad Khan, member of Wolesi Jirga (lower house of parliament), told Afghan Islamic Press.

    'The dead and injured were lying in the area and there is no one to shift the injured. Yesterday, I raised the issue in the parliament but the government has done nothing so far,' he said.
  7. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear IO - and your point would be.......
  8. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: Re;UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Wow - way to go crapping all over a good news story. God bless these fine men & women. Support the troops! They are YOUR sons & daughters doing YOUR country's bidding!

    Why are the war freaks always confusing the support for our troops with support for the war. I support the former and not the latter.

    Also a note of clarification; the soldiers are doing the 'bidding' of our politicians, not 'your countries' bidding.

    The interest of 'our' politicians in this war is not what you think and the only thing they care about is the 'optics' for their own self-aggrandizement.
    So stop with the; 'if you don't support the Afghan war you don't support our troops' crap.

    F__ the politicians; bring home the troops; we have domestic duties for CF's
  9. Udom Thongpai from Canada writes: If you Google Captain Tylere Couture, you'll find that he is a very vocal and passionate supporter of the war, identified as working with a PRT. He is a member of the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, a non military organization which provides some relief in Afghanistan as well as pressure on the Afghan government over domestic policies. It is very keen to influence debate amongst Canadians about the war and it's main work can rightly be described as political activism. Media interviews like this one are a big part of that effort. A statement of CASC's principles may be found here,
    http://tinyurl.com/5bsnyq

    Where's the surprise if locals are welcoming to foreigners with machine guns who don't even speak Pashtu?

    After seven years of warfare we're taking 'baby steps' to win the hearts and minds.
  10. Merely an Observer from Canada writes: Actually, Interested Observers' opinion really is of little value as he/she is nothing more than a plagiarist of dubious credibility.
  11. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: If the article reflects any kind of reality in Afghanistan, it is a surreal one at best.

    We see Happy Afghans, who understand completely that heavily armed foreigners will fire warning shots at children on bicycles if they get too close. No sense here at all that 'too close' might be arbitrary--depending on how nervous a soldier is or the time of day. I suppose the Afghans also understood and went on happily after a Canadian armoured vehicle recently killed two children in a car that got 'too close' at night.

    'We understand. You are just protecting yourselves against Afghans who might be trying to kill you; and that if it comes down to it, our innocent fathers, children, wives, sisters and uncles will be the ones to die if you feel threatened. No problem.'

    Then there is what passes for 'security' in Kandahar city: within three hours there are two incidents of gunfire (well, three, if you count the Canadians' warning shot) and an explosion. The ANA didn't show up for the patrol, making it a little difficult for the locals to take the Canadian sergeant seriously when he tries to convince them that 'the local government...are the ones delivering services'.

    Putting the best face on it, there may be a bubble of security around groups of foreign soldiers as they move about (unless they are being ambushed or blown up themselves, or are standing aside while insurgents empty a jail), but when they pass, Afghans are again faced with coersion by the insurgents, shakedowns by the Afghan police, and indifference at best from the ANA.

    But, finally, Afghans know that the margin of security the foreigners offer is no greater than the decision space that sent the Canadian soldier's shot into the ground instead of into the boy's chest.
  12. anu bose from ottawa, Canada writes: Don't let them fool you Sir.
  13. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    I read this story and started to wonder how this was really news. After all, many 'soft' stories are done be news organizations from time to time so another one is hardly an issue.

    After a cup of coffee the brain started it's basic functionality again and a few things caught my attention. Most notably the last comment - 'we want the ANA to be like you guys.'

    Think about that for a moment in light of what the people of Afghanistan have endured for decades now - and essentially from the formation of the country itself. They have been in some type of war/conflict almost continuously for centuries. Whether it is fighting among the warloards, external forces or among the tribes - it is an enduring feature of this country. And the current US/NATO/Al Qaeda/Taliban conflict is just one more in a long list.

    The people of Afghanistan could use a break ..........

    There is no guarrantee that NATO will prevail, no guarrantee that a NATO withdrawl will create peace and no guarrantee that Al Qaeda won't be back to their old days of camping out in southern Afghanistan if another power vacume exists.

    Why would an Afghan want the ANA to be like 'us'? Despite the accusations of civilian deaths, air bombardments and other misgivings NATO brings upon itself needlessly, we are probably preceived as being 'different' than many of the other forces that have influenced Afghanistan in the past - including the Taliban who governed there until 2001.

    Building as opposed to destroying is a clear message - even to the Afghans who don't seem to like foreigners. The elders who are charged with having the best interests of their people in mind probably see NATO/Canada as the better of the possible evils for the moment. Yes we have guns but we also bring the money and the aid - it's a mixed bag because of the security situation. Fight the Taliban and build a school in my village. Tough job for an infidel.
  14. Lefty Lou from Canada writes: Explain this to me NeoCynic, why did you bother reading this article? I.E. if you did. But if you didn't, then why did you comment on something you didn't read?
  15. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Sounds like the citizens of Kandahar are just like taxpayers everywhere. 'What's are scores of dead civilians compared to new culverts? Now THAT'S progress.'

    Udom, thanks for exposing the manipulation behind this story. It's a sad day when journalists neglect the most basic tenets of their job and bloggers have to do it for them.

    Delete Ms. Galloway's take on this patrol for the moment. Put yourself in the shoes of the Afghans: A heavily-armed patrol of foreign soldiers shows up at your door. Your five children are running around. Those foreign soldiers are reliably known for calling in air strikes that indiscriminately kill civilians. They're also known for summarily arresting and sending off for interrogation anyone who shows sympathy for the insurgency. What would you do?

    Regardless of how you felt about the soldiers or the insurgency, you'd tell the soldiers EXACTLY what they wanted to hear. Otherwise you could be arrested, interrogated or dead. And when the Taliban come around at night, you tell THEM exactly what they want to hear, otherwise you face the same potential consequences.

    Use your head. Canadian soldiers aren't conducting home-to-home opinion polls. NATO soldiers will arrest and interrogate civilians for simply having: common tools that could be used for building IED's; a cell-phone; a weapon or ammunition (which are ubiquitous in Afghaistan); or even a pamphlet sympathetic to the insurgency. All those will get you an indefinite stay in a cell and repeated visits by the notorious Afghan security service.

    If Ms. Galloway wants to hear what Afghans really think, she'll need to approach them without heavily armed soldiers surrounding her.
  16. Jeff T from Canada writes: Yes, liar lil dick Roskell once watched Full Metal Jacket, and so he has all the depth need on foreign affairs. He once drove past a CF base, and thus has all the insider knowledge of our SOPs to be able to comment as an expert.
  17. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: You can imagine journalists sitting around talking over coffee, can't you?

    'I'm heading off to Afghanistan. Got an embedded position with the Canadian Forces.'

    The rest of the reporters exchange glances.

    'It's not what you think! I'm going to tell it like it really is. I won't let my journalistic integrity be compromised. I won't just report what the CF wants me to see. I've got a reputation for uncompromising honesty.'

    More embarrassed glances from the other reporters as they get up to leave.

    'Good luck with that, Gloria.'
  18. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Lefty Lou from Canada writes: Explain this to me NeoCynic, why did you bother reading this article? Such patent propaganda is interesting in much the same way a reader would find Pravda of interest during the reign of the Soviet Communist Party. One needs read between the lines to get the real story, indeed, as is always with such propaganda, it is what is not said that is of key interest because everyone knows that the direct opposite of whatever is portrayed is probably closer to the truth. The first anecdote tells us of a boy who is not shot, of villagers who are not afraid nor angry when soldiers start firing their weapons, and finally of an Aghan not humiliated that he must risk his life riding a bicycle in his own country. The orni of it all is in the conetxt of threatening to kill a citizen, they purport to be doing 'PR' work. LOL! The black comedy of this piece is further heightened by the admission that members of the ANP would rather not show up for duty than face, not the weapons of the Taliban, but the supercilious and patronizing lectures of CF members about policing ethics (from a land that tasers and murders strangers in airports). But no mind, kind taxpayers of Canada, we must be content for progress with 'baby steps', baby steps from men. After 7 years, almost a 100 dead troops, at $100 million a month, and no end in sight, we have 'baby steps'. What cold comfort for the bereaved here in Canada. And as for the good fight itself, after two incidents of gunfire and one explosion, within three hours, the unit does not engage, it 'moves on'. Are things that hopeless that it is pointless to even engage with such apparently routine incidents? Did they even check to see if anyone got hurt? Apparently not. Yet I am amazed that this Sergeant's Pashtun is so fluent. From a land where getting people to speak a few words of French is cause for civil war, this guy speaks fluent Pashtun? Unbelievable!....
  19. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: ...Truly unbelievable. And then comes a ringing endorsement from the foreigner bearing an automatic weapon of the grossly corrupt Karzei that one of its stooges is a 'good man'. I am sure the old codger must have snickered at the profound naivete and simplemindedness of this foreign thug with a gun (as we do here of this story). And here we are, a pack of troopers with weapons, after having shot at a local, invading this guy's store, and engaging for the ears of this haplessly imbedded stenographer, some 'honest' conversation about what he 'thinks' about 'security'. I laugh at the sheer preposterousness of the situation. ANd then this armed squad invades another Afghan's store, who has children. As our Mafia knows, a man with children is especially vulnerbale. No one would want anything to happen to the children, right? So, back to his honest thoughts about 'security'. and what he thinks about these guys with their machines guns. LOL! 'Yassir! ME loves you people! Youz the greatest! I luv you, man! I wish we could be like you!' he tells soldiers '[whose] occasional fire rounds into the dirt and frisk ordinary Afghans as they go about their daily business in Kandahar.' LOL! Methinks his chief concern are the soldiers, like ours, who DO NOT fire rounds into the dirt, but into the heads of his children.
  20. D . from Canada writes: .......thank you to our correspondent in Cayman Islands for his hard hitting, indepth report. Objectivity of that level is a testament to vast 'journalistic credentials'! Nothing like seeing things first hand from the other side of the world, eh? Slurp back another drink and regale us with further tales from your repertoire, no doubt your 'objectivity' knows no bounds!
  21. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Some people simply cannot stand a good report - they only want stories that prove that the troops are the bad guys and no one in Afghanistan wants them there. Every NATO action is the fault of the Canadian troops - even if it is miles away. No recognition that the boy could have been a suicide bomber. Fortunately many Afghans do not appear to be so naive. They understand the situation better than the lame brains here. As for wanting the ANA to be like our troops - why is that surprising? They want a professional military that can provide protection and is loyal to the people and the government not simply militia units controlled by warlords fighting over turf.

    The NeoCynic - the article clearly stated the Sargeant was working with an interpretor - but you probably never read that far.
  22. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Catherine 'the Plagiarist' Medernach:

    There is no report of an interpreter present for the first 'interview' in which it is plainly stated:

    'The soldier asks the man whether he knows that the local district manager is named Abdul Khadr. The answer is no.'

    Yet again, pure sloppiness.
  23. Jay Crawford from Miami, United States writes: Wow, the 'usual suspects' of moral equivalency and war ignorance are off the leash early today. I don't have the time now to disect their assertions but I must note the assumptions they make about soldiers: they are the worst part of our society. To make such an assumption, these folks must not know many soldiers. That these ostensible Canadians could be so ignorant of their army has to be frustrating; that they are so willing to believe such scurrilous propaganda, though, is chilling for Canada's future. Especially though, the consequences such beliefs will be tragic for innocent people in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan, and possibly Dharfur whom these commentators will leave to die because foolishly convinced or deluded Canadians somehow choose to believe that Canadians are as bad as our enemies.
  24. Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: Jay Crawford from Miami, United States writes: 'Wow, the 'usual suspects' of moral equivalency and war ignorance are off the leash early today.'

    It is probably because most of them don't work. The hubris displayed by many of the 'antis' on these boards leads me to believe that most are college/university students. High ideals, some intelligence, little life experience.

    What disturbs me is the vast chasm between positive and negative stories on the Afghan mission. This might lead one to believe all the negative things that the antis spew on these boards. However, before one is tempted to do so, turn on your local nightly news... the vast majority of all 'news' stories are also negative. That is because negative news, the spectacle of horror if you will, sells better. Those who talk of journalistic integrity are assuming that it exists in the first place.

    My opinion, talk to a few troops on the ground for a more accurate sitrep on the mission. It is called 'ground truth.'
  25. Jeff T from Canada writes: Jay, these bottom feeding creatures to whom you refer, know neither Canadian soldiers, nor Afghans, nor even Afghan Canadians. But if you ask them, they will say they are expert in all of the above, so why would they need to know them. All they really need to know is what their political officers tell them they need to know... They after all, share the same brain, and it is important to note, for all their America bashing, that brain is actually an American one. 'Baby killers' is a uniquelly American peace-nik slur. Only recently popping up north of the border here. Also, most of their arguements revolve around Iraq, most of these creatures, like IO and liar lil dick Roskell, could not find Afghanistan on a map, even with giant colour coded stickys (probably because they would not be bothered to look).
  26. The Phantom from Canada writes:

    Jeff T

    Do you even vote?
  27. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jeff T - personally found having the opportunity to discuss situation with someone who served there a valuable experience. Have also talked to Afghans here - both Muslim and non-Muslim - who want our troops to stay in Afghanistan and believe they are doing good work. The fact that women not only have a chance to learn and work, but participate in the rebuilding of their country - including serving in the ANA - along with the men, demonstrates that despite the problems in some areas, gains are being made. The foundation is being laid for the future - hopefully a more peaceful one.
  28. Random O from Canada writes: There are many independent source of information that all say same things. First, Afghan DO NOT want Taliban back. Second, they value what CF is doing for them. These are multiple polls, independent observers like Rashid, Sarah Chayes etc. As per Sarah Chayes, Afghans don't support the insurgency. They're its primary targets.

    HRW and Amnesty International reports show Taliban are deliberately targeting Afghan. They recommend putting more ISAF troops on ground to improve security.

    But the same few people (NeoCynic, Phantom, Richard Roskell etc.) keep ignoring all this, somehow they feel they have a direct line to Taliban and they choose to believe Taliban propaganda.

    What does it say about these people?
  29. Jay Crawford from Miami, FL, United States writes: Great! The writers capable of syllogistic reasoning (Douglas, Jeff, Catherine, and RO) just showed up. Cool.
  30. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jay Crawford:

    You described the day shift of the CF Propaganda Factory.

    LOL!
  31. Random O from Canada writes: NeoCynic, some of us provide back-up for our opinions; you should try it sometime.

    We also made choice to ignore Taliban propaganda. You choose to support Taliban and Al Qeeda. I am really interested to understand why do you (and other like you) made that choice. Why would you support killers and extermist?

    The fact that you are not able to provide support for your opinion shows you are the propaganda factory.
  32. Jay Crawford from Miami, FL, United States writes: Quickly, NeoCynic: Without google, do you even know what syllogistic reasoning is? Nope, didn't think so...or you wouldn't have used it to describe a 'propaganda factory'.
  33. Jeff T from Canada writes: Well, unfortunatly for you Neocynic, that brain trust deals in facts, wich are easily verifiable. We do not come up with our answers, and discussion points using a magic eight ball as you apparently do. Nor do we allow personal prejudices to influence what is. You beleive that the mission in Afghanistan is a mission against Muslims. That is entirely false. There is no evidence to support your spurious lies along that line. If it was a war on Islam, first, why would we openly accept and support Muslims in the CF? Why would we have Islamic partner nations working with ISAF? Why would we support the Haj, with the man power, and logisitical support that we do (ISAF larger, not CF specific)? And Neo, for the last time, I will not tell you who I vote for, because to be plain, it has no baring at on on the questions at hand. None. Interesting how you and Roskel choose to make this about religion and political bent... Shows how much you truly care about the average Afghan.
  34. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: CNN) -- A sailor killed in Afghanistan on Saturday was the 500th U.S. service member to die in that country since the war there began in 2001.

    Petty Officer 1st Class Joshua Harris of Lexington, North Carolina, was 36.

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

    How about a grand ceremony in front of the Parliament 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.
  35. Jeff T from Canada writes: To be fair Jay, the word propaganda it self is not related to the facts, or 'truth' it is simply the dissemination of information for a purpose... Nothing more. The information could be the truth and facts, or it could be complete and utter lies. All of us participating in this forum are engaging in propaganda. The nays, and the yays.
  36. Jeff T from Canada writes: To be fair Jay, the word propaganda it self is not related to the facts, or 'truth' it is simply the dissemination of information for a purpose... Nothing more. The information could be the truth and facts, or it could be complete and utter lies. All of us participating in this forum are engaging in propaganda. The nays, and the yays.
  37. Jeff T from Canada writes: Neo, it is nice to see that true to babble form, you still celebrate the deaths of CF persons. You are a disgusting troll of a human being. Please do not try to say you 'support the troops' because the evidence of that lie is spoken everytime you log onto this site.
  38. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jay Crawford:

    I don't recall agreeing with you that they employ any reasoning at all.
  39. Jeff T from Canada writes: Jay said 'Great! The writers capable of syllogistic reasoning (Douglas, Jeff, Catherine, and RO) just showed up. Cool.' -----------------------------------------------To which you replied 'You described the day shift of the CF Propaganda Factory.' Where exactly did you get your education from? I think you need to get your money back... LOL.
  40. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T:

    Re: Deaths

    You know drill. Especially if you, like a lot of the pro-war posters here, are a member of the CF, then you of all people should know how they operate: years and years of tub thumping for war gets them their dirty little war (you couldn't hold Hillier back from jumping into Afghansitan), and its only then, only after the bodybags come back do we we hear from the sanctimonious frauds like yourself about the horror of war, the ultimate glory and honour of our boys' blood shed in defence of honour, justice, freedom and the rest of that BS. And worse yet, you people demand that the ONLY way we can MAKE SURE that the blood was not shed in vain, is to demand more soldiers, more death, more bloodshed to honour the blood sacrifice of the first soldiers you pointlessly, foolishly got slaughtered. So indeed, you pro-war boosters will indeed be celebrating the glorious 100th dead Canadian soldier. It is just more blood justifying more blood. And what has it won? For all the effort, all of that blood may just have well been simply, as I suggested, been poured down the gutter. Which is exactly what we should do now with this futile, immoral, unethical and ultimately doomed mission in Afghanistan.
  41. Random O from Canada writes: The NeoCynic, your 3:49 PM post demonstarate hate for all things Canadian.

    Don't worry......I am sure CF members will still give up their lives so you can celebrate.
  42. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Why did we get involved in Afghanistan in the first place?

    1. GWB told us to do so? I guess both the liberals and conservatives could be accused of being a lap dog if this is the case. The NDP and other also rans who have absolutely no chance of governing can do whatever they want with impunity and without responsibility so they can essentially be ignored.

    2. We went in under the UN flag as part of a NATO force after the UN authorized the creation of ASAF. Hmmmm does this sound right? Probably not to some but lets assume for a moment that the UN is a credable body that Canada belongs to that occasionally asks member nations to put their troops into harms way occasionally.

    3. We do have some self interest here after 9-11. Plausable? I wonder about this sometimes. After all, one of the reasons floated for NATO involvement is the collective security aspect. I guess it's fun to be part of NATO as long as they don't actually need to use this aspect of the partnership. Then who determines if collective security is at stake? Tricky business in a limited attack situation such as 9-11 - after all, Soviet tanks weren't rolling across Europe so there was some wiggle room for objection. Take note - even the 'neutral' Swedish have troops in Afghanistan. Surely the Sweds wouldn't get involved in a partisan war to support American foreign policy - would they?

    Our real enemy - and the source of our self-interest is Al-Qaeda. This is partly a police problem as well as a military problem. The military issue has to do with the relationship between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If 9-11 had happened and Al Qaeda was harboured elsewhere - pick a place - then we would likely be at odds with them.

    The only way to tackle our self interest as fas as I can tell is to make it difficult - if not impossible for Al Qaeda to resume camping out in Afghanistan in the future. Unfortunately, this puts us at odds with the Taliban.
  43. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Dave Hasler:

    'If 9-11 had happened and Al Qaeda was harboured elsewhere - pick a place - then we would likely be at odds with them.'

    Like Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.
  44. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Random 0:

    '......I am sure CF members will still give up their lives...'

    Tub thumping for the 100th.

    I rest my case. See you on Parliament Hill.
  45. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach: Our troops are not 'bad guys'; they are professional soldiers with a mission and rules of engagement, and are no doubt dismayed when innocents are hurt or killed.

    What isn't working is the whole setup in which they have to operate.

    Ms Galloway's assignment is to report on good works by Canadian soldiers in Kandahar. Fair enough; the story needs to be told. However, to be meaningful it needs to be placed in context, and that is the reporter's job, not selling the mission. We saw the damage 'embedded journalism' did to the credibility of a manipulated U.S. and U.K. press in Iraq.

    The bigger story in Kandahar is that more rural Afghans are joining the insurgency than are fighting against it, belying the tone of this article. A growing insurgency now controls two-thirds of Kandahar province--including the Panjwai, which the CF has had to retake several times in costly campaigns over the past two years.

    It is propaganda that rural Kandaharans are having the insurgency entirely imposed on them from without. Many are forming local groups to fight the foreigners for reasons played down in this article--heavily armed Infidel occupiers threating, accosting and arresting Afghans as they go about their lives, and far too often killing them 'by mistake'. We play down foreigner-caused civilian deaths by calling them 'occasional'. Foreign action was responsible for 46% of civilian deaths in 2007 and 51% in 2006. Hardly 'occasional'; we are as big a threat as the insurgency.

    It is naive to report Afghans' seeming approval under persistent questioning by strangers who they know can shoot or arrest them on slim pretext and who have enormous power over their lives. Of course they will take whatever aid we give them, but everyone is a threat to them: their government, the insurgents, and us--our good intentions notwithstanding. The U.S.'s intentions and attitudes are a whole other matter.
  46. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Good afternoon The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands ...........

    Saudi Arabia is a good point and I admit I have struggled to understand their politics - and apparent lack of sanity sometimes.

    On one hand, the Saudi Royal family owes it's wealth and probably its continued security to the west - yet they engaged in this Wahabbi adventure and continue to support Madrasahs that indocrinate youth into radical politics. Such has been the recruiting ground of many extremists which is a puzzle since Al Qaeda would also like to see the end of the monarchy there and the establishment of their own brand of 'islamic state'.

    So, are they with us or against us - after all their economy is a one trick pony that has been under stress due to Al-Qaeda activity in the past. They are a classic - 'partial pregnancy' and the west tolerates it because of oil.

    But now you have to separate out the extremists from the government. The fact that many extremists - including most of the 9-11 attackers came with Saudi passports is an indisputable fact. However, to suggest this was a Saudi government sponsored attack is a stretch.

    The Saudi government had a cozy relationship with the Taliban as well and were their major benefactors until Bin Laden took on that role. In fact, the Saudi government terminated their relationship with the Taliban because the Taliban refused to curtail Al Qaeda activity. I believe the Saudi's also demanded Bin Laden be handed over or expelled - I would have to look that one up but I recall something of that nature.

    So what is our self interest in Saudi then? Are they an Al Qaeda ally - hardly. Extremist elements in Saudi are opposed to the government there. The situation with the Taliban was much different.
  47. Jeff T from Canada writes: Liar Neocynic. Now that I have more time, allow me to eviscerate completely your myopic, and totally dishonest take here and for all to see.

    '...like a lot of the pro-war posters here, are a member of the CF, then you of all people should know how they operate: years and years of tub thumping for war gets them their dirty little war (you couldn't hold Hillier back from jumping into Afghansitan)...'

    First off, you dishonest lying little hack. I am not pro-war. I am very anti. I do not like the idea of being sent away from my family, with the prospect that I might never return.

    No soldier I know who has been over there is pro-war. the difference, you dishonest snivelling peice of garbage, is we now have our souls invested in trying to help these people out of a very bad situation.

    It is like turning your back on a rape here in Canada. Maybe you can do it, but we that choose to serve something then ourselves definatly can not.

    More to follow...
  48. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    Dave

    You can hardly call the Saudi gov moderate. How much more extremist can a theocracy be?
  49. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Dave Hasler:

    For those of us who can remember what we had for breakfeast this morning, a little bit of real history:

    Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden

    Second week of bombing begins;
    Media visits village hit by missile

    By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
    Monday, 15 October 2001



    After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

    After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

    The Independant
  50. Jeff T from Canada writes: It is impossible, for those of us, who have seen first hand, the wholesale suffering, and the pain, to just walk away. The western world did that once already after we declared victory over the murderous Soviet Union. The result, was a continuation of what is now 30 years of straight warfare.

    Yes, we do beleive in the mission. Why? Because we have lived and breathed it. We have gone from our families for what feels like eternity, and we can see the small changes that turn huge between rotations. I have buried very close and personal friends in this thing, and I am likely to bury more (if not myself). Yet we volunteer still. None of us have too... There are many ways a CF soldier, even the regular force can get out of it.

    The mission is not as the media here in Canada play it out to be. It is NOT all gun fights, and killing. That is a losing strategy, and the CF and the Government of Canada knows it... But, people like liar Neocynic or liar Roskell would have all beleive that is all we are doing.

    More to follow...
  51. The Phantom from Canada writes:

    Jeff

    By your standards one could argue that Hitler wasn't pro war either.

    Everyone claims they want peace. On what terms though?
  52. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T from Canada:

    'I do not like the idea of being sent away from my family, with the prospect that I might never return'

    You are foolishly deluded. What member in the senior ranks of the CF ever faced the minutest of possibility that THEY would be sent to Afghanstan with the prospect of never returning? Hillier?? LOL!

    You can't be that thick, are you?
  53. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T from Canada'

    Morality Rule No. 1:

    Do not cause more harm than that which you seek to prevent.

    Case closed for Afghanistan.
  54. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Phantom from Canada .... thank you for your reply.

    The Saudi government is - IMO - high on it's arrogance horse due to oil wealth and the power that it implies over dependant nations.

    They are not moderate by Canadian standards - I would hope we could agree on this part since I doubt either of us would want to live there or be otherwise subject to their type of governance.

    They are also at odds with Al Qaeda which is more or less common ground with NATO and most of the rest of the world. Their 'relationship' with the Taliban ended due to the Taliban's relationship with Al Qaeda.

    This brings to mind an interesting 'what if'. Suppose Al Qaeda had returned to Afghanistan and the Saudi's were still in a cozy relationship with the Taliban at the time of 9-11.

    I wonder ..............
  55. Jeff T from Canada writes: Note, how recently, a feel good article came out in in the paper (one of the very very few to appear over the years), all the usual suspects like liar Neocynic and liar Roskell came out and tried to minimize the article. Yet previously, they said that all news gets fair play... I guess hypocrisy is not a word you are familiar with.

    Our focus is reconstruction. Through vocational training, helping them build their infrastructure, helping them create a future for themselves.

    We do become attached very strongly to those that we are trying to help.... Ten years later, I am still in contact with friends I made while in Bosnia, I will likely be still in touch ten years from now, with them and new friends I have made in Afghanistan.

    It is easy for liar Neocynic and others to pontificate, because they have exactly nothing invested. Nothing at all.

    '(you couldn't hold Hillier back from jumping into Afghansitan)'

    More to follow...
  56. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    In my opinion anyone who advocates mobilizing our army to engage in combat is 'pro war'. If I agreed with the cause then I would indeed be 'pro war'. For example if another country invaded Canada I would support a defensive war and if Canada was occupied I would be 'pro' war in that I would support a war of resistance waged against our occupiers. If the government of Canada suspended our democratic and civil rights for any significant period of time then I would advocate for an insurgency war to defend the people of Canada from fascism.
  57. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    Jeff

    Do you vote in Canadian elections or not?
  58. Jeff T from Canada writes: This is a huge, and egregious lie. Neocynic would create the mythology that the CF or even the DND (note, two different entities) create foriegn policy. This is most definatly not the case, not then, not now. This is a lie, that liar Neocynic and others hope the Canadian public would be stupid enough to believe.

    IT WOULD BE HIGHLY ILLEGAL FOR THE CF OR DND TO CREATE FORIEGN POLICY.

    We do take our governments policy, and make it like it is our own idea... Because we have to. Unlike you, our choices are, do it, or quit. So, unless said policy is illegal, then we do it like it was always our idea.

    Speaking of frauds:

    'only after the bodybags come back do we we hear from the sanctimonious frauds like yourself about the horror of war, the ultimate glory and honour of our boys' blood shed in defence of honour, '

    You are a pathetic troll. Nothing more. DO NOT ever speak of 'our boys' we are not your boys. Your absolute disdain is evidence here on these boards, by your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. You barely read the headlines, let alone have any demonstrated knowledge on anything at all about the mission. You regurgitate talking points given to you by your political officer, nothing more.

    More to follow...
  59. Jeff T from Canada writes: '... And worse yet, you people demand that the ONLY way we can MAKE SURE that the blood was not shed in vain, is to demand more soldiers, more death, more bloodshed to honour the blood sacrifice of the first soldiers you pointlessly, foolishly got slaughtered...' We do not collectivly view any sacrifice in vain. You however, in your ignorance and prejudice keep dishouring my fallen friends with this 'in vain' garbage. You forget us, the second you turn the newpaper pages. You do not care one little bit about the Afghan people, as demonstrated by your lack of knowledge on even the basics of the nation at large. We volunteer again and again to go, because we see what we are doing. Because we beleive. I know... Beleiving in something which you can not touch is impossible for a malconent lying little troll such as yourselves. To give up now would be an unforgivable sin. It would lead to more war... But then, to hug a thug liar slime balls like you, that is not your problem. You can go back to ignoring the problem like you did with Rawanda and Somalia. Great tactic. We are not there, so we do not have to worry about it. 'I do not live in the house next door, I keep seeing children go in, but I never see them come out... I don't live there, so I do not have to worry about it.' More to follow...
  60. Jeff T from Canada writes: Your xenophobic tendancies do not make this planet a better place to live in, but out of expereince, having seen the effects first hand of trying to ignore a problem, you do definatly more then your fair share of keeping me gainfully employed.

    'So indeed, you pro-war boosters will indeed be celebrating the glorious 100th dead Canadian soldier.'

    Do not ever, ever call us your boys. We are not. You are a treasonous douchebag... But because we do live in a free and just society, you are allowed to be a treasonous douchebag. We do not celebrate when one of our family get killed. Clearly you do. Just as I have seen you and that lying sack of garbage Jingles do on rabble in the past.

    Your ignorance and prejudice remove you from reasonable debate, which is why I treat you with complete disdain. You are not worthy of respect, and you spit on the very notion of discussion. You are not here to discuss. You are here to slander, and libel, and go on and on about things that are far out of your depth.
  61. Jeff T from Canada writes: Note, how the dishonest hack Phantom credibility attempts to derail with irrelevant questions.
  62. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T from Canada:

    Re: Hillier

    Go read The Unexpected War for an insider's account as to how Hillier vigorously lobbied for us to jump into Afghanistan. That in combination with Chretien's limited intelligence guaranteed our 100 dead.
  63. Jeff T from Canada writes: Good god. If you are going to quote a book. You bloody well should read it. You are a blithering idiot.
  64. The Phantom from Canada writes:
    Off topic, but in that picture of Mackay flanked by to soldiers, what is with the fitness guidelines for our troops? Those two look like they've been guarding Mackays personal pork barrel a little to long.
  65. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T:

    Re: Lies

    1) 'Our focus is reconstruction' Not true. Less than ten cents of every dollar is devoted to what you could dubiously call 'recontsruction.'

    2) 'We do not collectivly view any sacrifice in vain.' If you die in a war that you lose, you have died in vain. Truth hurts sometimes. Denying reality is what got our boys to die in vain in the first place.

    3) 'To give up now would be an unforgivable sin. It would lead to more war... ' Like in Vietnam, where it took 58,000 before the Americans (thank God) 'gave up'? Again, you scream for more blood in avoidance of what??? More war? Where? Here? Are you a member of the 'If we don't fight them in Khandhar, we'll be fightin' them in Moosejaw' school of tomfoolery?

    4) 'I do not live in the house next door, I keep seeing children go in, but I never see them come out... I don't live there, so I do not have to worry about it.' Speaking of children, have you seen the 60 children murdered by our airstrikes last week lately? Thought not.
  66. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T from Canada writes: Good god. If you are going to quote a book. You bloody well should read it. You are a blithering idiot.' Alright, I will: 'The minister was then forewarned that, in six-to-eight weeks time, Canada would get a formal request — a so-called diplomatic note, or “dipnote,” from the U.S. State Department to the Canadian Foreign Ministry — asking for a renewed troop presence in Afghanistan. Canada’s military leadership was suggesting a positive response to the American request; Ottawa could send another battle group to Kandahar early in 2003. The long-standing desire for an operational pause to regenerate the troops had mysteriously dissipated. ...Henault and his deputy, vice-admiral Greg Maddison, made one further point to their minister that day, and they made it forcefully. They argued that under no circumstances should Canada agree to be part of the Kabul-based International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Kabul ...The Canadian Forces have always preferred working with the Americans. They also are often quite dismissive of some European militaries — particularly the Germans (who were leading ISAF at this time), the French and the Italians. “They [the military leadership] were very cosy with the Americans and liked the idea of us being in combat, rather than peacekeeping,” McCallum later recollected. “ISAF wasn’t exactly peacekeeping but it was more the traditional peacekeeping model rather than combat. There was also always this thing about interoperability with the Americans. They generally looked closely to their American peers. Those were the people they wanted to impress. They felt more comfortable with the Americans.” excerpt, The Unexpected War, Lang and Stein
  67. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes: The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands ..... Thanks for your reply and my breakfast of a BELT and medium black coffee was just fine.

    I would like to continue with the history thing since you bring it up with a few more items of interest.

    Sept 1, 1999 .... UNDCP says Afghanistan's opium production has doubled since September, 1998. 97 percent of cultivation under Taliban control. Hmmmm ... aren't the Taliban opposed to Poppies are is there a chance that even they are somewhat greedy ............ Or alternatively, they didn't reqally provide an effective government either.

    On to the 9-11 timeline ......

    Paraphrasing .... 'In September, 2001, the U.S. placed significant pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and al-Qaeda in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On October 7, after the Taliban refused to give up bin Laden, the U.S. began bombing Taliban military sites and aiding the Northern Alliance. By November 21, the Taliban had lost Kabul and by December 9 had been completely routed. ' ................

    Also Paraphrasing ........ ' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

    The offer came as the United States massed forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer and repeated U.S. demands that bin Laden be turned over unconditionally.

    The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence. '

    There are a lot of 'what ifs' here. Draw your own conclusions.
  68. Jeff T from Canada writes: You provide exactly zero facts.

    You are providing supposition. Nothing more. Seriously flawed supposition, in which you deliberatly remove context to influence your audience. Do I need to tell you how completely dishonest that is?

    '1) 'Our focus is reconstruction' Not true. Less than ten cents of every dollar is devoted to what you could dubiously call 'recontsruction.''

    Do you need a break down of the military effort? First, when was the last time you were shot at? I mean directly... Not watching a movie... For me, it was last June. The terrorist routinely target ALL reconstruction. They do NOT care about the benifit to be derived by the Afghan people. But just because we are out there with guns, to provide security for a project, that does not make the project less important.

    Now, to build a bridge, first we need a place to put it. We need a secure area. Guess what. Even if we are not being shot at, that is still and expensive propostion.

    Next, we do not spend the money directly. Were possible, locals are contracted. Other times, we spend the money to train the locals.
  69. Jeff T from Canada writes: So, ya, maybe you are somewhat correct, but like a stopped clock, even you could occasionally be right. You are dishonest, in assocaiting budget with effort. It costs billions of dollars a year in cancer research to find a cure for cancer... Would you suggest that the main effort is the research? Or finding the cure?

    2) 'We do not collectivly view any sacrifice in vain.' If you die in a war that you lose, you have died in vain. Truth hurts sometimes. Denying reality is what got our boys to die in vain in the first place.'

    We are not the one denying reality, you are. I am painfully aware of the reality thanks. But, I'll tell you what. If you could even name four of Afghanistans neighbours, I will donate an extra 100 dollars in your name to the Canadian Cancer Society this year.
  70. Jeff T from Canada writes: '3) 'To give up now would be an unforgivable sin. It would lead to more war... ' Like in Vietnam, where it took 58,000 before the Americans (thank God) 'gave up'? Again, you scream for more blood in avoidance of what??? More war? Where? Here? Are you a member of the 'If we don't fight them in Khandhar, we'll be fightin' them in Moosejaw' school of tomfoolery?'

    Of course you remove the context here. You clearly do not understand the context.

    Police respond to a domestic dispute in a residiential house... They walk in, find the wife in tears, black eye, bloody nose. The husband, the bruised knuckles says she fell down the stairs, and his bruises are from his day job as a construction worker.

    The neighbors report they have seen them physically fighting, and are always screaming.

    Would the cops be of sound mind, be making a reasonable decision to just walk away then and there?

    (Funny, this addresses two points).
  71. Jeff T from Canada writes: '4) 'I do not live in the house next door, I keep seeing children go in, but I never see them come out... I don't live there, so I do not have to worry about it.' Speaking of children, have you seen the 60 children murdered by our airstrikes last week lately? Thought not.'

    Have you? Do you care? I mean aside from being able to abuse them continually here... How do you even know there was children (there likely was, however, the Taliban have routinely abused the trust of the press on these issues in the past... Ever notice how they manage to kill hundreds of coalition forces a day in their press releases?)
  72. Jeff T from Canada writes: '“They [the military leadership] were very cosy with the Americans and liked the idea of us being in combat, rather than peacekeeping,” '

    Funny, how in all that nonesense, you could not find anything on Gen Hillier.

    Again. I ask. Have you read the book? Google is a good thing, you are now proving you are capable of reading it. But like the terrorist fanatics that we fight, it is clear that there is a difference between reading and understanding.
  73. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T:

    Alright, I'll bite: get out your chequebook.

    Iran, Tirkmenistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and oops, lest we forget, good ole Uzbekistan (my favorite Stan besides my uncle).
  74. Jeff T from Canada writes: Iran and China round out the list. I am inpressed. It will not hurt me to donate to the Society, I do it with money and time every year regardless.

    Oh, it's Turkmenistan...

    Here is an excellent topographical map of the region:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afghantopoen.jpg
  75. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Jeff T:

    (1) Silly me. Imagine, 'assocaiting budget with effort'. Where did I get the crazy idea that with more money you can make more of an effort? Put your money where your mouth is, Jeff.

    (2) Who appointed us the policeman of the world? The Americans?

    (3) Who did those officers work for if not Hillier? Alice Cooper?
  76. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Dave Hasler:

    The opium issue aside, do you not agree that the Taliban did offer to surrender Osama, and if so, what then again is the justification of our invasion of the country?

    ......ooops oh yea, the women, the women! And and and, the children, the chidlren!! Heh heh, will wonders ever cease.
  77. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: You bet the Taliban offered to give up Usama bin Laden. Repeatedly.

    The Taliban at first refused to give up UbL unless they were provided evidence of his involvement in 9/11. The U.S. refused to provide it. (The U.S. still does not have sufficient evidence to charge UbL with the crime.)

    When it became apparent the U.S. was serious about invading, the Taliban made a number of diplomatic overtures to try and find away to hand UbL over that wasn't unlawful. Those diplomatic overtures were still underway when the U.S. invaded. They continued for at least a week, with the Taliban finally offering to hand UbL over (without evidence) to a neutral third country, such as Switzerland.

    The U.S. just continued bombing and they continue to bomb to this day.
  78. Jeff T from Canada writes: Lying lil dick Roskell, forgets to mention that the Taliban had been offering up OBL since since about 1999... Just need to provide the proof... Meanwhile OBL is getting on TV and taking credit for damn near everything short of stock market fluctuations.

    Context dick. I just love the way you are ALWAYS removing the context.
  79. Jeff T from Canada writes: Go read the book Neo. I ain't doing your work for you... BIG HINT, you named the then boss right up there. Your ignorance in these issues is not your friend. Instead of accusation, perhaps you should switch to asking questions, and at least pretending to care enough to get into an actual discussion.
  80. A good Canadian from Canada writes: Look who is spreading the Taliban propaganda:

    Interested Observer from United States writes:
    Monday, September 01, 2008 THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS

    PESHAWAR: At least 500 civilians were killed or wounded during the five-day US-led troops' ground and air operation in the Sangin district of Helmand province, a member of Afghanistan's parliament said on Sunday.

    'Foreign forces have been conducting operation in Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district for the last five days in which artillery and aircraft are being used,' Dad Muhammad Khan, member of Wolesi Jirga (lower house of parliament), told Afghan Islamic Press.

    'The dead and injured were lying in the area and there is no one to shift the injured. Yesterday, I raised the issue in the parliament but the government has done nothing so far,' he said.

    * Posted 02/09/08 at 10:33 AM EDT

    Did you get it emailed to you directly, or did you pick it up off the Islamic Emeriate Of Afghanistan website where all the good Taliban lies are?
  81. Jeff T from Canada writes: A Good Canadian, perhaps the one you are refering to meant to link this story...

    http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?205155

    Note, I can not at this time find any other evidence that the statements are anything more then just statements. I am sure, if it could be proven true, the blood hounds on this news paper, and others would be running none-stop on the front pages, as this would be horrific enough to top this years murder of over 180 civilians in 1 week, in one province at the hands of the Taliban.
  82. Merely an Observer from Canada writes: A good Canadian, Jeff T, as per my comment earlier today:
    ' Actually, Interested Observers' opinion really is of little value as he/she is nothing more than a plagiarist of dubious credibility.'

    * Posted 02/09/08 at 11:04 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
  83. Jeff T from Canada writes: Agreed Merely. It would be too simple to attribute source... But in doing so, Interested Observer (what a misnomer) would expose him/herself to the possibility of defrocking.

    I would add caution in dismissing the Pak Tribune. They do give equal air time to all that ask. So, in that regard, they are unbiased IMHO. I do not like a lot of what they publish, but one needs to get past the headlines sometimes and look deeper, and in that regards, the Pak Tribune is an interesting source of information (they just do not do a very good job of verifying the stories they run with from outside sources).
  84. Jeff T from Canada writes: This is worth fighting for.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23550319-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&

    Electricity. Not one kilowatt of that will go to the coalition forces... We supply our own. All for the locals.
  85. Jeff T from Canada writes: Of course, the dishonest amongst us, would have us beleive that all that logisitical support for that reconstruction mission would somehow be free.
  86. The Phantom from Canada writes:

    GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW.
  87. Jeff T from Canada writes: Why Phantom? It is clear you have nothing invested in Afghanistan, Afghans, nor anyone other then yourself clearly. Why should we get out of Afghanistan? Can you come up with a reasonable reason, other then the usual conspiracy theories, and Taliban taliking points?
  88. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes: Good afternoon Richard ..... as with a previous post of mine, there are many apparent what ifs to be addressed here.

    After 8 days of bombing .... The Guardian, Wednesday October 17 2001 .... ' For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said. '

    and

    Telegraph .. 22 Sep 2001 .... ' AFGHANISTAN'S ruling Taliban yesterday ignored an edict by Islamic clerics that Osama bin Laden be asked to leave the country, defying America's demands that they hand him over or face military strikes. ' .....

    and

    From the Guardian ... 'On September 20, 2001 the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer'.

    I guess they did offer ......... nothing like a few bombs to bring the Taliban to their senses.

    So why didn't the USA take them up on the offer? After all, Osama was public enemy number 1 and the Taliban really had no beef with the Americans.

    Desire for retribution, revenge or some other exacting of a toll may be a factor. I cannot get into GWB's headspace so an accurate answer is impossible. I wonder if the Americans saw Bin Laden as a figurehead but the entire rest of the snake was intact and capable of further strikes against them. This would also motivate the USA to action to destroy or limit Al Qaeda's ability to carry out further attacks.

    By all means - put bin Laden on trial. Let the world see what you have and let him spend his days in a jail with his Quaram. But by all means, also go after his organization of many tens of thousands of fighters and supporters that will attempt to exact their revenge.
  89. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: Dave Hasler:

    The US never did, nor does, nor ever will want Osama Bin Laden, and especially neither the public trial he would necessitate to expose the truth about what happened on 9/11.
  90. Random O from GTA, Canada writes: _ Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: You bet the Taliban offered to give up Usama bin Laden. Repeatedly.... _

    Did you ask for examples of you defending Taliban few days back? I gave you few that day, which you could not counter. This comment is another one.

    I gave you link for about 33 attempts tried with Taliban from 1996 till before Sept 11, 2001. Which you agreed last time were not in dispute. Did you forget so soon? US tried diplomatic initiatives for many years, none of them worked, you think US should have gone for 34th ride on this merry-go-around after 9/11!!!!!

    One of these 33 attempts was proof given to Taliban about his involvement in pre-9/11 bombing. Taliban refused to even consider that evidence. You think after 9/11, US would consider it again.

    Bin Laden and Al Zawahari gave a press conference from A-tan in 1998 under Taliban rule calling for global jihad against civilian target. Did Taliban forget that interview? Bin Laden says from A-tan his organization will attack civilian US targets, then they launch 9/11 and Taliban are looking for 'proof'. How about they read the interview he gave from A-tan?

    One year later Taliban senior representative claims in BBC interview, that they warned US for impending attack couple of weeks before 9/11. They claimed that US did not take them seriously. So did they know of attack or they did not.

    Did you also know of UN resolution before 9/11 for Taliban to stop support for terrorist. Resolutions 1267 and 1333 in 1999 and 2000. What did that result in?

    Bombing in A-tan started Oct 7th, Taliban's offer to send Bin Laden to Pakistan was on Oct 14th, seven days too late.

    How about you provide the link for Taliban offering to send Bin Laden to Switzerland? Which day did they offer that?
  91. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes:

    Is Osama really guilty of 9-11???

    Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda - apparently not the brains - that appears to be delegated to his #2 - al-Zawahiri

    Hitler wasn't the brains of the nazi party - IMO. He had Himmler, Goebels and others to handle the details and strategy stuff. Yet, is there any doubt that he would have been held responsible for the actions of the nazis during ww2? In Italy, as in many other countries it is illegal to belong to the mafia. Crime bosses are held responsible for the actions they promote, support or otherwise inspire.

    Some contend there is no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11

    Doesn't he lead/fund/inspire and support Al Qaeda from the number 1 spot?

    I don't think any one of us has seen, heard or examined all of the evidence that is available. And I doubt we ever will unfortunately.

    In balance and for the sake of fairness, I too have seen the stories indicating that on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Ok, I guess precision is a must in legal matters. The fact that Al Qaeda has awknowledged it's role means little.

    One more resource:

    CBC ..... 'Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States' ........

    I guess the CBC and others got it wrong .............. BTW - the Crown failed to make it's case against the accused bombers of Air India .................. Apparently a CSIS goof/mistake was largly responsible for this fiasco as well as apparent witness intimidation. Do you beleive they are innocent ???

    How is this related you may wonder. If you have a 'cause' and your minions take inspired action in support of it - are you guilty?
  92. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes:
    The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands ......... the truth is out there somewhere. None of us have the magic orb so all seeing is fantasy.

    If by some stroke of miracle, Bin Laden is captured and put on trial, it will be more about what he inspired others to do in the name of his 'cause' and how he lead, funded and helped organize Al Qaeda rather that deep and dirty little 'secrets' that we surmise must exist.

    The conspiracy stuff, the actual secret stuff, the stuff the 9-11 conspiracy theorists envision - will never be part of the proceedings - IMO.

    Lets take the rediculous - the theory the Americans did it to themselves or planned the attack with the Israeli Mossad - or some variation. Hmmmmm .... OK, they convinced Al Qaeda to carry it out as well I see ............. OK ............. gotta go .............. I am going back to my planet for a rest now ...............
  93. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: </