Gen. Hillier: Most Taliban are "moderates"

[sharkman]

Has anyone been able to find a link on the topic of this thread yet?

[betsy]

I'm still waiting for a link of proof that this occured. I'd like to see the remarks in context for accuracy if nothing else. Third hand information is kind of unreliable.

Especially when we know who's kindly passing this....ahem....information.

[betsy]

And Conservatives don't blow things out of proportion by saying that Jack Layton is crazy?!?!

Well, when someone uses the word , "negotiate"...it means he's willing to do some compromises.

So what is Jack willing to compromise?

The gays?

Womens' Rights?

Canadians converting to Islam?

Harper's head on a silver platter?

So who wouldn't think he's gone bonkers?

[Rovik]

Probably the third or forth most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written here. The "Cons" and the "Libs" do not need a scare tactic to try and drive people from voting NDP, and even if they did I certainly don't.

Layton's walls don't quite make it to the ceiling.

.

Darn!...I was hoping to get the most ridiculous thing you seen ever written here.

Many people would also argue that they don't need scare tactics to not vote for Conservatives as well.

[Rovik]

The Liberals see the NDP as a natural enemy on their left flank. That is why Layton tried that dumbass "lend us your vote" in the last election. To Liberals that was just plain dumb, not really crazy.

Conservatives see Layton as an annoyance and a typical hypocrite, as are many silver-spoon socialists. Like when he and Olicia were making $120K between them and living in a co-op in downtown Toronto. Paying $800 a month for a 3 BDRM. Originally claimed he was paying market value. wtf? Then he fessed up and moved. Good work jack!

Instead of been considerate and saying "lend us your vote," what they should have said was "abandon the arrogant and corrupt Liberals."

Why don't you tell the whole story, not just the part of the story that suits you.

From Wikipedia Jack Layton

Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[2] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. Average Toronto market rent in 1989 was $782 per month, although the Vancouver Province newspaper claimed a comparable dwelling would have been worth $1,500.

In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[3] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing, and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time. Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW Magazine that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.

I'm sure i can dig into Harper's past as well, and distort some of his history (perhaps his days at the NCC,) to suit my purposes if I wanted to as well but I won't because I don't want to get into such a petty war with you.

[Rovik]

And Conservatives don't blow things out of proportion by saying that Jack Layton is crazy?!?!

Well, when someone uses the word , "negotiate"...it means he's willing to do some compromises.

So what is Jack willing to compromise?

The gays?

Womens' Rights?

Canadians converting to Islam?

Harper's head on a silver platter?

So who wouldn't think he's gone bonkers?

Automatically you assume that negotiate means to give into all the demands of the Taliban. Of course, you paint this scary scenario to paint Layton in the worst light...almost a mini smear campaign if you will.

Negotiations means give and take for both sides. For example, many of the Taliban might be offered immunity, some may be offered govt. posts and a form of sharia law kept in place. In return, these people must be willing to accept rights for women and non Islams and accept that the Taliban be disbanded.

Of course, if the Taliban are not willing to move from their extreme views, then negotiations are not a viable option.

What you suggest about what Layton is willing to compromise is just plain off-the-wall and untrue. When has Layton ever mentioned what you suggest.

[August1991]

This thread is seriously muddled.

It was Gordon O'Connor, Minister of Defence, who said in early September something entirely different, leading everyone to spin:

"We cannot eliminate the Taliban, not militarily anyway," O'Connor told Reuters in an interview. "We've got to get them back to some kind of acceptable level, so they don't threaten other areas."

Reuters

The Toronto Star then got confirmation of the quote from Rick Hillier and added its own spin:

With Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan locked down in one of this country's biggest battles in modern times, Ottawa's top military officials conceded yesterday the Taliban cannot be eliminated by force.

The revelations — first by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in an interview from Australia, and later confirmed by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier in Ottawa — are certain to stun Canadians who are increasingly concerned about the rising number of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan.

Toronto Star

Somehow, this got repeated and spun again on the CBC. God knows.

----

The essence of the scientific method is to be an intelligent sceptic - that means having an open mind but not so open that one accepts anything.

I find too many engage in political debate with a closed mind. They interpret new events according to existing dogma - exactly as the Catholic Church did faced with the facts portrayed by Galileo.

[Wilber]

The issue here is Afghanistan and its people, not Canadian politics, not Layton, not Harper and not the dogma of anyone on this forum. To look at it any other way is to cheapen the lives of those we have serving there. The object of the exercise is to leave Afghanistan with a functioning government that has some respect for human rights, including women and does not support international terrorism. If that can be done by including some elements of the Taliban then so be it. Personally I am skeptical but what do I know.

[watching&waiting]

It was made very clear today what was meant when the general said that talks and negoiation are going on in Afghanistan. But people here seem to have a hard time understanding things, so here is a try on my part. The Afghan government is and always has been in talks with the Taliban, and it is the only one who has the authority to do so. There are no talks between the Nato troops or even Nato command and the Taliban and never will there be. The only enity that can negoiate with anyone for things in Afghanistan is the Government of that country. So when it is said that talks have been ongoing it means with Taliban and the afghan goverment. Not with anyone else and this will never change with the present way of this mission.

I hope this clears that up some, as even I thought different until see the head of DND explain this, and show exactly where people are running off the path of this subject.

[Rovik]

It was made very clear today what was meant when the general said that talks and negoiation are going on in Afghanistan. But people here seem to have a hard time understanding things, so here is a try on my part. The Afghan government is and always has been in talks with the Taliban, and it is the only one who has the authority to do so. There are no talks between the Nato troops or even Nato command and the Taliban and never will there be. The only enity that can negoiate with anyone for things in Afghanistan is the Government of that country. So when it is said that talks have been ongoing it means with Taliban and the afghan goverment. Not with anyone else and this will never change with the present way of this mission.

I hope this clears that up some, as even I thought different until see the head of DND explain this, and show exactly where people are running off the path of this subject.

True enough.

I have two questions on this. First, do people here agree that the Afghan govt. should deal with the Taliban and secondly is it in the coalition's best interest to be on the sidelines, perhaps no even knowing what is being put on the table and may put them in danger. For example, The Pakistani agreement, in most experts' eyes seems to have made matters worse, not better.

[jbg]

Let's face it, the Cons and the Libs use '"Jack Layton is crazy" as a scare tactic to try to drive people from voting NDP.

Well if that doesn't work, other scare tactics might be to look at the quality of NDP government in Ontario (under Bob Rae), Saskatchewan (going great guns, eh), Manitoba, and of course Glen Clark in BC.

[geoffrey]

It was made very clear today what was meant when the general said that talks and negoiation are going on in Afghanistan. But people here seem to have a hard time understanding things, so here is a try on my part. The Afghan government is and always has been in talks with the Taliban, and it is the only one who has the authority to do so. There are no talks between the Nato troops or even Nato command and the Taliban and never will there be. The only enity that can negoiate with anyone for things in Afghanistan is the Government of that country. So when it is said that talks have been ongoing it means with Taliban and the afghan goverment. Not with anyone else and this will never change with the present way of this mission.

I hope this clears that up some, as even I thought different until see the head of DND explain this, and show exactly where people are running off the path of this subject.

Negotiating their complete unconditional surrender would be acceptable I guess.

[Rovik]

Let's face it, the Cons and the Libs use '"Jack Layton is crazy" as a scare tactic to try to drive people from voting NDP.

Well if that doesn't work, other scare tactics might be to look at the quality of NDP government in Ontario (under Bob Rae), Saskatchewan (going great guns, eh), Manitoba, and of course Glen Clark in BC.

Well let me see, how about the quality of Grant's Devine's Conservative govt. in Sask., perhaps the most scandalous govt. in Canada's history or the successive Conservative and Liberal govts. in Newfoundland that for years put Newfoundland further and further into debt. Funny how people conveniently forgot about the bad Conservative and Liberal provincial governments over the years

So what's so bad with the government in Sask and Manitoba, I believe they have done a pretty good job, I do admit they they have made some mistakes but name me one provincial govt. in Canada's history that hasn't made some mistakes.

OK, this is my last off-topic post in this thread.

[kimmy]

Negotiations means give and take for both sides. For example, many of the Taliban might be offered immunity, some may be offered govt. posts and a form of sharia law kept in place. In return, these people must be willing to accept rights for women and non Islams and accept that the Taliban be disbanded.

Of course, if the Taliban are not willing to move from their extreme views, then negotiations are not a viable option.

At this point it seems logical to assume that many "moderate Afghans" (moderate is probably a relative term in this usage...) have taken up arms to fight alongside the Taliban, viewing it as the only viable resistance against the Western Invaders.

At this point it seems as though our troops are fighting two kinds of enemy: the hardcore religious nutjobs known as the Taliban, and Afghans who just want the Western forces to leave their country.

Many of these people would probably be happy to lay down their weapons if our troops would just go home. It would be easy to negotiation an agreement with them.

But what about the other ones, the real Taliban, who won't be satisfied with anything less than the country being returned to the way things were in 1999? How do you negotiate with *those* guys?

They don't have to concede any of their hateful ideas, because they know that "moderates" will fight alongside them to expel the invader, and they know that our political resolve is weakening with every casualty.

We can only buy time for the Afghan government to establish the means to care for its citizens and maintain law and order. Western troops can leave Afghanistan when the country is in such a state that when western troops go home, the moderates are content, the Taliban hard-liners are a tiny minority, the Afghan government has the means to defend against them, and the Afghan people are content to support the government.

-k

[Argus]

It was made very clear today what was meant when the general said that talks and negoiation are going on in Afghanistan. But people here seem to have a hard time understanding things, so here is a try on my part. The Afghan government is and always has been in talks with the Taliban, and it is the only one who has the authority to do so.

More accurately, I think, is that the Afghan government, aided by the money and threats from NATO, have been in continuous talks attempting to persuade a wide variety of local tribal leaders and warlords to shift positions. Some support the incursions under the table, or not-so under the table, either because they oppose the current government, or because they don't want attacks in their areas, or because they're manoeuvring for more power or money.

[sharkman]

I read both of the links August provided, but have yet to see any proof of the phrase which was the basis for this thread. 'Most Taliban are moderates', has appeared no where except as a phrase someone reported hearing on the radio. Without the context, it is impossible to know the General's intended meaning. There may or may not be moderates, but I don't think the average foot soldier over there is breathing a sigh of relief.

[watching&waiting]

I watched something on the new the other day that had a safe house in Kandahar where Taliban leaders were able to come and talk without the threat of arrest and fighting. It was interesting to see that most of these guys wanted government jobs and money and I would guess that along with that would also come power. They did not seem to be the hard rule Taliban but maybe moderates. I think I would agree that they could be given much of what they ask for, but the power they seek should not be able to bring them back to the old days where women are chattle. But again that is not for me to decide. The hard liners did not stay and talk as they were more curious then serious, but if the leaders who wer there represent say 2000 fighters, well that would be an interesting change.

Also if they could also have their fighters now join into the afghan army, maybe we would see a tidal shift. So to that point I can say I think talks can be good. The problem is you need to be able train enough of these guys and the true moderates to work with each other, and then maybe this will end better then I would have thought. I usually do not take much of what I see on the news to heart this seemed to be a good piece and it did seem even sided.