What is wrong with the Islamic world?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

whether or not the story of the Qoran is true or not, it does not justify the killing of anyone...but there are some that are quick to piont the finger to the south See ,See what you did now...B.S. 25 people died in riots because someone took offense to some Rumours that happen in an interregation...

I believe you are right, murder is rarely justified. However, the US' dismissal of the evidence and testimoney is flimsy at best. Their sole defence is that 'the source is not credible'...meaning, it came from a prisoner. Let's also not forget that the US military murdered and tortured to death several prisoners, so to flush a copy of the Koran would be a fairly mild form of coersion, in their view, all things considered.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

We'll never know exactly who actually incited the riots, Who has the most to gain? add to an already tense situation,I'm sure the article did nothing to sooth that sitation any.

If Newsweek has no proof of any of these rumours actually happening then they have a responsability to everyone not just thier readers to get that proof...not to print what ever they feel will sell Mag's...Most people believe what they read, just because it's in print....

Lets not forget that WE are at War, and the Genva Convention does not apply to these prisoners, because the are classified as terrorists... Most if not all have been captured in a combat zone and are guilty of operatating against coalition forces...including Canada i might add... Interregation methods all fall within the Genva convention. what perturds me to no end is that we as Candains are feeling sorry for these poor Basta*ds,...and yet we say nothing when they Cut someones head off on line, routinly excute men,women,children...

Yes lets not forget those that were murdered by coalition forces...as murder is murder and EVERYONE should be held accountable including those dogs we call terrorists...those members of the coalition are charged and will be held accountable..

[Guest eureka]

The Geneva Convention applies to all and very specifically to these prisoners.

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

Perhaps you can show me in the Genva convention where terrorists are covered and to be afforded all protection under it.

As the US already stated those in Afganistan, fighting under the name Taliban did not fall under the Genva convention, and would not be protected under the convention.

It has also stated that those Iraqi Insurgents also fall under the same catagory...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

Lets not forget that WE are at War,

Please provide a link or other documentation to show where a 'war' was officially declared. Other than the generic and meaningless 'war on terror' title. It is impossible to actually declare war on an abstract thought. I am refering to Iraq, especially, but if you find one an Afghanistan, I'll be impressed too.

[Army Guy]

Theloniusfleabag:

War has not been offically declared by any goverment involved in Iraq or Afgan.

that has passed through parliment or any other offical channels. who do we blame for that...

For the men and women of the countries involved they are very much at War. For them thier goverments have sent them over, as I'm sure they all would rather be some place else, doing something else rather than trying to bring peace and order to countries that are divided on what they really want.

[PatM]

I hardly know where to begin on this one - there are just so many misconceptions out there.

First thing to tackle is this smug, self-indulgent attitude that says "our way is better". Who are we to tell other countries how they should live? "Backwards" is a judgement made by people who think they are "forward". If you ask the backward people what they think they'll probably tell you that they are forward and its the other folks that are backward.

Take the Amazon basin for example. There are indigenous people there that are well aware of modern society and have the opportunity to join it; many choose not to. They look at modern society and see nothing but corruption and destruction. Can you prove they are wrong?

As for the middle east, many countries there have tried to modernize. After the recognized colonial period this was quite difficult - the people were brutalized by their European masters and, as a culture, they rejected those things their masters represented.

Iran is about the best example, though not the only one. In 1941 Iran had kicked out its King, Reza Shah, and the government was somewhat democratic. Britain "fixed" elections to get the people they wanted into power. Over the next decade, Iranians did lots of manouvering and in 1951 they elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh as Prime Minister.

Dr. Mossadegh was a nationalist as were most of Parliament by that time. They'd had enough of the colonial yoke and set out to free Iran from the British.

Mossadegh had a vision for Iran. He wanted to create a mini-USA. He admired the US democratic system and its industial capabilities. He wanted to reform his country in the image of the USA.

The Iranian people were not raving Islamic lunatics that hated the USA for its freedom and way of life. Quite the contrary, the population admired the USA and Mossadegh's vision for Iran was very popular.

The big problem was resources. Iran actually has quite a lot of natural resources but they were all under the control of the British. As with many countries under US domination today (US World Bank, US IMF, and US Treasury), the Iranian's were only allowed to have a very small portion of the benefits from their own resources. Mossadegh enforced an existing law and took the oil back from the British. Not letting go of all that money lightly, the British took the case to the UN - who sided with the Iranians and ruled that Iran's oil was Iran's oil, not British.

Mossadegh then started on a national campaign to industrialize the country. Instead of simply exporting crude oil, he wanted to do the refining. He wanted to make the new-fangled plastics and other products that you can make from oil. In short, he wanted to do all the value added stuff.

This was a great opportunity for the USA. Here was a secular, USA admiring country sitting right in traditionally British territory begging the USA to be its best buddy.

The USA took that opportunity to send Grover Roosevelt (Theodore's grandson) to Iran to mount a coup. Slamming Mossedegh as a communist, inciting the religeous right against the "godless" communist, masquerading as Moddadegh supporters and shooting people in Mosques. The general modus operandi still used today by the USA when it wants to destroy a democracy. In 1953 the USA was successful in bringing down Mossadegh and installed the Shah.

The USA got what it wanted - crude oil. If Iran had been allowed to industrialize the USA wouldn't have been able to do all the value added work and make the big bucks - they couldn't have that!

Although people in western countries were oblivious to what went on, the rest of the world was not. The hatred that this and many other western betrayals led to the Islamic revolution in Iran that installed the Theocratic government.

Today's (percieved) hatred of all things western by Islamic people is mostly a backlash against the western powers that have repeatedly oppressed and betrayed them. We westerners stay largely ignorant of this fact because the history we are taught in school and told through the media is slanted to make us look good. After all, we're the "Good guys", pointing out the bad things we do doesn't go along with that self-delusional image.

[Black Dog]

Army Guy: so many errors, so little time!

Lets not forget that WE are at War, and the Genva Convention does not apply to these prisoners, because the are classified as terrorists...

First: no state of war exists.

Secondly, those held in Gitmo and elsewhere are not classified as terrorists, but as "unlawful combatants", a designation which does not exist in the Geneva Conventions.

In any case, Article 5 clearly states that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the categories in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

In other words, detainees in Gitmo should be accorded all the rights of P.O.W's, including the right to not be interrogated. Those holding POW's are only allowed to ask for name, rank and serial number. The U.S. obvioulsy wants more info, hence their reluctance to abide by the rules.

Most if not all have been captured in a combat zone and are guilty of operatating against coalition forces...

How can you be sure any are guilty when none have been tried? How many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? After all in a country like Afghanistan where everyone carries an AK, how do foreign occupiers know who's who? A look at Abu Ghriab, where more than 70-90% of the prisoners are innocent (according to the Red Cross and CIA).

Interregation methods all fall within the Genva convention. what perturds me to no end is that we as Candains are feeling sorry for these poor Basta*ds,...

As I said, any interregation methos that demands more than name, rank and serial number is a violation of the Convention.

and yet we say nothing when they Cut someones head off on line, routinly excute men,women,children...

Who's "they"? The people guilty of atrocities such as beheadings should be held accountable for their actions.

those members of the coalition are charged and will be held accountable

In other words, the low-ranking grunts will take the fall for carrying out orders. We're seeing that happen now.

[PatM]

Formal declaration of war is a paper tiger. All involved know its a war and knew that long before the first shots were fired.

Terrorist - I'm still having trouble getting anyone to "pin down" what a terrorist is. The right winger's appear to mean "anyone that isn't with us". When told that, they deny it.

Lets look at some of those held for terrorism, perhaps that will give a clue:

If you have olive skin and you use a video camera while on vacation, you are a terrorist. Every tree, garbage can, building, or street you capture on tape is absolute evidence of your guilt - not evidence of being a tourist with no cinematography skills.

If you are a 16 year old muslim living in the US and you write an essay about Islam and suicide, you are a terrorist. It doesn't matter that the essay concluded that Islam is against suicide and therefore you will go to hell. Also, if you happen to see another Islamic girl after you are arrested and give an Islamic greeting - that too is proof you are a terrorist.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/9/7440/37974

Oh the 600+ people arrested in the USA for terrorist plots, none have been convicted of terrorist acts. To my knowledge, only one has been convicted of anything at all - and that was an immigration violation. Only a few ever went to trial, most were simply released without comment.

Lets look back at WWI & II. Before the USA joined these fights against the Germans, many US men went to Europe and joined the fight - despite their own country not being officially at war. One of the more famous groups were the Eagle Squadons, American's fighting the Germans even though America wasn't in the war.

According to (what I can make of) US views, these people were terrorists or illegal combatants (can't see any differentiation in US views here). The Nazis, horrible as they were, treated them as prisoners of war.

The Underground resistances in France, Holland, and many other countries, are viewed today as freedom fighters. Hitler called them terrorists and treated them much like the USA does today.

Given the abundant evidence, I'd have to say that the USAs definition of a terrorist is "Anyone they don't like". Its also evident that the USA is even less honorable about the differentiation of prisoner types than Hitler was.

Remember, in America, you are guilty until proven innocent. Since your guilt is based of what you MIGHT do sometime in the future, you cannot defend yourself. How do you prove that you wouldn't have done something two years from now?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

First: no state of war exists.

Your right, there is no state of WAR that has been offically declared....And that is just a technicality, our country has committed armed troops to an armed conflict to soldiers thats war..

Secondly, those held in Gitmo and elsewhere are not classified as terrorists, but as "unlawful combatants", a designation which does not exist in the Geneva Conventions.

In any case, Article 5 clearly states that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the categories in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Call them what ever you wish, we call them terrorists as that is exactly what they are.

Read section IV Relative to protection of Civilian persons in time of war.

Art 5

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In any case, Article 5 clearly states that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the categories in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Lets be clear that operations conducted by Canadian soldiers in Afgan are done according to every art within the convention. And those persons that are captured or detained Are 100 % terrorist captured in the act. and they are handed over to higher authority in Afgan that means the US. I can not comment on US forces operating in Iraq...

  In other words, detainees in Gitmo should be accorded all the rights of P.O.W's, including the right to not be interrogated. Those holding POW's are only allowed to ask for name, rank and serial number. The U.S. obvioulsy wants more info, hence their reluctance to abide by the rules.

They are not prisoners of war,but "terrorists" and are not afforded any protection under the convention with exception as they are expected to be treated fairly,afforded trial at the earlist time possiable. they are housed, fed,allowed to practice thier religion...Can you say the same for thier prisoners...what can a NATO soldier expect from thier movement...other than a public beheading...with a machette or dagar... That is not an excuse for roughing -up a prisoners by NATO troops but thier is always two sides to every coin...

How can you be sure any are guilty when none have been tried? How many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? After all in a country like Afghanistan where everyone carries an AK, how do foreign occupiers know who's who? A look at Abu Ghriab, where more than 70-90% of the prisoners are innocent (according to the Red Cross and CIA).

I'm not a cop..but a smoking AK in a combat zone is pretty guilty to me. I don't know how many were in the wrong place at the wrong time...but like i mentioned before if your in a combat zone and have a wpn odds are your guilty...In the Canadian Area of operations most of the people are unarmed...don't get me wrong it's not Canada..but those that are armed have a reason most are not good...We get to know who's who by constant patroling and talking to the locals...it takes months of this but it is what makes Canadians so sucessful in Kabul..again all i can comment on is the prisoners that are captured by Canadians and they are guilty as charged...

As I said, any interregation methos that demands more than name, rank and serial number is a violation of the Convention.

Your right it is...and this is what most Canadians have a problem with because they have not been exposed to interrogation ....If the information can save lives or end a battle or war then one has to wiegh the outcome with a charge....in these cases mild forms of interrogation will be used...sleep and sensory depervation, head games...anything short of physical or medical treatments.....

Who's "they"? The people guilty of atrocities such as beheadings should be held accountable for their actions.

Come on who's they...your a smart guy you know they are carry out these acts it makes the news every week....I've gone over months of posts here and there is only a few that condemn or get a small mention of these beheadings ...but nothing like the slams of what the US has done...

[Army Guy]

PatM:

Terrorist - I'm still having trouble getting anyone to "pin down" what a terrorist is. The right winger's appear to mean "anyone that isn't with us". When told that, they deny it.

It's got nothing to do with being a right winger...A terrorist is anyone that uses terror to gain or achieve a goal...in Afgan that means killing women to send a message that women don't rate an education,and should stay away from the schools... or that a muslim women talked to a NATO soldier....it means killing women for not conforming to thier strict dress regulations.... terrorizing old men and women into helping them gain info on NATO troops...gang pressing young boys into thier service...to strap on explosives....

A TERRORIST is that 12 year old boy whos family is here in Canada...who's father took him over to afgan to fight ..and is now living in gitmo...this same boy killed an american medic...

A Terrorist is that arab that tried to light his shoe on fire onboard an aircraft...his shoe had plastic explosives in it..

A Terrorist is that arab that got caught at the border with a trunk full of material that could be used to make explosives....

A Terrorist is timothy Macvia that blew up that FBI building in the. states...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

And that is just a technicality, our country has committed armed troops to an armed conflict to soldiers thats war..

No, that is considered aggression, and it is considered illegal. There are different laws governing each.

Read section IV Relative to protection of Civilian persons in time of war.

Art 5

Again, Army Guy, no declaration of war was made. The US is trying to take advantage of both sides of the fence. Article 5 is useless in this case, because no war was declared.

I'm not a cop..but a smoking AK in a combat zone is pretty guilty to me. I don't know how many were in the wrong place at the wrong time...but like i mentioned before if your in a combat zone and have a wpn odds are your guilty

There is no 'war', but the US is trying to act as though there was for it's own purposes. How can one have a 'smoking AK in a combat zone' and not be an 'enemy combatant'? According to the US, there are no 'enemy soldiers' at all, so whom are they fighting? How can there be a 'war' without a declared enemy? Again, to refer to your Sect 5, this deals with civilians in an occupied territory, meaning that there was a declaration of war, and one side lost (the country or a portion thereof) and was occupied. Then, if that civilian continues to resist occupation, only then do they forfeit their Geneva rights.

Bear in mind, these technicalities depend on a declaration of war. The US is trying to use every technicality in the book without adhering to the laws that govern them, one way or the other.

Some Iraqi 'Royal Guardsmen', perhaps, but several of these were held without charge, tortured to death, etc. just like everyone else at Abu Ghraib.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

A terrorist is anyone that uses terror to gain or achieve a goal

Close.

it means killing women for not conforming to thier strict dress regulations.... terrorizing old men and women into helping them gain info on NATO troops...gang pressing young boys into thier service...to strap on explosives....

A TERRORIST is that 12 year old boy whos family is here in Canada...who's father took him over to afgan to fight ..and is now living in gitmo...this same boy killed an american medic...

A Terrorist is that arab that tried to light his shoe on fire onboard an aircraft...his shoe had plastic explosives in it..

A Terrorist is that arab that got caught at the border with a trunk full of material that could be used to make explosives....

A Terrorist is timothy Macvia that blew up that FBI building in the. states...

These are examples of what terrorists do, not a definition or 'terrorism'.

Terrorism can be defined as when one group attacks a second group, with the goal in mind that the actions of the second group will influence a third group into changing it's actions.

[Black Dog]

Call them what ever you wish, we call them terrorists as that is exactly what they are.

How do youi know they are terrorists if they are being held without trial? I'm not willing to accept such definitions soley on the government's say so. That way lies tyrrany.

Read section IV Relative to protection of Civilian persons in time of war.

Read the rest:

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

When are the trials?

Lets be clear that operations conducted by Canadian soldiers in Afgan are done according to every art within the convention. And those persons that are captured or detained Are 100 % terrorist captured in the act. and they are handed over to higher authority in Afgan that means the US. I can not comment on US forces operating in Iraq...

Again, I call bullshit. There's no way of knowing whether those detained are guilty or innocent because there's no trials. If these individuals are guilty of terrorist activity or other war crimes, why aren't they being put up for it?

They are not prisoners of war,but "terrorists" and are not afforded any protection under the convention with exception as they are expected to be treated fairly,afforded trial at the earlist time possiable. they are housed, fed,allowed to practice thier religion...

...sodomized with light sticks, beaten, starved, murdered....

Can you say the same for thier prisoners...what can a NATO soldier expect from thier movement...other than a public beheading...with a machette or dagar... That is not an excuse for roughing -up a prisoners by NATO troops but thier is always two sides to every coin...

Again: who is this "they" you are talking about?

I'm not a cop..but a smoking AK in a combat zone is pretty guilty to me. I don't know how many were in the wrong place at the wrong time...but like i mentioned before if your in a combat zone and have a wpn odds are your guilty...

Like I said: in a "combzt zone" where the indiginous population is heavily armed, how do you separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys". Seeing how its their country, and all.

..again all i can comment on is the prisoners that are captured by Canadians and they are guilty as charged...

But they haven't been charged.

.If the information can save lives or end a battle or war then one has to wiegh the outcome with a charge....in these cases mild forms of interrogation will be used...sleep and sensory depervation, head games...anything short of physical or medical treatments.....

Sleep and sensory deprivation techniques are soft torture. Sure, its not electrodes to the balls, but it's still undoubtedly amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment

Come on who's they...your a smart guy you know they are carry out these acts it makes the news every week....I've gone over months of posts here and there is only a few that condemn or get a small mention of these beheadings ...but nothing like the slams of what the US has done...

Because there's a big difference between the criminal acts of a few individuals and the policies of the world's only superpower.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

How do youi know they are terrorists if they are being held without trial? I'm not willing to accept such definitions soley on the government's say so. That way lies tyrrany.

Get caught stealing from a store your called a thief...get caught in a combat zone with a smoking wpn in afghan and your a terrorist...i don't need someone from the goverment to tell me that when someone shoots at me or my section he's a bad guy...

Read the rest:

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

When are the trials I believe i wrote the rest of the above in my post....when are the trails ? talk to our goverment they are the ones that decided all prisoners be handed over to the US....

Again, I call bullshit. There's no way of knowing whether those detained are guilty or innocent because there's no trials. If these individuals are guilty of terrorist activity or other war crimes, why aren't they being put up for it?

So when the cops pull you over for being drunk while driving they can not charge you or call you a drunk because you have not been to trail yet.......those that are caught by Canadain troops in Afgan are charged and then handed over to the US....Again i can not comment on what the US does just what Canadian combat troops are doing in Afgan....

Like I said: in a "combzt zone" where the indiginous population is heavily armed, how do you separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys". Seeing how its their country, and all.

Through constant patrolling and talking to the locals...You'll know the bad guys there the ones shooting at you....

Sleep and sensory deprivation techniques are soft torture. Sure, its not electrodes to the balls, but it's still undoubtedly amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment

Compared to what getting your head cut off...if thats inhuman or degrading treatment then don't get caught in a combat zone....

[Army Guy]

Flea bag:

These are examples of what terrorists do, not a definition or 'terrorism'.

Technocrat was saying that our ideas of what a terrorist is was simlar to racist profiling i was giving him/her some arab examples and some non arab examples.

No, that is considered aggression, and it is considered illegal. There are different laws governing each.

I'm sure there are many laws governing how armed conflict is carried out ,when and by whom...if what you are saying is true then Canada is guilty of aggresion?

There is no 'war', but the US is trying to act as though there was for it's own purposes. How can one have a 'smoking AK in a combat zone' and not be an 'enemy combatant'?

I've read the convention over many times it is written by lawyers for lawyers. i can ensure you that all of Canada's (ROE) rules of engagement are written according to the conventions they are looked over many times by lawyers and have been judged correct...A member of the taliban is not fighting for a country or religion,but one deemed a terrorist organization....bent on de-stabilizing Afgan...

I've said this many times before all i can comment on is what Canada and her soldiers are doing in Afgan....and what ROE's we are following and what we do with prisoners that we have caught....I'm not a legal expert ...i'm relaying this info to you as it has been told to me in the threater of Afgan....

Please don't shoot the the deliver boy...

[Guest eureka]

A memeber of the Taliban may, more correctly, be said to be fighting for his country against an invader.

You confuse the Taliban with the terrorist organization it harboured. Just as the US now claims there is no distinction.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

...A member of the taliban is not fighting for a country or religion,but one deemed a terrorist organization....bent on de-stabilizing Afgan...

Actually, the Afghanis of the 'seven party alliance' (including two with similar names that translated to "Party of Islam"), and others, that fought the Russian occupation were fighting to have an Islamic country, free of foreign intervention.

The following two quotes are from the book "Soldiers of God" by Robert Kaplan(sorry don't have the year, my dog shredded the cover and the first and last few pages but I think it came out in 1990)

Under the Heading 'The Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance, and under "fundamentalists", reads:

Hizb-i-Islami (Party of Islam) A radical, anti-western group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former Kabul University engineering student. Despite his extremist politics and lack of grassroots support, Hekmatyar was favoured by the Pakistani and American intelligence services, who provided him with more arms than any of the other parties."

As to Hekmatyar's vision of Afghanistan's future, he and his lieutenants openly admitted wanting a centrally controlled theocracy dedicated to fighting both "Russian and American Imperialism".

Abdul Haq, who was the book's main point of interest, said something like "I fight only to see Islam rule our country". Haq had later been an invited guest to both Pres. Reagan, and PM Margaret Thatcher, and it was Abdul Haq that was sent to his death back in Afghanistan by the CIA, who thought he could lead a local uprising against the Taliban after 9/11. They were wrong, and Haq was caught and hung in a square in Kabul.

Do you think the Mujahideen would have been happy and cooperative with the US against the Russians if they had been told from the beginning "We are only letting you think that this is a war for yourselves, but really it is so the USA can solely benefit.".

[Army Guy]

eureka:

A memeber of the Taliban may, more correctly, be said to be fighting for his country against an invader.

How is that so, most are not even from Afgan to start with. The taliban formed inside Afgan that actually took over Afgan and it's people...an extreme form of the Muslim religion. The new Afganis goverment was elected by the people of afgan..and NATO is there on request from that goverment to enforce the peace...

You confuse the Taliban with the terrorist organization it harboured. Just as the US now claims there is no distinction

there may have been a difference in the beginning but there is none now, they don't fight for thier country, they fight because because that is all they know.

they are a brutal people made that way over many years of hardship and fighting...

[Army Guy]

Flea bag:

Actually, the Afghanis of the 'seven party alliance' (including two with similar names that translated to "Party of Islam"), and others, that fought the Russian occupation were fighting to have an Islamic country, free of foreign intervention.

The following two quotes are from the book "Soldiers of God" by Robert Kaplan(sorry don't have the year, my dog shredded the cover and the first and last few pages but I think it came out in 1990)

Under the Heading 'The Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance, and under "fundamentalists", reads:

That may have been true when they were fighting against Russia, but the Taliban regime was a very brutal one, and has left a bad taste in alot of Afganis mouths.

Those that remain and fight are the die hards...

those men that i've talked to in Kabul are glad we were there to bring them some peace and some form of law....

Those in southern Afganis i do not know about ,but by the end of this summer Canada will have a full brigade battle group plus a provincail reconstruction team in the southern portion of Afgan.

Do you think the Mujahideen would have been happy and cooperative with the US against the Russians if they had been told from the beginning "We are only letting you think that this is a war for yourselves, but really it is so the USA can solely benefit.".

Benefit from what ...the huge poppy trade Afgan has little to offer the US except its next to Russia ...i think in a few years or less you'll find the US will drastically reduce it's numbers in Afgan.

[Guest eureka]

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan, not Al Quaeda and the Taliban was not made up of foreign fighters.

The makeup of those helping the remnants of the Taliban is not relevant. A resistance is entitled to seek help wherever it can.

What kind of regime the Taliban was, and what kind of action the West should have taken are different issues.

[Black Dog]

For soemone claiming to have first-hand knowledge of Afghanistan, there's siome significant gaps in the knowledge you are presenting AG.

How is that so, most are not even from Afgan to start with. The taliban formed inside Afgan that actually took over Afgan and it's people...an extreme form of the Muslim religion. The new Afganis goverment was elected by the people of afgan..and NATO is there on request from that goverment to enforce the peace...

The Taliban was one of many factions that vied for control of post-Soviet Afghanistan. They did recieve support from foreign countries (ie. Pakistan) but were ann indiginous group.

That may have been true when they were fighting against Russia, but the Taliban regime was a very brutal one, and has left a bad taste in alot of Afganis mouths.

Those that remain and fight are the die hards...

those men that i've talked to in Kabul are glad we were there to bring them some peace and some form of law....

Actually, the Taliban enjoyed a good measure of popular support when they grabbed power precisely because they represented the best hope for peace and law and order, which the Afghan people craved after decades of instability and in-fighting.

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan, not Al Quaeda and the Taliban was not made up of foreign fighters.

I don't remember bringing up the Al Quaeda. Who openly operated within the Taliban it was the Taliban that threw in all thier marbles to support the Al Quaeda ...And the Taliban are made of mostly Foreign fighters from Pakistan, and the rest of the surrounding countries. including alot of other muslim countries.

The makeup of those helping the remnants of the Taliban is not relevant. A resistance is entitled to seek help wherever it can.

Then why did you piont it out. thier not resistance but terrorists, fighting a lost cause....I think i'm getting your piont of view you would rather we sit on our hands and do nothing when terrorist threaten our life style or murder there own....Rather than risk anything until they are at our door step....

What kind of regime the Taliban was, and what kind of action the West should have taken are different issues.

Well, everyone has an opinion...would you rather we still be debating this in the UN getting no where....which is OK for most Canadians as we are safe here in this country while others die because they failed to meet a dress code, or bear a son...death by stoning, or excuted for public entertainment....

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

QUOTE

That may have been true when they were fighting against Russia, but the Taliban regime was a very brutal one, and has left a bad taste in alot of Afganis mouths.

Those that remain and fight are the die hards...

those men that i've talked to in Kabul are glad we were there to bring them some peace and some form of law....

Actually, the Taliban enjoyed a good measure of popular support when they grabbed power precisely because they represented the best hope for peace and law and order, which the Afghan people craved after decades of instability and in-fighting.

Thats is what i said the Taliban was popular after the war with Russia...but it was thier Brutal riegn of power that has turn most of the population against them...

For soemone claiming to have first-hand knowledge of Afghanistan, there's siome significant gaps in the knowledge you are presenting AG.

QUOTE

How is that so, most are not even from Afgan to start with. The taliban formed inside Afgan that actually took over Afgan and it's people...an extreme form of the Muslim religion. The new Afganis goverment was elected by the people of afgan..and NATO is there on request from that goverment to enforce the peace...

Perhaps you can show me where my info is incorrect. perhaps it is the way i'm trying to express myself.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps you can show me where my info is incorrect. perhaps it is the way i'm trying to express myself.

Well, you stated the Taliban were not indiginous Afghans, which they are/were. As I said, the recieved foreign backing, but so did a lot of other factions. And I'm sure the Taliban's rule keft a lot of bad taste in the mouhs of Afghanis, but then I'm also fairly certain that's exactly what I'd tell the people who deposed them.