Four soldiers and a journalist killed

[wyly]

The Indian government was not complicit with those who committed the Air India bombing. Quite the opposite. It was an attack on India by Canadians. Get your facts straight.

get your facts straight the Taliban was not complicit with the attack on 911, other than allow the AQ in Afghanistan there has never been a shread of evidence put forward that the Taliban had anything to do with 911...

[wyly]

You mean there's actually some who believes the Taliban would have turned bin Laden over, or that they were even in a position to do so? Well, I guess there is you.

nice how you can avoid the substance of the post...I luv it when I'm right, which vs the general population of this forum is all the time...

[bush_cheney2004]

get your facts straight the Taliban was not complicit with the attack on 911, other than allow the AQ in Afghanistan there has never been a shread of evidence put forward that the Taliban had anything to do with 911...

That would still be aiding and abetting....hence cruise missile attacks as early as 1998.

In Afghanistan, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, said that "bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions." Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group that controls most of the country.

Abdullah said the U.S. attacks were in Khost, about 90 miles (144 kilometers) south of the capital, Kabul, and on Jalalabad, 60 miles (96 kilometers) east of Kabul.

The supreme leader of the Taliban said they would never hand over bin Laden to the United States. A Pakistan-based Afghan news service quoted Mullah Mohammad Omar as condemning U.S. bombings on Afghan sites Thursday and saying that they showed "enmity" for the Afghan people.

[Alta4ever]

I luv it when I'm right, which vs the general population of this forum is all the time...

Delusions of grandeur?

[Wilber]

get your facts straight the Taliban was not complicit with the attack on 911, other than allow the AQ in Afghanistan there has never been a shread of evidence put forward that the Taliban had anything to do with 911...

So perhaps we should thank India for not attacking us because we were not complicit with the Canadians who bombed one of their aircraft. Frankly I think Canada failed India by not turning over the Air India suspects to them. Al Queda is not an Afghani organization nor is it largely composed of Afghanis yet the Afghan government allowed them the freedom to carry out attacks on the west based in their country. Saying they weren't complicit is total BS.

[William Ashley]

A NATO country was attacked, so we went to war. We were helping our friends.

Who attacked them? Santa Claus?

[William Ashley]

Who attacked them? Santa Claus?

You should understand the FBI didn't state Obama eerr Osama - they stated a British American Pakistani Agent who was a General in the Pakistani Military.

It was George Tenet who apprently said Osama did it first... AND.. it just so happened the Northern Alliance lost their commander like a few days before..

Why would someone blow up the buildings after victory came within the grasp of their closest ally?

The "real" Osama has never claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Oh and where was the General.. no where other than D.C. with the Senate Intelligence Committee..

Edited January 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

So perhaps we should thank India for not attacking us because we were not complicit with the Canadians who bombed one of their aircraft. Frankly I think Canada failed India by not turning over the Air India suspects to them. Al Queda is not an Afghani organization nor is it largely composed of Afghanis yet the Afghan government allowed them the freedom to carry out attacks on the west based in their country. Saying they weren't complicit is total BS.

the Air India crime was of Canadian origin so it was Canadian case not Indian so it was tried in Canada and not India..investigations took place in Canada and India with Indian cooperation the prime suspect was in England and extradited to Canada to stand trial...another suspect was killed in India...

if someone living in your commits a crime are you complicit? no...and no court would convict you unless there evidence to tie you to the crime directly...mere suspicion is not enough...

and back to my earlier post which you side stepped, the US government is complicit in an terrorist attack on an airliner, a paid CIA operative is wanted in two countries for the murder of some 70 innocent people...why the double standard...feel free to side step again as I know you will...

[bush_cheney2004]

...So the NATO treaty did not compel this nation to go to war in Afghanistan.

Even better...Canada chose to do so anyway....so own it. There is nothing worse than meally-mouth misgivings after the fact, complete with revisionist history as to how/why it happened.

[wyly]

The "real" Osama has never claimed responsibility for the attacks.

really?...I can't recall that he had but I assume he has because he's never denied it...

[wyly]

Historically, lots of those terrorists were started with groups that supported by the United States for fighting Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They were not created by Afghanistan government. They were created by US itself.

and the Taliban formed several years after the Soviets left and the US/CIA trained/armed groups(OSAMA)was already there...interesting how the situation changed...those groups were defined as terrorists by USSR and resistance/freedom fighters by the USA... now the soviets are gone they've turned on the USA they're defined as terroirsts...

[Wilber]

the Air India crime was of Canadian origin so it was Canadian case not Indian so it was tried in Canada and not India..investigations took place in Canada and India with Indian cooperation the prime suspect was in England and extradited to Canada to stand trial...another suspect was killed in India...

if someone living in your commits a crime are you complicit? no...and no court would convict you unless there evidence to tie you to the crime directly...mere suspicion is not enough...

and back to my earlier post which you side stepped, the US government is complicit in an terrorist attack on an airliner, a paid CIA operative is wanted in two countries for the murder of some 70 innocent people...why the double standard...feel free to side step again as I know you will...

So why didn't the Taliban prosecute Bin Laden? Al Queda had carried out several attacks against other countries prior to 9/11. They did nothing. As far as Air India goes, the criminals were Canadian but the bombings took place just off the Irish coast and at Narita Airport. Besides, I wouldn't point to Air India as an example of justice done. Canada f*@ it up royally. As far as Carrilas goes, I happen to agree with you but if you are making the argument that two wrongs makes a right, sorry, not so much.

[Wilber]

and the Taliban formed several years after the Soviets left and the US/CIA trained/armed groups(OSAMA)was already there...interesting how the situation changed...those groups were defined as terrorists by USSR and resistance/freedom fighters by the USA... now the soviets are gone they've turned on the USA they're defined as terroirsts...

Guess the Russians were right.

[wyly]

So why didn't the Taliban prosecute Bin Laden? Al Queda had carried out several attacks against other countries prior to 9/11. They did nothing.

1st-he played a large part in removing the soviets from afghanistan, the afghans would always be reluctant to ask him to leave and without clear evidence of his guilt how does the Taliban justify his removal?

As far as Air India goes, the criminals were Canadian but the bombings took place just off the Irish coast and at Narita Airport. Besides, I wouldn't point to Air India as an example of justice done. Canada f*@ it up royally.

the crime was placing the bombs and the occured in Canada...so it was a Canadian case...ya the case was screwed up...

As far as Carrilas goes, I happen to agree with you but if you are making the argument that two wrongs makes a right, sorry, not so much.

true, but condeming the Taliban with no evidence of clouding with Osama and invading Afghanistan while the USA is clearly guilty of funding and harbouring a terrorist is not two wrongs...just one suspicion and one wrong...why does the USA get a free pass to fund terroism...

[Wilber]

1st-he played a large part in removing the soviets from afghanistan, the afghans would always be reluctant to ask him to leave and without clear evidence of his guilt how does the Taliban justify his removal?

He is not an Afghan citizen, they don't have to justify his removal. Besides, it shouldn't have been much of an obstacle for a bunch that made a habit of publicly offing the heads of anyone who didn't agree with them.

the crime was placing the bombs and the occurred in Canada...so it was a Canadian case...ya the case was screwed up...

It was an Indian aircraft that was blown up over international waters in one case and Japanese citizens who were killed on Japanese soil in the other.

true, but condeming the Taliban with no evidence of clouding with Osama and invading Afghanistan while the USA is clearly guilty of funding and harbouring a terrorist is not two wrongs...just one suspicion and one wrong...why does the USA get a free pass to fund terroism...

A: The Sergeant Schultz defense. Iiyeee seeee naaaathiiing.

B: They shouldn't but you are missing the important point. In the Bin Laden case, the US has the ability to take action when it is attacked. In the Carrilas case, Cuba doesn't. That doesn't justify what either Carrilas or Bin Laden did.

[William Ashley]

really?...I can't recall that he had but I assume he has because he's never denied it...

wrong intially he did.

[Guest American Woman]

A NATO country was retaliated against, so we should have asked ourselves what is it that our friend has done to provoke such a thing.

While you're at it, perhaps you should ask yourself what moderate Muslims have done to provoke the beatings, maiming, death, and oppression that the Taliban and al Qaeda have inflicted upon them.

[Argus]

Delusions of grandeur?

Ganth's Law in action.

Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law)

States: “If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.” Named after a user on the role-playing gamers’ forum RPG.net.

Danth’s Law was most famously declared in “The Lenski Affair”, between microbiologist Richard Lenski and the editor of Conservapedia.com, Andrew Schlafly, who cast doubt upon Prof Lenski’s elegant experimental demonstration of evolution.

After what is widely held to be one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument from Prof Lenski, Mr Schlafly declared himself the winner.

[Guest American Woman]

So the only reasons for being there are to make money or to justify spending it. There are no other reasons.

According to one of the soldiers who was killed, there are other reasons:

...Taylor's family released a statement written by the sergeant in case he was killed.

"I believe that the mission in Afghanistan is vital for us not only as Canadians but as human beings, what we are doing is trying to help Afghans develop solutions to Afghan problems and to help them help themselves," Taylor wrote. "Build today for a better tomorrow. This will not be accomplished overnight, but neither was Rome built in a day." link

May he, and the others, RIP.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

According to one of the soldiers who was killed, there are other reasons:

...Taylor's family released a statement written by the sergeant in case he was killed.

"I believe that the mission in Afghanistan is vital for us not only as Canadians but as human beings, what we are doing is trying to help Afghans develop solutions to Afghan problems and to help them help themselves," Taylor wrote. "Build today for a better tomorrow. This will not be accomplished overnight, but neither was Rome built in a day." link

May he, and the others, RIP.

You could hardly expect a soldier to say otherwise. The reality of the "war on terror" is something else.

[Guest American Woman]

You could hardly expect a soldier to say otherwise. The reality of the "war on terror" is something else.

And you would know the "reality" more than someone who is there; someone who is seeing Afghanistan firsthand. I see.

Whether you would "expect" a soldier to say otherwise or not, his reason for being there was not for money, so obviously there are "other reasons."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And you would know the "reality" more than someone who is there; someone who is seeing Afghanistan firsthand. I see.

Whether you would "expect" a soldier to say otherwise or not, his reason for being there was not for money, so obviously there are "other reasons."

The war in Afghanistan and the "war on terror" are two different things. Afghan is specific and the "war on terror" is not.

The soldiers reason to be there was not their own but instead at the behest of their government in the process of obeying orders issued by authorized command authority.

As if attacking Afghanistan was not bad enough, the "hunt for WMD's" in Iraq closed the door on credibility from those advocating such actions in the first place.

The reality is that Bin Laden coped to the crime and nearly a decade later the most powerful nation in the world has not found a seven foot tall Saudi in a nation of five foot tall Pakistanis. They either have not looked very damned hard or they are not looking for him at all. Mean while, the USA destroyed one of the poorest nations on earth for standing up and being loyal to one of the men that saved that nation from the Russian occupation. That same man they now are supposed to be hunting for, they used to seek to deliver dollars and guns to in a fight against Communism, now they want to kill him.

The war on terror is all about keeping the defense industry in the USA up and running with a nice little profit margin. Surely you have heard the phrase military industrial complex......

The USA knew there was WMD's in Iraq because they still had the receipts, they sold them to Iraq to use in a war against the evil nation of Iran.

Lets not go to where this is headed.

[Guest American Woman]

The war in Afghanistan and the "war on terror" are two different things. Afghan is specific and the "war on terror" is not.

And the post I was responding to was specifically about Afghanistan; "So the only reasons for being there "... the "there" is Afghanistan.

[Wilber]

While you're at it, perhaps you should ask yourself what moderate Muslims have done to provoke the beatings, maiming, death, and oppression that the Taliban and al Qaeda have inflicted upon them.

It kills me that the same people tearing their hair out over Canadian troops handing over a few people to Afghan authorities and who demand their conduct be squeaky clean, can so readily justify any action by the Taliban and al Queda by just blaming it on the west. Methinks they should sit down and have a think before beaking off about double standards.

[Guest American Woman]

It kills me that the same people tearing their hair out over Canadian troops handing over a few people to Afghan authorities and who demand their conduct be squeaky clean, can so readily justify any action by the Taliban and al Queda by just blaming it on the west. Methinks they should sit down and have a think before beaking off about double standards.

I don't understand comments such as these:

...more in the context of a guy who retaliates against someone for aiding and abetting the torture, imprisonment and oppression of many other family members, friends, co-workers etc etc.

The only "family, friends, co-workers etc" the Taliban and al Qaeda care about are those who abide by their rule; their extremist views of Islam. They are just as liable to kill, maim, and oppress 'family, friends, fellow Muslims' who don't abide by their extremism as they are westerners.

The appropriate thing, but lets face it, the bone we're picking over here is the motivation. If I truly believed 9/11 was a true bolt out of the blue that was strictly motivated by religious extremism only, I'd be with you. Unfortunately it just wasn't that simple.

The fact that they are just as willing to target other Muslims who don't go along with their demands as they are westerners basically proves that it's all about "religious extremism."