When We Kill Enough Canadians They Will Quit

[Black Dog]

They may not be as organized as thier Iraqi counterpart , but they are picking out targets and nations , IED's are placed days in advance on road net works that are frequently used by many nations. Vehicle recongntion is not that hard. As for them increasing confrontations with little gain the last Canadian soldier was killed while defending an outpost from being over run by large numbers of insurgents. Does it make sense NO, in Fact i've said it would not happen but it did...and it has happened more than once in different sectors. But if they can convince one nation to leave because of deaths then it would be a major victory on thier part and a major blow to moral of the remaining coalition forces.

The action in which the Canadian soldier was killed (under suspicious circumstances) began as an attack on an Afghan National Army position: the Canadians and Yanks were flown in to reinforce the ANA. So it desn't appear that the insurgents are forcing direct confrontations with western forces.

I've been thinking about this topic a bit and would like to revise/clarify my main point. I think I've erred in downplaying how much thought the insurgency gives to the role of public opinion. That's just the nature of the beast: when confronting a superior adversary, the only way to win is to grind them down to the point where they can't sustain themslves either politically or militarily are are forced to quit the field. So I'll give you that.

But I think people overestimate the degree to which the insurgency actually keeps track of these things. I doubt they read the Canadian papers or watch Canadian TV : they don't know much about the debates we're having. And even if we weren't debating thE issue, but were instead projecting unity and resolve, they'd still operate on the premise that, if they kill enough, we will quit because that's how insurgencies operate.

So that's wht I don't beleive that, by allowing open discussion and dissent on this issue, we are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." In other words, the reputation or image we think we ar eprojecting is largely irrelevant: their goals will remain the same.

[Army Guy]

BD:

Canada first deployed troops to Afghanistan in February 2002. Iraq didn't come to a head until later that year. But there's the chance that Canada knew of the U.S.'s intention vis a vis Iraq before then. In such a case, that would be another knock against the current deployment.

Yes but the coalition was ramping up for thier invasion and Canada new of the US intentions long before the invasion , but then again so did the rest of the world. Canada took the less of 2 evils. Knock or not we did still had the chioce to go or not.

True enough, I suppose. But I maintain that there's no reason not to have a debate, as the debate we have now could well infomr our decisions down the road.

if one was truely interested in our deployment, are we saying that the info is not available, because i think there is more coverage on this topic than any other deployment we've been on...IE can any one tell me about the western sahra desert mission.

I'm sensing a great deal of disdain for the public here. But let's not forgeta lot can change in 3 years. Bck then, there was still the strong belief that democracy could flourish in the Middle east and Afghanistan with a little help. Now the picture looks far less certain. I think flexibility is important: "resolve" is all wel and good, but there's a fine line between resolve and obstinance.

Yes there is some, But from a soldiers piont, Canadians are flip flopping around here, which sends the message that "perhaps afgan is not a canadian mission" it's to hard, it's not worth the effort, that the sacrafice we have already made was for nothing....Yes i know this is what i choose to do in life, and my life is in the governments hands, But canadians decided to send us over to Afgan on a mission to bring peace to the region, and to most Canadians it is an honable request. they knew things could change, they knew or ought to have known that this mission could kill Canadian soldiers. History shows us peace does not come over night...

Canada's soldiers are not mindless robots we don't just die on command because some politiction decides it's a good idea ...we know that this is an honorable mission, one that is worth our sacrafices or we would not continue to volunteer in great numbers to go over. We as tax payers and voters need to be sure when we send our soldiers out on the battle field that this is what we want....keep flip flopping around and soon soldiers will start asking WHY risk our lives WHY put in all that effort only to have to quit before we even begin....

[Montgomery Burns]

First, I am not surprised that Black Dog has brought out his "dissent is patriotic" mantra; the left has no shame.

Second, there were 24 Canadians killed on 9-11.

Third, it is about time that Canada helped the US considering that the US has had to come in and mop up Canada's previous messes--repeatedly.

Fourth, Canada's leftwingers (mostly NDPers) should be ashamed of themselves for showing weakness to the Taliban.

Fifth, Canada's liberal MSM should be ashamed of themselves for their inability to write an article about Afghanistan without the phrase "Canada's growing casualties". What's it been? 13 soldiers have died in 4 years in Afghanistan? God Bless these brave men and women, but cripes...are we really that wimpy? The MSM even provided coverage of the funeral for the 2 soldiers who died in a traffic accident in Afghanistan. If this traffic accident had happened in Canada, the MSM wouldn't have covered it.

Sixth, the Canadian public demands that Jack Layton and the MSM address this statement by the Taliban. Out yourselves to the world and show what a bunch of terror-supporting, liberty-hating backstabbers you are.

Seventh, any person (I'm talking to you BD) who equates the USSR's difficulties with Afghanistan is completely clueless about history. The US covertly (read the book about Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson--a good Democrat) aided the Afghanis (and some Taliban) against the USSR as revenge for Vietnam.

The Taliban have no super power backing them these days.

Canada shamelessly took Saddam's blood money in lieu of enforcing the ceasefire he signed with the US. Let's not let this country become a laughing stock again. Let our troops fight the Taliban and us true-blue Canadians will fight the fifth columnists in Canada (the MSM and the NDP--and some liberals).

[Biblio Bibuli]

Vietnam was a very winnable WAR ...

I disagree that Vietnam was a winnable war. As for Afghanistan ...

You mean the Russian goverment on one side? The Americans on the other side? And Vietnam, and later Afghanistan, right smack in the middle?

Those were the good old days!

[August1991]

Dear scriblett,

When we kill enough ... they will quit'

This is true. It is also exactly the philosophy they used on the Russians, who had invested much larger and more capable forces than Canada has.

When asked why the Afghanis were still fighting even when the Russians announced their intention to withdraw, one mujahideen leader (Abdul Haq, I believe, but I will check the source) replied, "The Russians are leaving because we keep killing them, so we will keep killing them until they leave."

For better or worse, no one has been able to impose an outside gov't, (or an 'inside one', for that matter) for some 500 years. How much time and effort should we spend trying to deliver an unwanted gift?

It is wrong to compare the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan and Western countries current involvement in Afghanistan. The Soviets wanted to establish a Marxist, client state. We merely wanted to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have more or less succeeded, and now Afghanistan is ruled (if at all) by an unsavoury group of warlords, drug dealers and God knows what else.

We must ensure that Afghanistan cannot become a rogue state where organizations like Al-Qaeda can have bases. Unlike the Soviets, our goals are limited and feasible.

----

So that's wht I don't beleive that, by allowing open discussion and dissent on this issue, we are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." In other words, the reputation or image we think we ar eprojecting is largely irrelevant: their goals will remain the same.

Absolutely.

We live in a democracy with free speech and citizens are allowed to speak their mind.

It's not as if BD is secretly working for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and sending them radio message about Canadian troop movements. BD (and Jack Layton, I suppose) is simply saying that he doesn't think Canadian troops can accomplish anything useful in Afghanistan (did I get that right?)

At the same time, BD is also in the position of criticizing the policeman who is patrolling the neighbourhood. The policeman must protect the whole neighbourhood even if individuals don't want his protection. If a thief tries to break into BD's house, the policeman must stop the thief because he's a threat to others.

IOW, it's easy for BD to criticize our Army since BD knows the protection will be given anyway.

It is nice being Canadian. We get all the benefits of being American but we have none of the responsibilities.

[gerryhatrick]

If they kill enough there won't be any left, then there'll be nobody for Stephen Harper to accuse of not supporting the troops. Yay.

[geoffrey]

If they kill enough there won't be any left, then there'll be nobody for Stephen Harper to accuse of not supporting the troops. Yay.

That was about the most insensitive ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Your obviously one that doesn't support the troops making comments like that. Disgusting.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

It is wrong to compare the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan and Western countries current involvement in Afghanistan.

My comparisons aren't the issue. It is what the Afghanis think that matters, and I was merely pointing out that the ones we are fighting aren't making the same distinction that you and I are. Unless you are fighting for them, and their beliefs, then you are the enemy. And we are in their home arena. You may try to keep score, and even pretend that the score matters, but they don't. It doesn't matter if they are losing on the scoreboard, they are going to keep fighting to we leave their arena and go home (or elsewhere, but 'away' will be good enough).

A couple of quotes from Vince Lombardi, former NFL coach and namesake of the Superbowl trophy...

We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time.

And, to hearten the troops,

Winners never quit and quitters never win.

[gerryhatrick]

If they kill enough there won't be any left, then there'll be nobody for Stephen Harper to accuse of not supporting the troops. Yay.

That was about the most insensitive ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Insensitive? Like, not PC you mean?

Your obviously one that doesn't support the troops making comments like that. Disgusting.

Oh yeah, almost no Canadians support their troops. Haven't you heard?

[geoffrey]

Well a statement along the lines of I hope our troops die so there isn't anyone that can not be supporting them is a little beyond just not-PC.

[Army Guy]

gerryhatrick:

Oh yeah, almost no Canadians support their troops. Haven't you heard?

I think your statement is somewhat true, most Canadians do support our troops verbally, but thats were it ends. there have been polls done on this forum and else where where our troops don't even rate in the top ten priorites of Canadians.

So while Canadians will say they support thier troops, they are not willing to support them if it means cutting other programs or projects.

Some Canadians have even written there MP's in regards to the shape our military is in. But the majority have not even done this small step. because they know that the funding will have to come from somewhere.

My piont is supporting your troops means more than rah rah rah, go troops, "although it is part of it" it means ensuring that they have the equipment and supplies to carry out the tasks we ask them to do, It means sending them on the right missions, it means we look after them when they are sick,tired, or in need. It means once a year we give an hour out of our time to remember the fallen, shake the hand of a vet and say thanks.

It means that we fight for them as hard as the fight for us.

[Black Dog]

First, I am not surprised that Black Dog has brought out his "dissent is patriotic" mantra; the left has no shame.

Yes because in cloud cuckoo land where Monty dwells (it wopuld be unfair to tar the conservatives with the same looney brush), dissent is treason and weakness. Real men submit to authority!

Second, there were 24 Canadians killed on 9-11.

That's what, a tenth of the number who die each year in traffic accidents?

Third, it is about time that Canada helped the US considering that the US has had to come in and mop up Canada's previous messes--repeatedly.

Uh...when?

Fourth, Canada's leftwingers (mostly NDPers) should be ashamed of themselves for showing weakness to the Taliban.

Eat it.

Fifth, Canada's liberal MSM should be ashamed of themselves for their inability to write an article about Afghanistan without the phrase "Canada's growing casualties". What's it been? 13 soldiers have died in 4 years in Afghanistan? God Bless these brave men and women, but cripes...are we really that wimpy? The MSM even provided coverage of the funeral for the 2 soldiers who died in a traffic accident in Afghanistan. If this traffic accident had happened in Canada, the MSM wouldn't have covered it.

Any evidence that this phrase has been common usage? I've seen a lot of warnings (from the likes of Hillier) that warn of the potential for further casualties.

Sixth, the Canadian public demands that Jack Layton and the MSM address this statement by the Taliban. Out yourselves to the world and show what a bunch of terror-supporting, liberty-hating backstabbers you are.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Seventh, any person (I'm talking to you BD) who equates the USSR's difficulties with Afghanistan is completely clueless about history. The US covertly (read the book about Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson--a good Democrat) aided the Afghanis (and some Taliban) against the USSR as revenge for Vietnam.

The Taliban have no super power backing them these days.

And your point is?

Canada shamelessly took Saddam's blood money in lieu of enforcing the ceasefire he signed with the US. Let's not let this country become a laughing stock again. Let our troops fight the Taliban and us true-blue Canadians will fight the fifth columnists in Canada (the MSM and the NDP--and some liberals).

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

*WIPES TEARS*Oh Monty: you're the Winston Churchill of anonymous, impotent internet posters (that is to say: you're drunk).

Now on to the people with something to say.

August:

It is wrong to compare the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan and Western countries current involvement in Afghanistan. The Soviets wanted to establish a Marxist, client state. We merely wanted to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have more or less succeeded, and now Afghanistan is ruled (if at all) by an unsavoury group of warlords, drug dealers and God knows what else.

We must ensure that Afghanistan cannot become a rogue state where organizations like Al-Qaeda can have bases. Unlike the Soviets, our goals are limited and feasible.

Establishing a strong central government with the ability to maintain social cohesion and internal stability is essential to the stated goal of the mission.

It's not as if BD is secretly working for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and sending them radio message about Canadian troop movements. BD (and Jack Layton, I suppose) is simply saying that he doesn't think Canadian troops can accomplish anything useful in Afghanistan (did I get that right?)

Yup. We'll spend several million dollars, throw away the lives of several Canadians and when we leave, Afghanistan wil look pretty much the same as it does right now: an ungovernable mess.

At the same time, BD is also in the position of criticizing the policeman who is patrolling the neighbourhood. The policeman must protect the whole neighbourhood even if individuals don't want his protection. If a thief tries to break into BD's house, the policeman must stop the thief because he's a threat to others.

IOW, it's easy for BD to criticize our Army since BD knows the protection will be given anyway.

See, at least I know that the cop on the beat has some tangeible benefit (even thouh they are often thugs in uniform). The unquestioning reverence we give to the military makes me queasy.

Army Guy:

I think your statement is somewhat true, most Canadians do support our troops verbally, but thats were it ends. there have been polls done on this forum and else where where our troops don't even rate in the top ten priorites of Canadians.

So while Canadians will say they support thier troops, they are not willing to support them if it means cutting other programs or projects.

Some Canadians have even written there MP's in regards to the shape our military is in. But the majority have not even done this small step. because they know that the funding will have to come from somewhere.

That's the rub, innit. For most people (even the tough-talkin' types here), support for the troops comes down to mouthing platitudes to that effect or slapping a gaudy yellow ribbon sticker on their SUV.I wonder how many would support, say, a tax hike for the military?

My piont is supporting your troops means more than rah rah rah, go troops, "although it is part of it" it means ensuring that they have the equipment and supplies to carry out the tasks we ask them to do, It means sending them on the right missions, it means we look after them when they are sick,tired, or in need. It means once a year we give an hour out of our time to remember the fallen, shake the hand of a vet and say thanks.

It means that we fight for them as hard as the fight for us.

There it is: "it means sending them on the right missions". IMO, Afhanistan is the wrong mission.

[Army Guy]

BD :

There it is: "it means sending them on the right missions". IMO, Afhanistan is the wrong mission.

Perhaps it is, But we have already made an investment of time,money, not to mention lives. Before the government pulls out it they should have a better reason than it's not the "right mission"...And if that is true then the people of Canada should think long and hard before sending us out on the next mission as thier decisions have a price one that includes lives...

[Black Dog]

Perhaps it is, But we have already made an investment of time,money, not to mention lives. Before the government pulls out it they should have a better reason than it's not the "right mission"...And if that is true then the people of Canada should think long and hard before sending us out on the next mission as thier decisions have a price one that includes lives...

I don't get this notion that we have to follow through on any committment no matter how costly, questionable, or counterproductive it may be.

[Army Guy]

BD:

I don't get this notion that we have to follow through on any committment no matter how costly, questionable, or counterproductive it may be

Nobody likes to here that the work you've been doing is no longer worth the effort, or the government shuts it down due to costs, as for counter productive that depends on whom you ask i guess.

For me personally and perhaps i have more faith in our government than i should, But i'm assuming that before Canada hit's the red button and sends it troops somewhere that the intellects of this country have wieghed all our options and have made the best chioce for our country and the country involved....

It is the men and women that are serving this country that put thier plan into action thru thier blood sweat and tears. And in doing so strengthens thier resolve to see the mission succeed. It is also them who see the progress we make on a daily basis which again translates into driving the soldiers to work harder at making things work. Perhaps it is DND fault in not being able to describe the progress we have made,to the right people. perhaps it is our governments fault for not relaying this info to the people of Canada properly...or may be it's the people of Canada's for not listening or caring to little to late....

But i can tell you this if our soldiers thought for one second that the mission was no good they'd would not mix words...and the public would know... To whom would you trust to give you the right info on the missions progress the guy on the ground or the guy in the office...want to learn about the mission, DND has a great web site E-mail a soldier or write a soldier they'd be happy to answer all your questions, in fact many look forward to it.

To answer your question for a soldier it's a matter of pride, and contributing to something good.

[August1991]

There it is: "it means sending them on the right missions". IMO, Afhanistan is the wrong mission.

There you go again, BD. And you miss the point.

We can argue about Iraq another time but Afghanistan is not the "wrong mission".

If the US had not "gone into" Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be in power, bin Laden would still be making tapes above ground and the western world might be minus a fewer more tall buildings.

Fortunately, Bush Jnr decided to go into Afghanistan, as any other US president would have done. Then, having gotten rid of the Taliban, what was the US supposed to do? Walk away?

The US has to stay and help set up some sort of viable regime. And this is where Canada gets involved.

It is easy for Canadians to sit on the sidelines and smugly claim to be holier-than-thou. It's great being Canadian. We get all the benefits of being American without having to assume any of the responsibilities.

The neighbouring town, to whom we pay no taxes, maintains the road out to our home and all we have to do is worry about the upkeep for the short laneway into our home. Then, we make fun of the "crazy" neighbouring municipal council that spends a "fortune" on the road.

----

It is common to hear the argument that Russia ultimately defeated Nazi Germany. Battles on the Eastern Front involved men and materiel on a far vaster scale than D-Day or the Italian campaigns.

This viewpoint misses something fundamental. An army is the combined effort of individual soldiers. Each individual soldier is as important as another. To say that "Russia defeated Nazi Germany" ignores the fact that it was individual soldiers, each as important as the next, from many different countries, who defeated Nazi Germany.

The same can be said about Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan now. The contingent is small, and in the grand scheme of things, their presence may seem irrelevant. It's not.

[gerryhatrick]

gerryhatrick:

Oh yeah, almost no Canadians support their troops. Haven't you heard?

I think your statement is somewhat true, most Canadians do support our troops verbally, but thats were it ends. there have been polls done on this forum and else where where our troops don't even rate in the top ten priorites of Canadians.

So while Canadians will say they support thier troops, they are not willing to support them if it means cutting other programs or projects.

Some Canadians have even written there MP's in regards to the shape our military is in. But the majority have not even done this small step. because they know that the funding will have to come from somewhere.

My piont is supporting your troops means more than rah rah rah, go troops, "although it is part of it" it means ensuring that they have the equipment and supplies to carry out the tasks we ask them to do, It means sending them on the right missions, it means we look after them when they are sick,tired, or in need. It means once a year we give an hour out of our time to remember the fallen, shake the hand of a vet and say thanks.

It means that we fight for them as hard as the fight for us.

I think if you run a poll asking Canadians if they want the troops to be funded and have all the supplies they need, Canadians would overwhelmingly say yes.

The comment I made was sarcastic. It was meant to highlight the false narrative being foisted on us by the government and a complicit media that any questioning of the Afghanistan mision equates to not supporting the troops.

You're opening a larger debate about funding and priorities (ie. "Do you want troops, or healthcare??") which doesn't really do justice to the current climate of accusing everyone who isn't saying "rah rah Afghanistan".

My questioning of the detainee policy had me roundly accused here of not supporting the troops. What could be more supportive of the troops than wanting them to have clearly defined policy?

It's become the argument of this new government....ask us questions and you're not supporting the troops.

What's disgusting is using the troops as a political tool.

[scribblet]

Well, the debate seemed to show that Parliament supports the Afghan. mission some different degrees of course, the libs. fully support, for now anyway. It was their baby afterall, but I do agree with the Taliban that if the casualties increase, Canadians will not continue support the mission.

Mind you, a head start on Easter vacation seemed to be more important to the MP's who skipped the debate, or they were just copping out.

[Army Guy]

gerryhatrick:

I think if you run a poll asking Canadians if they want the troops to be funded and have all the supplies they need, Canadians would overwhelmingly say yes.

Until the get the bill and find out they have to increase our taxes or cut other funding, and polls that have already been run have clearly shown that the military is not Canadians main concern which translates into what ever is left over the military can have...

I think Canadians would be shocked to find out just how under equipped we are...

The comment I made was sarcastic. It was meant to highlight the false narrative being foisted on us by the government and a complicit media that any questioning of the Afghanistan mision equates to not supporting the troops.

Support of the Afgan mission is a small part of my piont, which is really if there was as much concern about our armed forces as you say, The people of Canada would be screaming or demanding something be done. And thats not what we see or hear.

You're opening a larger debate about funding and priorities (ie. "Do you want troops, or healthcare??") which doesn't really do justice to the current climate of accusing everyone who isn't saying "rah rah Afghanistan".

like i said before time for debate for afgan is to late for the current mandate and to soon for the next one.

It's become the argument of this new government....ask us questions and you're not supporting the troops

When demands for a debate are coming from some liberals "and the NDP" the troops already have over 2 years of blood seat and tears invested in Afgan, with still a year and a half left. this is not the time for debate period....them and the country should have had this debate 3 years ago before one of our soldiers died....and had the debate decided we've changed our mind what message would have that sent to the troops....Sorry we screwed up, but hey we are bringing you home...all your effort ,time, lifes were for nothing...

What's disgusting is using the troops as a political tool

Whats disgusting is asking a soldier to risk his life on a whim that was not debated or discused prior to our country sending them there. And more disgusting is telling him "sorry about your comrads" maybe next time we'll find a worthy mssion for you to die for....

[GostHacked]

This is what I feel :

Ever since Harper was elected PM, the PR for the Canadian military has skyrocketed. Ads all over the TV showing an Americanized version of the Canadian Military in the ads. I also see more news related to out Military and the troops and the mission. Yes the PR has ramped up. And this in my humble view WILL get us noticed by terrorists. The more we tout that the more potential we have of being a victim of a terrorists attack.

The news is showing more articles related to the war on terror and our mission in Afghanistan. That report to me shows that we are now getting their attention.

So any bets on when we will have a terrorist attack? Since it seems inevitable.

[Black Dog]

There you go again, BD. And you miss the point.

We can argue about Iraq another time but Afghanistan is not the "wrong mission".

If the US had not "gone into" Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be in power, bin Laden would still be making tapes above ground and the western world might be minus a fewer more tall buildings.

Fortunately, Bush Jnr decided to go into Afghanistan, as any other US president would have done. Then, having gotten rid of the Taliban, what was the US supposed to do? Walk away?

Why not?

The US has to stay and help set up some sort of viable regime. And this is where Canada gets involved.

You missed an important step: why does Canada have to get involved, exactly?

It is easy for Canadians to sit on the sidelines and smugly claim to be holier-than-thou. It's great being Canadian. We get all the benefits of being American without having to assume any of the responsibilities.

The neighbouring town, to whom we pay no taxes, maintains the road out to our home and all we have to do is worry about the upkeep for the short laneway into our home. Then, we make fun of the "crazy" neighbouring municipal council that spends a "fortune" on the road.

So we are obligated to enter into a situation that has little or no benefit to us based on other assumed benefits we get from our natural relationship with the U.S.? Huh?

[Army Guy]

GostHacked:

Ever since Harper was elected PM, the PR for the Canadian military has skyrocketed. Ads all over the TV showing an Americanized version of the Canadian Military in the ads

If you mean by being americanized that the Canadian military has taken on a more aggresive roll. Your wrong, a vast majority of our training is aggresive military type training meaning offensive and defensive warfare. Our "peacekeeping role" is a myth invented by our government to trick the public into thinking we were not a real army but just handed out candy and teddy bears...

Yes the PR has ramped up. And this in my humble view WILL get us noticed by terrorists. The more we tout that the more potential we have of being a victim of a terrorists attack.

We are a target regardless of what we do, sticking our heads in the sand will not help us either. We as a country have already said we agree "we are at war with terrorism" after that it was pretty much down hill from there in regards to staying off the terrorist target list.

The news is showing more articles related to the war on terror and our mission in Afghanistan. That report to me shows that we are now getting their attention.

SO are you saying we should stop showing the news or we should stop our mission in afgan because some bad guys might hurt us....

So any bets on when we will have a terrorist attack? Since it seems inevitable

I would'nt take us off thier radar screen, but they got bigger fish to fry than Canada...

[Spike22]

Just in case the taliban ragheads monitor this forum: "suck farts and choke scumbags"!

Ha ve a nice day and it is nice to be back in the forum

[GostHacked]

Sorry, let me rephrase that.

The ads for the Canadian Military are a mimic of the ones in the US for their army. I recall when the ads were about grace dignity and bravery, now it seems like STRAP YER GUNS ON AND LETS SHOOT SOME SHEET!!

[Black Dog]

One of the main rationales behind Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is that it will minimize the threat of terrorism occurring on Canadian soil (usually, this is accompanied by a mention of some Al Qaeda "hit list" upon which Canada’s name appears). Attacks in London, Madrid and Bali are often cited as evidence of the threat the Al Qaeda network poses to western nations. But here's the thing: the perpetrators of two of the incidents above have no connection with Al Qaeda:

London bombers acted alone

The official inquiry into the July 7 bombings in London will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the Internet, that there was no "fifth bomber" and that there was no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.

The first forensic account of the atrocity that claimed the lives of 52 people, which will be published in the next few weeks, will say that London attacks were the product of a "simple and inexpensive" plot hatched by four British suicide bombers bent on martyrdom.

Far from being the work of an international terror network, as originally suspected, the attack was carried out by four men who had scoured terror sites on the Internet. Their knapsack bombs cost only a few hundred US dollars, according to the first completed draft of the government's definitive report into the blasts.

No Al Qaeda help for Spanish bombers

The bombings were Spain's worst terrorist massacre and are seen as having brought down a conservative Spanish government that backed the war in Iraq.

Shortly after the attacks, Islamic militants claimed responsibility on behalf of al-Qaida and said they acted to avenge the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq, dispatched in 2003 by then-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.

However, a senior Spanish intelligence official and a western one closely involved in counterterrorism measures told The Associated Press last month that there was no evidence the cell had any contact with or received any logistical or financial help from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

Given the circumstances (ie. the capture or deaths of many senior AQ members), I think it's reasonable to conclude that the threat from Al Qaeda itself has been overblown. It would certainly appear that the organization itself is operating at a reduced capacity: the big threat, then, would come from domestic elements bent on emulating Al Qaeda. So the question becomes: given that many recent terror events were carried out in response to domestic foreign policy (the invasion of Iraq is regarded as a factor in both the Spanish and London bombings), does Canada's entanglement in Afghanistan (where it can easily be perceived as doing the dirty work of the U.S.) really decrease the threat of terrorism? Or will it end up increasing the threat?