The Taliban Connection

[betsy]

I don't know if I'm just being silly....or have been greatly influenced by Polynewbie that now I'm also seeing conspiracies and secret "deals" and evil motives out of nothing.

My concern and curiousity is peaked by several seemingly separate incidents that had occurred over the past few months.

* Criticisms upon criticisms endlessly being heaped upon the mission...by usually the same people... since the get go.

* All the oppositions parties' stance on the Lebanon war: how quickly and apparent they've taken sides.

With whom? You guess it: the terrorist hezbollah.

* Ignatieff being vocal about it. Offending Jews. His comments a great cause for alarm.

(If you are a people who'd gone through history, being systematically targetted for annhilation, wouldn't you be alarmed to hear a possible leader of your country not being fair....but blatantly showing where his sympathies lay?)

* Layton had suggested negotiations with the Taliban sometime last year.

* Layton had broached the subject of negotiations recently again...for a ceasefire....with the Taliban, who else?

* Dion decidedly weakened our anti-terrorist law....even after the bust of an alleged plot last year to storm Parliament and behead our Prime Minister.

* Dion wants to bring all detainees here to Canada. That includes Taliban, of course...unless all detainees are just innocent bystanders.

* The NDP was not happy about those new tanks we purchased for our soldiers. Why do we need so many, they asked. NDP MP Dawn Black rambled on about the "graveyard of tanks" in Afghanistan left by the Russians, to which Mike Duffy replied: Instead of tanks we might be seeing a graveyard of our soldiers without these new equipment.

* Dion's partnership with Elizabeth (perhaps a kindred spirit) does not help either. A Green MP from BC clapped with glee upon seeing the first tower collapse. Elizabeth said something to offend the Jews. And apparently another Green MP from Edmonton had said something about Zionists (can't confirm that, strategist Baran mentioned it yesterday on MDuffy Live).

* All the Opposition parties are making a lot of hay about these tortures. Never mind that it lowers our troops' morale. Yes, it's obviously for political points. But it makes you wonder, is it just merely for political points?

* In the meantime, Muslim women living in Canada had exposed sympathizers or members of Taliban

also living here in Canada, threatening to slaughter these women should they practice their freedom here in Canada.

So far no one had addressed this incident. The champions of women and human rights had gone suddenly deaf.

I'm looking at all these incidents together....basing it from reactions and actions/inaction....and one thing seems to be coming to the fore. The Liberals and NDP are soft on the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

I can't help but suspect...somebody seems to be bent on undermining the mission.

Is there something going on that we don't really know about?

[weaponeer]

Betsy,

The NDP could care less about womens rights, human rights, rule of law or anything else. They say we should get out of Afghanistan at the same time the preach "progressive values". You see, they are not the ones who will look into the eyes of the Afghans and say goodbye, we are abandoning you to your fate... They only really "sort of care" about these issues in Canada. As long as the woman being abused is not Canadian they really don't care. You could say they are somewhat racist... There were/are NDP gov'ts in BC, Ontario, Sask, Manitioba, yet there are still poor people and homeless people on the streets, why????

Ask them what their alternative plan is and they have no answer. Ask them how we should support our troops, they offer ideas that would get them slaughtered. The don't care, do not kid yourself. Dawn Black does not have clue 1 about the military, and she is defence critic. Basically critic anything defence does... They simple do not understand how dangerous this world is. And it is getting more dangerous...

Dion is weak, he doesn't understand the issues, Iggy would have been a far better choice for them, but what's done is done. Bring talibs to Canada, that stament right there proved he is not fit to govern Canada, the Libs can and should get a better leader, frankly they deserve better. Could you imagine someone in 1944, bring Hitler here to Canada, bring the deah camp gang to Canada.....

The anti-war gang does not get it, never will. They are anti-American, they would side with anyone opposing the USA, and they don't care who. Their reaction is automatic, the US says left, they say right. They like to have marches in the cities. They like to go on about how they demand human rights, rule of law, womens right etc.... yet they are noticably absent when it come to really doing anything about it. Human right and such, they were won for us at the end of a bayonet. To quote Rick Mercer, "the gates of Auszswitch were not opened though negotiations!!"

Human beings are animals, we often forget this. More specifically we are preditory animals. Preditors compete for food and resouces, it is natural. War and conflict is part of who and what we are, it will never stop. Humans have been at war since the dawn of time, one tribe killing of another so they could not take their caribou etc etc ... The only real way to deal with it is to 1. be prepared, 2. take the threats seriously, and 3. when you go to war, WIN!!

[scribblet]

Betsy,

Human beings are animals, we often forget this. More specifically we are preditory animals. Preditors compete for food and resouces, it is natural. War and conflict is part of who and what we are, it will never stop. Humans have been at war since the dawn of time, one tribe killing of another so they could not take their caribou etc etc ... The only real way to deal with it is to 1. be prepared, 2. take the threats seriously, and 3. when you go to war, WIN!!

Well said -m the predatory animal part sure sounds like question period; in fact I don't think the opposition have had their rabies shots - think I see foam at mouth.

[jdobbin]

I'm looking at all these incidents together....basing it from reactions and actions/inaction....and one thing seems to be coming to the fore. The Liberals and NDP are soft on the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

I can't help but suspect...somebody seems to be bent on undermining the mission.

Is there something going on that we don't really know about?

Yes, this is a great strategy for the Tories to take: The Liberals are supporting the Taliban.

The mission is being undermined by a poor performing Defence minister who mislead the House of Commons on detainee monitoring and then changed his story no less than a five or six times about what Canada's policy was.

It is the conservatives here who undermine the mission by being gung-ho on torture.

[Wilber]

It is the conservatives here who undermine the mission by being gung-ho on torture.

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

[jdobbin]

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

It's no use denying that some people here are big on torture.

As far as what I think about the mission, I have posted all along that we should be able to move off the front at some point with some faith that someone else will take our place. In previous world wars and other hot spots, Canada was able to rotate off the front line in favour of fresh troops from our allies. Where are our allies?

I think we should serve our time to 2009 but Tories are preparing up to 2012.

[weaponeer]

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

It's no use denying that some people here are big on torture.

As far as what I think about the mission, I have posted all along that we should be able to move off the front at some point with some faith that someone else will take our place. In previous world wars and other hot spots, Canada was able to rotate off the front line in favour of fresh troops from our allies. Where are our allies?

I think we should serve our time to 2009 but Tories are preparing up to 2012.

Hi jdob,

I don't think anyone here is big on torture, I sure hope not anyhow. I am not, however you have to be realistic. This is a different place, they do things different. We have to be careful about imposing our morality, we are here to help, not conquor. The fact these guys are still alive to talk to G&M is progress. There's no real prof these guys were prisoners, or tortured anyhow. The part that makes us mad is that people always rush to believe the worst. The talibs cut off a little girls arms because she wanted to learn to write her name, and some people back home take him at his word. They are more concerned about him than the little girl, or the Canadian troops trying to protect her.

As for rotating out of the line, I don't follow. Canadians were never rotated out of the line in past wars. In 1915 we went into the line at Ypres, and came off it in Mons in 1918. Our guys took a short R&R period off, but we always had troops on the line. Same in WW2 and Korea, once on the line, we stayed unitl the war ended.

Our allies are no help, never have been and never will be jdob, sorry. Our NATO allies for the most part have conscript armies. They are no good in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan only Canada, the USA, UK, Australia, and the Dutch have volunteer armies. Some conscript are OK, the Danes here are good guys, but for the most part they would be usless.....

[jdobbin]

I don't think anyone here is big on torture, I sure hope not anyhow. I am not, however you have to be realistic. This is a different place, they do things different. We have to be careful about imposing our morality, we are here to help, not conquor. The fact these guys are still alive to talk to G&M is progress. There's no real prof these guys were prisoners, or tortured anyhow. The part that makes us mad is that people always rush to believe the worst. The talibs cut off a little girls arms because she wanted to learn to write her name, and some people back home take him at his word. They are more concerned about him than the little girl, or the Canadian troops trying to protect her.

As for rotating out of the line, I don't follow. Canadians were never rotated out of the line in past wars. In 1915 we went into the line at Ypres, and came off it in Mons in 1918. Our guys took a short R&R period off, but we always had troops on the line. Same in WW2 and Korea, once on the line, we stayed unitl the war ended.

Our allies are no help, never have been and never will be jdob, sorry. Our NATO allies for the most part have conscript armies. They are no good in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan only Canada, the USA, UK, Australia, and the Dutch have volunteer armies. Some conscript are OK, the Danes here are good guys, but for the most part they would be usless.....

Hey weaponeer,

Reading some of the people here would make you think that they were Jack Bauer, routinely torturing someone.

I don't deny that the Taliban are about as bad as you can get. The issue of the detainees would not be here had the Tories actually looked to copy the British and the Dutch when first asked to do so. Instead, O'Connor gave the wrong answer over and over again until he had to to apologize to the House. Today, we have adopted the British model.

And by rotated off the front, I mean Canada didn't lead or participate in every single engagement in wars previous. It feels like we might in Afghanistan long after the rest of our allies have left the country.

I'm not all the confident that the Afghans will ever be in a position to take care of themselves.

I certainly don't want al Qaeda back but I think they are operating with impunity out of Pakistan now.

[Alexandra]

It is the conservatives here who undermine the mission by being gung-ho on torture.

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

Of course he wouldn't.

To date no one on this board or on ANY of the Opposition benches in the House or Michael (look at me - look at me - Byers) has ever asked this question:

HOW MANY TALIBAN or AL QUEDA or --- Afghanis' have our Canadian troops taken prisoner since 2003? How many -- 50 -- 60 -- 100 --?

How many have our Canadian troopers turned over to the Afghanis?

Not once has anyone, especially the G&M twit Graeme Smith, asked the question. Smith claims the 'detainees' claiming to be tortured knew they were taken prisoner by the Canadians because of their military VEHICLES. Well. Imagine that.

Not that the troopers wore a MAPLE LEAF on their shoulders or that the troopers ensured the prisoners knew they had been captured by Canadians ......... just that these prisoners knew they were Canadians because of the vehicles they drove !

How many did our Special Forces (JTF2) guys hand over to the Americans in 2003 and 2004 and right up to May 3 2007?

How many times did Jack Layton screech at Chretien and the Liberals about how disgusting it was for our Canadian Sp. Forces guys and then our regular Army troopers to be handing over the al Quedas or the Talibans to the AMERICANS?

The media went berserk with front page pics. of our sneaky pete JTf2 guys handing over the taliban, et al, to the American paratroopers. The media frenzy and Layton's acreeching went on and on and on. Sound familiar?

The anti-war Layton NDP'ers and the Liberal anti-American red hats howled long and loud enough for Chretien to do an about face and arrange for any Taliban, et al. to be handed over to the AFGHANIS'.

Make up your mind (Dobbin, etc.) wouldn't you rather our troopers take NO prisoners/al Queda's, Taliban?

Wouldn't you rather Layton, Duceppe, Iggy and Dion cancel the mission and bring all of the combat troopers home now?

Well, maybe you all would rather Canada hands over ALL 'prisoners' to the Americans again?

[Wilber]

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

It's no use denying that some people here are big on torture.

As far as what I think about the mission, I have posted all along that we should be able to move off the front at some point with some faith that someone else will take our place. In previous world wars and other hot spots, Canada was able to rotate off the front line in favour of fresh troops from our allies. Where are our allies?

I think we should serve our time to 2009 but Tories are preparing up to 2012.

Really, one could just as easily say that those who are in a rush to leave Afghanis to the tender mercies of the the Taliban are the ones "gung-ho on torture".

We walk away because we are in a snit because some of our so called allies aren't in a rush to help us out? That makes just walking away OK? If we are doing the right thing by being there until 09, we will still be doing the right thing by staying after. The reason for being there doesn't just magically change on a certain date.

During the world wars our troops did rotate in and out of the line just as they do now. The only difference is they didn't get to go home until the war was over. They kept going back until it was finished. Whether they were replaced by other countries or other Canadians wasn't a consideration, just dictated by the military necessities at the time. Like now.

[jdobbin]

Really, one could just as easily say that those who are in a rush to leave Afghanis to the tender mercies of the the Taliban are the ones "gung-ho on torture".

We walk away because we are in a snit because some of our so called allies aren't in a rush to help us out? That makes just walking away OK? If we are doing the right thing by being there until 09, we will still be doing the right thing by staying after. The reason for being there doesn't just magically change on a certain date.

Much of the government now is comprised of ex-Taliban. They recently introduced a law to exempt themselves from being held accountable for their torture in the past. And now, they continue ordering torture according to Canada's Foreign Affairs department and the U.S. State department.

One hopes for an improvement in Afghanistan and we keep hearing that they aren't perfect but it isn't too far out of the realm that they might be no different than the previous government after we ensure their security.

[Wilber]

One hopes for an improvement in Afghanistan and we keep hearing that they aren't perfect but it isn't too far out of the realm that they might be no different than the previous government after we ensure their security.

Yes they might but there is no doubt about it if we and our allies just bail. Just hoping won't cut it I'm afraid.

[jdobbin]

Yes they might but there is no doubt about it if we and our allies just bail. Just hoping won't cut it I'm afraid.

I certainly hope that they can take over their security in due time. I also recognize that is might never happen and we might be faced with a stark choice.

[betsy]

Ret Gen Mckenzie says it would be ideal if NATO would handle the detainees, and at the same time also teach the Afghans how to handle prisoners and all that stuff.

He added that some Taliban would probably willingly surrender just to get a decent meal.

[jdobbin]

Ret Gen Mckenzie says it would be ideal if NATO would handle the detainees, and at the same time also teach the Afghans how to handle prisoners and all that stuff.

He added that some Taliban would probably willingly surrender just to get a decent meal.

This is what I suggested in another post. Prisoners could be in a NATO prison with Afghans being trained in the process. The prisons, once staffed by trained people and with full monitoring could be transfered fully to Afghans.

[betsy]

This goes beyond underming the mission, come to think of it. This could easily be undermining our own national security.

Who are the people who are pushing so hard to have the gun registry? To dis-arm the citizens?

[jdobbin]

This goes beyond underming the mission, come to think of it. This could easily be undermining our own national security.

Who are the people who are pushing so hard to have the gun registry? To dis-arm the citizens?

The Police Association supports the gun registry. They access it thousands of times a week. It would seem some conservatives really are not supporting our cops.

[betsy]

This goes beyond underming the mission, come to think of it. This could easily be undermining our own national security.

Who are the people who are pushing so hard to have the gun registry? To dis-arm the citizens?

The Police Association supports the gun registry. They access it thousands of times a week. It would seem some conservatives really are not supporting our cops.

Well, they must have a plausible reason to convince the public that it is for our own good, shouldn't they?

A law enforcer was inetrviewed months ago and he said that actually, this registry lulls the cops into false security! Remember the lady cop in Quebec who got shotgunned to death when she came knocking to the door? The killer was not supposed to have had a shotgun!

I have no wish to get into a real merits-of-gun-registry debate (cos it will detract from this "thriller" topic).

[jdobbin]

Well, they must have a plausible reason to convince the public that it is for our own good, shouldn't they?

A law enforcer was inetrviewed months ago and he said that actually, this registry lulls the cops into false security! Remember the lady cop in Quebec who got shotgunned to death when she came knocking to the door? The killer was not supposed to have had a shotgun!

I have no wish to get into a real merits-of-gun-registry debate (cos it will detract from this "thriller" topic).

I think the police have been quite clear why they support the gun registry. The Tories will have to explain why they think the police are wrong about it.

As for the topic, you brought it up.

[Argus]

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't.

It's no use denying that some people here are big on torture.

Name one.

[Argus]

I don't deny that the Taliban are about as bad as you can get. The issue of the detainees would not be here had the Tories actually looked to copy the British and the Dutch when first asked to do so.

Seems to me I asked you to show me exactly what steps the Dutch and Brits take and you fussed and fumbled and came up with nothing. Maybe you'd like to try again.

[jdobbin]

Seems to me I asked you to show me exactly what steps the Dutch and Brits take and you fussed and fumbled and came up with nothing. Maybe you'd like to try again.

Seems to me that you dismissed any link that was sent your way. And yet the Tories have signed an agreement that is identical to the British one.

The British have not run into anywhere near the problems that Canada has because they actually follow-up on who they have captured.

[jdobbin]

Name one.

I would have placed your name high on the list. From the tone of your posts, it appears you thought that the detainees were getting what they deserved. After all, aren't they only "savages" in your mind?

[Topaz]

Perhaps ALL governments that go to war should have their plans well thought out BEFORE going!!! WHY they are going, WHAT are the plans and HOW they are going to exit, WHAT to do with prisoners. I'm still not sure why we are there, except, for the freedom for the people but that being said, women will never have their freedom as a western women because of their religion in the Middle-East. Most of these countries are corrupt and Afghanistan has 50 Billion $$$ and they haven't spent any of it yet. The president will probably be toss from power in the next election so were does that leave NATO???? Harper keeping saying for Canada's interest. What interest? The$$$$$ interest?? I don't want Canadian dying for the $$$$$.

[Keepitsimple]

To date no one on this board or on ANY of the Opposition benches in the House or Michael (look at me - look at me - Byers) has ever asked this question:

HOW MANY TALIBAN or AL QUEDA or --- Afghanis' have our Canadian troops taken prisoner since 2003? How many -- 50 -- 60 -- 100 --?

How many have our Canadian troopers turned over to the Afghanis?

Not once has anyone, especially the G&M twit Graeme Smith, asked the question. Smith claims the 'detainees' claiming to be tortured knew they were taken prisoner by the Canadians because of their military VEHICLES. Well. Imagine that.

I got very confused when I initially heard of the Globe story. On the one hand, I've heard Don Newman mention several times that Canada has really only captured and detained about 40 Taliban who were subsequently handed over to Afghan authorities. On the other hand, how did the Globe know where to find 30 of them and what were they all doing outside of prison? A retired General appeared on Newsworld alongside the smug Law professor who initiated the controversy - I forget his name. The General said that only 5 of the 30 were actually originally detained by Canada. The young professor said "that's a lie - how do you know this - all the names are confidential!". The General rolled his eyes. So really, as someone else said in a previous posting...in Afghanistan, if you want to find someone who'll agree to say something, you don't have to look too far. In summary, something smells rotten in Denmark (where the heck did that saying come from anyway?).