The Taliban Connection

[betsy]

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 $$$ and they haven't spent any of it yet. The president will probably be toss from power in the next election so were does that leave NATO???? Harper keeping saying for Canada's interest. What interest? The$$$$$ interest?? I don't want Canadian dying for the $$$$$.

Wasn't it in Afghanistan (under the Taliban regime) that Bin Laden took refuge after 9/11?

My views perhaps are too simplistic....but analysts and strategists have their reasons why it is important to have democracy established in the region.

[M.Dancer]

Wasn't it in Afghanistan (under the Taliban regime) that Bin Laden took refuge after 9/11?

My views perhaps are too simplistic....but analysts and strategists have their reasons why it is important to have democracy established in the region.

he was there long before 9.11....about 10 years or more

[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.

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.

That's why tis true, what McKenzie said: This is not a Canadian problem!

[jdobbin]

That's why tis true, what McKenzie said: This is not a Canadian problem!

It is a Canadian problem so long as we take detainees and transfer them over.

[betsy]

That's why tis true, what McKenzie said: This is not a Canadian problem!

It is a Canadian problem so long as we take detainees and transfer them over.

Nope. And definitely not the military's problem. It is NATO's problem. The upper brass...the diplomatic level part of NATO! That's what McKenzie explained. Given his experience and his rank, I would take his word at face value...and readily accept it as absolute fact!

[jdobbin]

Nope. And definitely not the military's problem. It is NATO's problem. The upper brass...the diplomatic level part of NATO! That's what McKenzie explained. Given his experience and his rank, I would take his word at face value...and readily accept it as absolute fact!

Given that Mackenzie is a Conservative, I'm sure he would like to put the responsibility elsewhere.

[betsy]

Nope. And definitely not the military's problem. It is NATO's problem. The upper brass...the diplomatic level part of NATO! That's what McKenzie explained. Given his experience and his rank, I would take his word at face value...and readily accept it as absolute fact!

Given that Mackenzie is a Conservative, I'm sure he would like to put the responsibility elsewhere.

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban prisoners are more trustworthy than our military leaders. Since they're so liberal after all.

[jdobbin]

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban prisoners are more trustworthy than our military leaders. Since they're so liberal after all.

Many of the detainees are ordinary citizens that been rounded up, questioned, tortured and then released because they were not Taliban.

Mackenzie is no longer a military leader. He is a former Conservative candidate who is a spokesman for Tory policies.

[betsy]

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban prisoners are more trustworthy than our military leaders. Since they're so liberal after all.

Many of the detainees are ordinary citizens that been rounded up, questioned, tortured and then released because they were not Taliban.

Mackenzie is no longer a military leader. He is a former Conservative candidate who is a spokesman for Tory policies.

Well, what you've just described is a regular occurence at war time, in a lot of parts of the world. Some ordinary citizens don't even get released. They end up dead and buried in some mass graves.

Some don't even have to become suspects of any traitorous activities or sympathising with the enemies....all they have to be is be what they are. Go ask the Jews.

What I'm saying is: welcome to the real world. The horrible and frightening side of war.

Mckenzie may no longer be a military leader....but I don't think it is irrational for me to say that I'd still believe his words and assessments as absolute fact more than I would believe a Taliban suspect.

Anyway, what's his being a Conservative now got to do with it? Are you saying you're automatically dismissing him just because he is a Conservative? His military background, rank and experience do not count at all?

Yet you readily believe what a Taliban says. You gotta be kidding....

[jdobbin]

Well, what you've just described is a regular occurence at war time, in a lot of parts of the world. Some ordinary citizens don't even get released. They end up dead and buried in some mass graves.

Some don't even have to become suspects of any traitorous activities or sympathising with the enemies....all they have to be is be what they are. Go ask the Jews.

What I'm saying is: welcome to the real world. The horrible and frightening side of war.

Mckenzie may no longer be a military leader....but I don't think it is irrational for me to say that I'd still believe his words and assessments as absolute fact more than I would believe a Taliban suspect.

Anyway, what's his being a Conservative now got to do with it? Are you saying you're automatically dismissing him just because he is a Conservative? His military background, rank and experience do not count at all?

Yet you readily believe what a Taliban says. You gotta be kidding....

I actually believe what the Afghan Human Rights Commission says rather than MacKenzie who is not there.

As far as the real world goes, it sounds like a round about way to say that we shouldn't let the issue of torture of detainees bother us.

I think the CIA has that policy already. They capture someone, don't tell anyone they have them and let them be tortured in countries where it isn't a big deal and then observe in the next room. This way they can say they are not actually doing the torture.

[betsy]

I actually believe what the Afghan Human Rights Commission says rather than MacKenzie who is not there.

As far as the real world goes, it sounds like a round about way to say that we shouldn't let the issue of torture of detainees bother us.

I think the CIA has that policy already. They capture someone, don't tell anyone they have them and let them be tortured in countries where it isn't a big deal and then observe in the next room. This way they can say they are not actually doing the torture.

Hah!

That should've been a convincing argument....except for the fact that it rings hollow.

Tell me, what about these Muslim women "detained" in their household, within their own community...suffering psychological, mental...and who knows, physical tortures...right here in Canada?

For speaking their mind. For exposing the Taliban in our midst.

How do they torture their women who ratted, I wonder. How do they deal with women who are trying to break free from the strains and would like to have the freedom that's just within their grasp?

The freedom that's just outside their door?

Sounds to me that this doesn't bother those who are so righteous about this torture-issue.

[jdobbin]

That should've been a convincing argument....except for the fact that it rings hollow.

Tell me, what about these Muslim women "detained" in their household, within their own community...suffering psychological, mental...and who knows, physical tortures...right here in Canada?

For speaking their mind. For exposing the Taliban in our midst.

How do they torture their women who ratted, I wonder. How do they deal with women who are trying to break free from the strains and would like to have the freedom that's just within their grasp?

The freedom that's just outside their door?

Sounds to me that this doesn't bother those who are so righteous about this torture-issue.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to.

[normanchateau]

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban prisoners are more trustworthy than our military leaders. Since they're so liberal after all.

Many of the detainees are ordinary citizens that been rounded up, questioned, tortured and then released because they were not Taliban.

Mackenzie is no longer a military leader. He is a former Conservative candidate who is a spokesman for Tory policies.

Mckenzie may no longer be a military leader....but I don't think it is irrational for me to say that I'd still believe his words and assessments as absolute fact more than I would believe a Taliban suspect.

Anyway, what's his being a Conservative now got to do with it? Are you saying you're automatically dismissing him just because he is a Conservative? His military background, rank and experience do not count at all?

Yet you readily believe what a Taliban says. You gotta be kidding....

So you're saying we should believe Mackenzie because of his military background.

How about Col. Steven P. Noonan, a Canadian former task-force commander in Afghanistan, who has testified to evidence of prisoner abuse? Should we believe him or should we believe Stephen Harper who said last week that “This is based on nothing more than a handful of unsubstantiated allegations from Taliban prisoners..." Who should we believe? Col. Noonan who has had military experience in Afghanistan and testified to prisoner abuse or Stephen Harper who has a record of incompetence and lying to Canadians?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

[betsy]

How about Col. Steven P. Noonan, a Canadian former task-force commander in Afghanistan, who has testified to evidence of prisoner abuse? Should we believe him or should we believe Stephen Harper who said last week that “This is based on nothing more than a handful of unsubstantiated allegations from Taliban prisoners..." Who should we believe? Col. Noonan who has had military experience in Afghanistan and testified to prisoner abuse or Stephen Harper who has a record of incompetence and lying to Canadians?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

Well, McKenzie's statement is about the protocol or procedures involved. He is explaining that this is a NATO problem.

Whereas Noonan's statement is about "witnessing evidence of abuse."

Noonan's statement is still considered an allegation. He may have witnessed it, but unless it is confirmed....it still remains just that, an allegation. NATO spokesperson from Belgium interviewed at MDuffy Live sometime last week or the week before had stated that there is an investigation by NATO...and that at that point (the time of interview), everything is just an allegation.

But whether it is true or not (and I tend to believe that it is true since the region is known for using tortures)...it is as Mckenzie explained. It is something that can be dealt with by the upper brass (diplomatic level) of NATO. McKenzie actually thinks it is a good idea if NATO builds and oversee a prison for detainees....since a decent meal will probably be reason enough for some taliban to surrender.

[Keepitsimple]

How about Col. Steven P. Noonan, a Canadian former task-force commander in Afghanistan, who has testified to evidence of prisoner abuse? Should we believe him or should we believe Stephen Harper who said last week that “This is based on nothing more than a handful of unsubstantiated allegations from Taliban prisoners..." Who should we believe? Col. Noonan who has had military experience in Afghanistan and testified to prisoner abuse or Stephen Harper who has a record of incompetence and lying to Canadians?

As usual, opponents of the government have jumped on a "Gotchya" opportunity. The damage has been done and I doubt Canadians will see the facts on the front pages. First of all, the Afghan in question was never a Canadian prisoner and secondly, Noonan never said they had been tortured - he said it looked like he had been beaten. There's a big difference. In fact, the bloodthirsty opposition has taken an opportunity to praise the Military for actually helping an Afghan - and turned it into something shameful. Here's an excerpt from today's Toronto Star. It must be very credible for The Star to print it:

TheStar.com - News - Abuse story incorrect: Military

Now says no sign Afghan was abused

May 06, 2007

OTTAWA–The Canadian Forces have released more details about an incident in which soldiers in Afghanistan intervened to save a civilian who was being abused.

Reports of the June 2006 incident, taken from court transcripts, caused an uproar in the Commons on Friday.

Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the vice-chief of the defence staff, said yesterday that the way the incident has been portrayed is inaccurate.

In cross-examination involving a lawsuit by Amnesty International, Col. Mike Noonan described an incident in which Canadian soldiers had to take custody of an Afghan man whom they suspected of being beaten by Afghan National Police officers. It was initially suggested the man had been captured by Canadian soldiers.

But Natynczyk said that's not the case and the individual had simply been questioned by soldiers in the village of Zangabad, 50 kilometres southwest of Kandahar.

The incident was used as illustration by Opposition parties that Canadian soldiers had handed prisoners over to abusive Afghan authorities, contrary to assurances by the Conservative government that no such incident had taken place.

Natynczyk said the Afghan man was later picked up by police, and Canadian soldiers, who later came across him, noticed he had been injured.

The troops arranged to have the man handed over to another police unit.

In a statement released late yesterday, Natynczyk said there was no indication of torture.

It is the first time the military has provided this kind of clarification about the controversy involving detainees.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/210944

[normanchateau]

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.

* 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?

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

The plot thickens. Look who is acknowledging negotiations with the Taliban:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

Maybe he got the idea from Taliban Jack who suggested it sometime last year.

[betsy]

The plot thickens. Look who is acknowledging negotiations with the Taliban:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

Maybe he got the idea from Taliban Jack who suggested it sometime last year.

Maybe I'm being naive.

But according to that news, a lot of former members and officers of the hardline-Taliban regime had reconciled with the government.

If I'm not mistaken, one of NATO's strategy is try to encourage insurgents to surrender voluntarily?

Maybe Taliban members, being haters of anything representing the western world would rather talk with Karzai than any other officers of NATO.

[normanchateau]

The plot thickens. Look who is acknowledging negotiations with the Taliban:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

Maybe he got the idea from Taliban Jack who suggested it sometime last year.

Maybe I'm being naive.

But according to that news, a lot of former members and officers of the hardline-Taliban regime had reconciled with the government.

If I'm not mistaken, one of NATO's strategy is try to encourage insurgents to surrender voluntarily?

Maybe Taliban members, being haters of anything representing the western world would rather talk with Karzai than any other officers of NATO.

It is true that many Taliban, or ex-Taliban as Karzai refers to them, are now part of the Karzai government. But in addition to that, Karzai claims to be negotiating with Taliban hostile to his government:

"President Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time Friday he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency.

In the past, Karzai has offered, without success, to hold talks with the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar and renegade warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Some officials in his government, including provincial governors, are thought to have held informal talks with militants in the south and east, but with little apparent success to calm the insurgency.

"We have had representatives from the Taliban meeting with different bodies of Afghan government for a long time," Karzai told a news conference. "I have had some Taliban coming to speak to me as well."

Karzai did not disclose any details of the meetings, when they took place or who attended."

[runningdog]

QUOTE(betsy @ May 4 2007, 10:11 AM)

"Wasn't it in Afghanistan (under the Taliban regime) that Bin Laden took refuge after 9/11?

My views perhaps are too simplistic....but analysts and strategists have their reasons why it is important to have democracy established in the region."

hi Betsy. Not to get into a Poly type debate, but the FBI are not looking for OBL in relation to the 911 attacks (insufficient evidence) and George W Bush has publicly said that he's no longer concerned with finding him, so why do you bring OBL up?

For me it's as simple as this in relation to torture. We as Canadians must take the moral high ground which means that we not only prohibit torture, but we try to disuade others as well. We do not want to stoop to the level of the people we are fighting against.

[betsy]

QUOTE(betsy @ May 4 2007, 10:11 AM)

"Wasn't it in Afghanistan (under the Taliban regime) that Bin Laden took refuge after 9/11?

My views perhaps are too simplistic....but analysts and strategists have their reasons why it is important to have democracy established in the region."

hi Betsy. Not to get into a Poly type debate, but the FBI are not looking for OBL in relation to the 911 attacks (insufficient evidence) and George W Bush has publicly said that he's no longer concerned with finding him, so why do you bring OBL up?

For me it's as simple as this in relation to torture. We as Canadians must take the moral high ground which means that we not only prohibit torture, but we try to disuade others as well. We do not want to stoop to the level of the people we are fighting against.

Hi there. Welcome to the forum!

I don't think I brought up OBL for nothing. I believe it was in answer to a question.

Anyway, as for the high moral ground and all that....please check out the rest of the thread and other related threads. I've already given my views.