Jack Layton Says Surrender.....

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

As equally disengenious as comparing the current operation to the Soviet one and the Bristish one before that. If you agree, we are making progress

Nonsense. The people the brits and the soviets fought are the aame people that live in afghanistan today. Andrew

We are talking islamic insurgency, a deep hatred and distrust of the west, modern western soldiers who are ignorant, and the fact that we have already been there 6 years and the rhetoric we use makes us sound like the russians

So in other words you really haven't a clue......you may be talking about an islamic insurgency, but in reality the Taliban are an ethnic party that does not control either the hearts or minds of the majority of fghans or the bulk of the territory. And to wit, your ridiculous claim to history..the majority of the fighter who engaged the soviets are now part of the government who were formed from the broad based Northern Alliance, not the Pashtun minority.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Maybe he feels that the reason Afghanistan is Muslim becasue a proto Taliban Jack negotiated Islam into their lives...I mean....isn't that how Islam expanded? In a non colonial, gender neutral way?

Now we are getting somewhere. The first afghanis to long ago accept and submit to islam were also the first to resist soviet occupation. See where this is headed?

Andrew

You are soused, right? You think that because the afghans were conquered by Arabs in the 8th century it has something to do with the afghans resisting the soviet invasion of the 20th?

JerrySeinfeld · July 5, 2007

I think the National Post summed up Jumpin' Jack Flash best in this way:

In this respect, Mr. Layton is a sad example of what has become of leftist politics: The same bleeding hearts who once urged Western politicians to help the world's poor and afflicted now run for the exits when peacemaking and nation-building turn tough.
In the case of Afghanistan, in particular, this defeatism is grimly ironic coming, as it is, from a politician who postures as the champion of gay rights and feminism: But not for the presence of brave NATO troops, the country would fall into the hands of medieval theocrats who behead homosexuals and treat women like burka-clad dogs.

The best way to honour the memories of the six fallen Canadians is not by issuing cynical calls to scuttle the mission for which they died. Rather, we must renew our efforts to defeat the Taliban and ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a base for global terror, as it did in the years leading up to 9/11.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

And what exactly would we have to concede to them?
Burqa's must be worn on Wednesdays and Thursdays but not during the full moon on every other Saturday?

Compulsive praying to Allah only has to be followed when beaten?

Women are free to work so long as they are chained to their pious brother?

Little girls are allowed to go to school if they proclaim an oath to go through genital mutilations?

You can fly a kite so long as you don't look at it?

public beheadings now by invitation only? - mess to be cleaned up at least 2 hours prior to the soccer game?

You think negotiations will solve all this and you call me ignorant?

Are we to remake Afghanistan into Canada? Sharia law is the law of the land in Afghanistan right now. You may not like it but most Afghans do. The severity of that law will no doubt form part of the negotiations.

Thats what negotiations means...haha

We are there to make sure that the government is able to defend itself against these murderous fascists.
When they are able to, we go.

Until we get there, everythign we have contributed already is in jeopardy.

Fine. I agree. Wether the Taliban continues to exist or not, or wether Evil Islam continues to exist or not, or wether AQ continues to exist or not...once the Afghan government is able to take care of itself NATO's job will be done.

But that has nothing to do with negotiations/surrender. In fact negotiations between Kharzai and the Taliban are inevitable and the sooner they get down to it the better. Distastefull or not, they do have common ground considering that Kharzai was once an influential member of the Taliban himself.

Negotiations may be a haha joke to unimaginative Canadians, but it ain't no joke to Afghans.

Laugh it up.

Rue · July 5, 2007

Isn't the Legion saying Never again. Yet here we are right back at it. Canada has a good idea, the peacekeepers and that is what we should be doing. We have no right to go roaring in and tell others what they should do. Should is the worst word in the world and you know what, even though people are dying they will join together to fight if some other entity tries to tell the what to do.
Just witness beaton women, how many stand up for the person who beats them, just think about it.

Now that's great reasoning. Canada should leave because when a woman is beaten we should just stand by and ignore her being beaten. O.k. got it. Thanks.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Distastefull or not, they do have common ground considering that Kharzai was once an influential member of the Taliban himself.
Negotiations may be a haha joke to unimaginative Canadians, but it ain't no joke to Afghans.

Laugh it up.

Taliban movement sought Karzai's support in restoring order, and offered him the post of United Nations ambassador, but he broke with the new regime when it fell under the influence of foreign terrorists.
From a base in Pakistan, Karzai began to organize anti-Taliban opposition. When his father was murdered in Pakistan, presumably by agents of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai, was selected to succeed his father as Khan of the half-million Popalzai. He immediately defied both the Pakistan and Taliban governments by leading a convoy of tribal mourners to carry his father's body home for burial in Kandahar, a stronghold of the Taliban. The Taliban did not dare intervene. This act of defiance made Hamid Karzai the most visible leader of resistance to the Taliban among the Pashtun people.

Your unbroken string of half knowledge is commendable

White Doors · July 5, 2007

And what exactly would we have to concede to them?

Burqa's must be worn on Wednesdays and Thursdays but not during the full moon on every other Saturday?

Compulsive praying to Allah only has to be followed when beaten?

Women are free to work so long as they are chained to their pious brother?

Little girls are allowed to go to school if they proclaim an oath to go through genital mutilations?

You can fly a kite so long as you don't look at it?

public beheadings now by invitation only? - mess to be cleaned up at least 2 hours prior to the soccer game?

You think negotiations will solve all this and you call me ignorant?

Are we to remake Afghanistan into Canada? Sharia law is the law of the land in Afghanistan right now. You may not like it but most Afghans do. The severity of that law will no doubt form part of the negotiations.

Thats what negotiations means...haha

We are there to make sure that the government is able to defend itself against these murderous fascists.
When they are able to, we go.

Until we get there, everythign we have contributed already is in jeopardy.

Fine. I agree. Wether the Taliban continues to exist or not, or wether Evil Islam continues to exist or not, or wether AQ continues to exist or not...once the Afghan government is able to take care of itself NATO's job will be done.

But that has nothing to do with negotiations/surrender. In fact negotiations between Kharzai and the Taliban are inevitable and the sooner they get down to it the better. Distastefull or not, they do have common ground considering that Kharzai was once an influential member of the Taliban himself.

Negotiations may be a haha joke to unimaginative Canadians, but it ain't no joke to Afghans.

Laugh it up.

Afghan's voted in the current government - not the taliban. The taliban are attempting to unsurp the current regime - we are there to make sure that they do not until the afghan government can defend itself. It's quite simple really. I'm not invoking any western standards on this. I am invoking the Afghan's wishes, which you seem to have a problem with - ironically so do the taliban who you think we should negotiate with.

haha

Rue · July 5, 2007

I think with each further soldier who dies, more and more Canadians will want Canada out and that is precisely what will fuel the Taliban to continue. Each time Canadians jerk react with fear, Taliban gets what it wants.

The game being played is called attrition. Taliban is convinced over the long run Canada and the West will not stick it out.

I question the tactics our troops use, not why they are there. I question using conventional armies as convoys incountries that can not be controlled physically on the ground because of the very nature of their geography.

A conventional army can not fight Taliban and win in anything but short term, brief clashes with fragmented cells.

I believe the way to defeat Taliban or other terrorists or guerilla insurgents is with elite, quick moving, disguised, commando units not openly visible conventional armies that search down and destroy terrorist sites wherever they may be.

I think individual NATO countries decisions to keep their military units holed up in pockets avoiding confrontation has doomed the mission, pure and simple.

I think as long as our troops are there and the mission remains as is-it is a suicide mission.

Either change the mission guidelines or our people may continue to die.

However if you want me to get on the public airways and broadcast to Taliban we tremble to fuel them into more attacks-forget it. I have too much respect for the military and their mission as flawed as I think it is to do that. Our troops know full well their lives are on the line and their mission may be defective but they are willing to pay the price so I will bloody well admire them and support them and if I have anything to say in the interim, it will be in the form of trying to change the mission to give them more help not abandon them.

I would prefer to quietly debate and argue to change the mission's tactical operations, not squeel in panic jeopardizing the safety and security of soldiers still there.

Jack Layton shut up long enough to understand there is a way to express opposition without doing so in such a shrill way that jeapardizes our troops. But we are a democracy and he is entitled to be a snively coward.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

But we are a democracy and he is entitled to be a snively coward.

True.....

Argus · July 5, 2007

And why some of you seem so determined to be wrapped up in guilt and shame because your ignorant, barbarian ancestors were better fighters than everyone else's ignorant, barbarian ancestors is beyond me.

Would you feel happier of the natives had butchered our ancestors? They would have if they could have.

So are you saying that the better man at killing is the winner and that we should keep that up. Nothing changes, keep on killing it is the way of the world

I am saying that to attatch any kind of moral relevance to what our barbarian ancestors did to other people's barbarian ancestors is as pointless an exercise as you can find.

As to today, we are no longer barbarians. We in the West are, without question, the most socially and culturally advanced civilization on Earth. The people we are fighting ARE barbarians by almost any standard. And their own behaviour - which you never criticise - is considerably worse on any moral level you care to consider than is our own.

Argus · July 5, 2007

Typical leftards, you believe in freedom, democracy and human rights, you just don't want to do anything about it!!! Just make excusses for the enemy...

Typical right-wing two-faced hack. Didn't hear you chomping at the bit to liberate the downtrodden in North Korea...nope. silence regarding democracy and human rights there.

From you also. In fact, those on the Left have never shown much enthusiasm for condemning repression and human rights abuses commited by communist states. They have rather more enhthusiasm for defending it, in fact.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

What would Taliban Jack offer in negotiations? What would he ask for?
Equal Opportunity Suicide Bombers?

Transgendered Celestial Virgins?

No one under 8 may be executed?

Agenda for Historic Peace talks between Jack Layton and Taliban leader - room 202 Casino Du Lac Leamy, Quebec

8:00 am – Jack Layton opening comments and welcome to assembled media and Taliban representative.

8:05 am – Taliban representative walks to podium, poses for photographs with Mr. Layton.

8:06 am – Taliban representative cleaves Mr. Layton in the forehead with giant axe.

8:08 am – Peace talks end.

8:10 am – Olivia Chow says she is "encouraged by talks” – announces plan to run for leadership of NDP.

Yeah. sure. NATO will eventually pull out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan, at some point, will be left to its own devices - just like after the Russians packed up.

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another. When Canada eventually packs up and leaves (and we will...Taliban or not) all this silly rejection of negotiations by Canadians aint gonna mean squat. And it doesn't mean squat right now either.

Fine, you think negotiations are a laughable joke. The Afghans have a different reality they (and not you or other No-Negotiations Canadians have to live with) and they know that very well.

Afghan Senate

So you see, Mr Layton and the NDP may be shooting themselves in thier collective foot, Canadian politics wise, but unlike yourself, do see the political realities of Afghanistan. Wich is far more than any other political party in this country has managed.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

Typical leftards, you believe in freedom, democracy and human rights, you just don't want to do anything about it!!! Just make excusses for the enemy...

Typical right-wing two-faced hack. Didn't hear you chomping at the bit to liberate the downtrodden in North Korea...nope. silence regarding democracy and human rights there.

From you also. In fact, those on the Left have never shown much enthusiasm for condemning repression and human rights abuses commited by communist states. They have rather more enhthusiasm for defending it, in fact.

You are correct, sir. I am a staunch leftoid and have never advocated liberating the downtrodden. You see, I don't engage in Bullshit attacks and falsly claim to be so handwringingly concerned about human rights that we need to invade hundreds of country's....as you bullshit artists do.

Argus · July 5, 2007

You're right. We should have just nuked it till it glowed.

But I think you miss the point. We attacked those countries because it was in the national interest to do so. But it's not in the national interest to stay, so there must be some other reason. Without merely reaching for the lefty boilerplate of "oil" and "Haliburton", can you suggest why we're there? After all, wouldn't it make more sense just to bomb it to rubble and leave them in the stoneage?

Nuking...I understand, Scottsa, that you're quite willing to punish the innocent for the crimes of a few; That you subscribe to the terrorist mantra that all civilians are justifiable targets; That there are no innocents.

You are playing right into AlQueda's hands. You are the usefull idiot.

I find it unlikely Al Quaeda would consider their lands being nuked to be "useful".

On the other hand, I'm sure they treasure surrender monkeys

Peter F · July 5, 2007

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban.

Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

Afghan's voted in the current government - not the taliban. The taliban are attempting to unsurp the current regime - we are there to make sure that they do not until the afghan government can defend itself. It's quite simple really.

...and again, No Shit Sherlock. When have I disagreed with that?

I'm not invoking any western standards on this. I am invoking the Afghan's wishes, which you seem to have a problem with - ironically so do the taliban who you think we should negotiate with.
haha

Bullshit. Read your own post.

(White Doors @ Jul 5 2007, 02:00 PM)
And what exactly would we have to concede to them?

Burqa's must be worn on Wednesdays and Thursdays but not during the full moon on every other Saturday?

Compulsive praying to Allah only has to be followed when beaten?

Women are free to work so long as they are chained to their pious brother?

Little girls are allowed to go to school if they proclaim an oath to go through genital mutilations?

You can fly a kite so long as you don't look at it?

public beheadings now by invitation only? - mess to be cleaned up at least 2 hours prior to the soccer game?

Argus · July 5, 2007

Jack Layton (from the G+M article):
"Mr. Layton said Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to show leadership by urging the United States to stop high-altitude bombing in the war-torn country and withdrawing Canadian troops from what he characterized as a hopeless mission.

“It's the wrong mission; it's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals,” said Mr. Layton, adding his party will ensure the issue is front and centre in coming federal byelections.

NATO's presence in Afghanistan is only boosting Afghan support for the Taliban, he said, adding the only way to peace is through negotiation.

I like how Layton uses the occasioin of six Canadians killed by the Taliban --- to criticise the United States for its military tactics. Do not make the mistake of thinking this wasn't deliberate. The NDPs target is to attack the Tory government by linking the mission to the United States at all times, and emphasising the deaths of civilians. The NDP could not possibly care less how many Canadian or NATO soldiers die. It wouldn't surprise me if any number of them pump their fists in the air at every death thinking of how they can now use the opportunity to attack the government once again.

Slimy and gutless. A nice combination for the NDP leadership.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

Jack Layton shut up long enough to understand there is a way to express opposition without doing so in such a shrill way that jeapardizes our troops.

If you consider mr.Laytons statements shrill and jeopardizing of our troops, what would have been the proper way to express opposition?

There was nothing shrill or jeopardizing about what he said.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Jack Layton shut up long enough to understand there is a way to express opposition without doing so in such a shrill way that jeapardizes our troops.

If you consider mr.Laytons statements shrill and jeopardizing of our troops, what would have been the proper way to express opposition?

There was nothing shrill or jeopardizing about what he said.

....aside from standing on their still warm bodies to make a political speech.....the fucker must have prepared casualty speeches ready for everytime a Canadian gets killed.....

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban.

Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie.

If I were you I would avoid attempting smart comebacks.....they don't quite work for you.

...but wait, you said teh same people who fought the Soviets are fighting us....yet here is the Lion of the Panjshir who made the Red Army tremble with his daring and courage and lo...he was the sworn enemy of the Taliban.....

Peter F · July 5, 2007

....aside from standing on their still warm bodies to make a political speech.....the fucker must have prepared casualty speeches ready for everytime a Canadian gets killed.....

Wich is his duty. Thats called parliamentary democracy. A weakness in times of war, certainly, but nevertheless a necessity in any democracy.

He is right to do so. I commend him. He has my full support.

Peter F · July 5, 2007

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban.

Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie.

If I were you I would avoid attempting smart comebacks.....they don't quite work for you.

...but wait, you said teh same people who fought the Soviets are fighting us....yet here is the Lion of the Panjshir who made the Red Army tremble with his daring and courage and lo...he was the sworn enemy of the Taliban.....

So?

EDIT: Ohhhh. ok. I'll mail him a hero cookie.

M.Dancer · July 5, 2007

Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban.

Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie.

If I were you I would avoid attempting smart comebacks.....they don't quite work for you.

...but wait, you said teh same people who fought the Soviets are fighting us....yet here is the Lion of the Panjshir who made the Red Army tremble with his daring and courage and lo...he was the sworn enemy of the Taliban.....

So?

EDIT: Ohhhh. ok. I'll mail him a hero cookie.