Whom precisely are we trying to help in Afghanistan?

[Machjo]

Seriously. We always talk of being at war in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban is the enemy, and that we're trying to help regular Afghans. But then we have to distinguish because the Taliban itself is supported mainly by Afghans. So clearly we're trying to help non-Taliban Afghans against the Taliban. But then we treat them all with equal distrust, thus blurring the line again. It would seem to me that we have but a vague idea of who the enemy is, and who our friends are. So we treat them all like the enemy to varying degrees. We treat the locals with distrust except when they are clearly incapable of inflicting harm. But that means that as ong as there are many of them in one place, we must start to act standoffish. So we start to treat them like the enemy to a certain degree already. The line is just too blurred and Canadian troops know too little of the local cuture to be able to distinguish clearly between friend and foe. To the average Canadian soldier, if a person is shooting, he's the enemy, if he's not shooting, he's a potential enemy, and only when he's clearly vulnerable is he treated as a friend of sorts, in a condescending sort of way.

Do we really know what we're doing in Afghanistan? Are we really able to distinguish etween friend and fe very easily besides when they're shooting at us, or do they just all look the same to us?

 

[Machjo]

That is the question. If an Afghan fires on Canadian troops, there's no doubt he's the enemy. But if he's not firing, and he's astranger, we must treat him automatically like a potential enemy and threat, on his own soil. That's most of the population right there. And the only ones who are true friends are the ones introduced by the Afghan government or military, or Canadian forces through higher officers. That would have to be a small portion, not to mention that even they would be segregated from the Canadian forces unless they know English.

As for the majority population, in daily operations, we'd treat them with suspicion at best, arms ever at the ready, eyes ever scanning, mind ever focussed, ready for a sudden surprise, tuned out from the local community except for our awareness that the surprise might come from any of these people we are there to help, and so cannot trust them.

Our soldiers are not familiar with the local language, religion, culture, etc. and yet pretend that they really know who is friend and who is foe?

How does the average Afghan feel when all he sees are these soldiers looking so foreign, speaking a foreign language, acting differently, armed, standoffish, ever treating htem like they might be an enemy, fearing them , keeping their distance from them , dissecting them with their eyes, trying to figure out if they are friend or foe? Will they feel that the Canadian soldiers really are their friends, or fear them too?

 

[Machjo]

Strange, I ended up with tso of these threads. My screen had said that the last one hadn't registered. Oh well.

 

[Colpy]

In answer to your question:

1. Ourselves

2. The average Afghani.

 

[shadowshiv]

Strange, I ended up with tso of these threads. My screen had said that the last one hadn't registered. Oh well.

I merged both of them for you, Machjo, as it looks like they are slightly different posts.

 

[#juan]

The real reason the U.S. is in Afghanistan is to gain access to Caspian oil. I don't know why Canada is there. Moral support???


The Real Reason the United States is in Afghanistan (by Stephanie Kirmer) - Media Monitors Network

 

[EagleSmack]

Oh BULL. The same old garbage. There is no oil to be had and no pipeline in Afghanistan. The same old "No War for Oil!" trash.

We are there because of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 we wouldn't be there.

 

[#juan]

Oh BULL. The same old garbage. There is no oil to be had and no pipeline in Afghanistan. The same old "No War for Oil!" trash.

We are there because of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 we wouldn't be there.

If that is the case, why did you plan the invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11?

The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks

ITV - John Pilger - The 'good war' is a bad war

 

[Zzarchov]

oh, "Whatreallyhappened" dot com, thats non-biased reliable site. Why not just link to global research or timecube?


As a side note, we talk about Afghanistan like its some hideous quagmire and all hope is lost.

There is very little combat going on, and most of the country is calm and quiet. Acting like hte Taliban have some kind of massive Afghan support is ridiculous.

1.) They hated the religious minorities, which is why Iran nearly invaded a few years before we did, as Shia are the minority (a sizeable one)

2.) There are ALOT of secular and atheist Afghans, you just don't hear about them much these days.

3.) As proof in fact, The Taliban never ran the WHOLE country.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's not like Al Qeada and Ossama bin Laden just popped on to the radar screen on 9/11.

The US knew where they were in Afghanistan and that they Taliban were nuts long before the invasion. Bombing the Cole put the lights on these guys in a major way. The Taliban destroying the Buddahs in Bamyan was the Icing on the cake as far as the international community was concerned. About then everyone thought these idiots have to go.

The bombing of the Cole was just picking who was going to do the kicking. 9/11 just set the date. Ossama bin Laden was just the excuse to use to go and do it. They probably couldn't have handed him over even if they knew where he was in Afghanistan.

Personaly I think Afghanistan is a very winnable war. But we have to treat it like a war first off and stop worrying about every single Afghan that gets hurt during the war.

Obama has it right, in that we should be sending thousands more soldiers, equipment and support there to bring this to an end. The more countries we have that will stand up to terrorism and not allow groups like Al Qeada to work from their country the better it is for use in the long run.

 

[petros]

oh, "Whatreallyhappened" dot com, thats non-biased reliable site. Why not just link to global research or timecube?

Jane's Defense who they were quoting is the most reliable source of military news and events. The A-Stan invasion was definetly planned LONG BEFORE 9-11 this is 100% fact.

 

[EagleSmack]

oh, "Whatreallyhappened" dot com, thats non-biased reliable site. Why not just link to global research or timecube?


As a side note, we talk about Afghanistan like its some hideous quagmire and all hope is lost.

There is very little combat going on, and most of the country is calm and quiet. Acting like hte Taliban have some kind of massive Afghan support is ridiculous.

1.) They hated the religious minorities, which is why Iran nearly invaded a few years before we did, as Shia are the minority (a sizeable one)

2.) There are ALOT of secular and atheist Afghans, you just don't hear about them much these days.

3.) As proof in fact, The Taliban never ran the WHOLE country.

Agreed. They talk the "quagmire" talk because they WANT it to fail. I've never seen so many people hell bent on wanting to lose because they hate Bush. That is what it all comes down to.

Casualties are miniscule when compared to other wars. How many Canadians were lost on D-Day?

Good post.

 

[MHz]

Oh BULL. The same old garbage. There is no oil to be had and no pipeline in Afghanistan. The same old "No War for Oil!" trash.

We are there because of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 we wouldn't be there.

If it is so unimportant then why was America willing to spend so much to make sure the Soviets always had their guns loaded when they were there (a tactic that is frowned on these days). They were originally invited in to help end the blood-shed that had cropped up? If you want to say 'halt communism' that works for me because it was prior to the end of the 'cold war'. Now if the CIA had any operations going on before the USSR was there then things should be viewed in a slightly different light, the reason becomes 'fight communism and protect our current investments in the region'.

The objective was to capture a criminal and bring him before a court of law and then execute him. Things are projected to stay the way they are until 2012 or whatever. The last business dealings American's had with the Afghanistan Government was over running an oil-pipelines (maybe several lines depending how many years were being looked at). Taliban representatives were brought over to Texas, I assume to be shown how little they impact they have after the construction plase and what their new hi-tech office-plex would look like. The offer was rejected. Was the rejection based on the Taliban not liking America ot the Taliban not liking pipelines?

Given the above did happen you can understand why some might be tempted to see a manhunt might either be a complete cover story or at the very least not the whole story? This would look even more criminal if the Taliban had indicated they would let Russia (for instance) run and maintain as they like as long as certain conditions and commitments were met)

 

[EagleSmack]

Jane's Defense who they were quoting is the most reliable source of military news and events. The A-Stan invasion was definetly planned LONG BEFORE 9-11 this is 100% fact.

Just searched their site. I cannot find that. Perhaps you can point me to the article?

 

[MHz]

oh, "Whatreallyhappened" dot com, thats non-biased reliable site. Why not just link to global research or timecube?

I haven't read this particular story yet but all the stories I have read are read by following a link to another site. He supplies a few comments but is not the author of the stories in the headlines. He has had links to stories Global Research.

 

[EagleSmack]

If it is so unimportant then why was America willing to spend so much to make sure the Soviets always had their guns loaded when they were there (a tactic that is frowned on these days). They were originally invited in to help end the blood-shed that had cropped up? If you want to say 'halt communism' that works for me because it was prior to the end of the 'cold war'. Now if the CIA had any operations going on before the USSR was there then things should be viewed in a slightly different light, the reason becomes 'fight communism and protect our current investments in the region'.

They were not invited. They SAID they were invited and installed a Pro-Soviet Govt. The support of the Afghan Mujadeen was all about payback for that I am sure. It was all fun and games for the Soviets to watch the US struggle in Vietnam as Soviet weapons took out planes, etc. However it was a different story when they started seeing their choppers going down at the hands of US made Stingers and seeing their BMPs rocked by LAW rockets. That is why Gorbachev asked Reagan to stop sending Stingers and support to the rebels and Reagan pretty much said...

"Suck don't it!"

The objective was to capture a criminal and bring him before a court of law and then execute him. Things are projected to stay the way they are until 2012 or whatever. The last business dealings American's had with the Afghanistan Government was over running an oil-pipelines (maybe several lines depending how many years were being looked at). Taliban representatives were brought over to Texas, I assume to be shown how little they impact they have after the construction plase and what their new hi-tech office-plex would look like. The offer was rejected. Was the rejection based on the Taliban not liking America ot the Taliban not liking pipelines?

There was a pipeline planned but the news of Taliban going to Texas to discuss it is news to me. Perhaps you can point me to a viable link. You may be right.

Given the above did happen you can understand why some might be tempted to see a manhunt might either be a complete cover story or at the very least not the whole story? This would look even more criminal if the Taliban had indicated they would let Russia (for instance) run and maintain as they like as long as certain conditions and commitments were met)

So 9/11 was a cover story. You believe Bush planned and executed it so he could build a pipeline?

 

[MHz]

Just searched their site. I cannot find that. Perhaps you can point me to the article?

Where the article says janes.com this site will pop up
India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane's Security News

 

[petros]

The link wiorks just fine



India joins anti-Taliban coalition

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15 March 2001[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]India joins anti-Taliban coalition

By Rahul Bedi

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.

India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.

Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.

Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.

Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.

Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.
[/FONT]

 

[MHz]

They were not invited. They SAID they were invited and installed a Pro-Soviet Govt. The support of the Afghan Mujadeen was all about payback for that I am sure. It was all fun and games for the Soviets to watch the US struggle in Vietnam as Soviet weapons took out planes, etc. However it was a different story when they started seeing their choppers going down at the hands of US made Stingers and seeing their BMPs rocked by LAW rockets. That is why Gorbachev asked Reagan to stop sending Stingers and support to the rebels and Reagan pretty much said...

"Suck don't it!"

I'll reply on another thread...maybe.

There was a pipeline planned but the news of Taliban going to Texas to discuss it is news to me. Perhaps you can point me to a viable link. You may be right.

Took me awhile, I had to type in 'taliban visit texas' in a search engine, do you need all the pages of links?
Oil barons court Taliban in Texas

So 9/11 was a cover story. You believe Bush planned and executed it so he could build a pipeline?

Is search and capture the prime objective or not?
Went for a capture but ended up owning the place, who could have seen that one coming?

 

[EagleSmack]

Where the article says janes.com this site will pop up
India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane's Security News

Ok... I read the article and NO WHERE does it say that the US planned the invasion before 9/11. But here is the article...


India joins anti-Taliban coalition

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.

India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.

Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.

Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.

Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.

Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.


Hardly invasion plans but I can see how the people who NEED to have a conspiracy would say that. That is just their M.O.