Letter to us from the Taliban!

[Socrates the Greek]

Well you are just a misinformed liberal wearing blinders. No point arguing with you with that attitude... You can't deny the facts.:-|

I am not miss informed, the day you see the real results when Canada comes back in full from Afghanistan and you can be sure that this mission will soon come to an end, we will then look at the real report card on this stupid war…….
A battalion on a peace keeping mission doesn’t have a list of some 4000 Taliban’s killed..

THE CASE FOR 'PEACEKEEPING'
Some people might decry the opportunities in Lebanon and Darfur as unsuitable for Canadian troops because they constitute "mere" peacekeeping. For almost a decade, Canada's generals, along with a growing collection of politicians and pundits, have asserted that peacekeeping is passé and counter-insurgency wars are the new reality. Yet the turn away from peacekeeping has been a matter of choice rather than necessity. In January 2002, The Globe and Mail reported that "Canada decided to send its troops into a combat mission under U.S. control in Afghanistan rather than participate in the British-led multinational force because it is 'tired' of acting as mere peacekeepers, according to a senior British defence official."
Since when have the generations of Canadian soldiers who risked their lives patrolling the world's conflict zones become "mere" peacekeepers? Yes, peacekeeping requires diplomacy and restraint, but it also takes courage. The myth that peacekeeping is "for wimps" originates in the United States, where it found its ultimate expression in Condoleezza Rice's October 2000 comment that "We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten." Every time I read about the death and destruction in Iraq, I think of this comment, and wish the world had more properly trained and experienced peacekeepers.
Risus I am not a miss informed Lib...........

 

[Risus]

I am not miss informed, the day you see the real results when Canada comes back in full from Afghanistan and you can be sure that this mission will soon come to an end, we will then look at the real report card on this stupid war…….
A battalion on a peace keeping mission doesn’t have a list of some 4000 Taliban’s killed..

THE CASE FOR 'PEACEKEEPING'
Some people might decry the opportunities in Lebanon and Darfur as unsuitable for Canadian troops because they constitute "mere" peacekeeping. For almost a decade, Canada's generals, along with a growing collection of politicians and pundits, have asserted that peacekeeping is passé and counter-insurgency wars are the new reality. Yet the turn away from peacekeeping has been a matter of choice rather than necessity. In January 2002, The Globe and Mail reported that "Canada decided to send its troops into a combat mission under U.S. control in Afghanistan rather than participate in the British-led multinational force because it is 'tired' of acting as mere peacekeepers, according to a senior British defence official."
Since when have the generations of Canadian soldiers who risked their lives patrolling the world's conflict zones become "mere" peacekeepers? Yes, peacekeeping requires diplomacy and restraint, but it also takes courage. The myth that peacekeeping is "for wimps" originates in the United States, where it found its ultimate expression in Condoleezza Rice's October 2000 comment that "We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten." Every time I read about the death and destruction in Iraq, I think of this comment, and wish the world had more properly trained and experienced peacekeepers.
Risus I am not a miss informed Lib...........

Can I ask where you copied this from? (you are still a misinformed liberal ;-))

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Can I ask where you copied this from? (you are still a misinformed liberal ;-))

The wink tells a story Risus.......

Here is the link,

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/06/Afghanistan/

 

[Risus]

The wink tells a story Risus.......

Here is the link,

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/06/Afghanistan/

Read this from the link you posted:
"Then, over a two-year period from August 2003 to October 2005, some 6,000 Canadian soldiers were rotated through Kabul as part of a UN-authorized, NATO-led "international security assistance force" providing security and stability for Afghanistan's new government."
Note: security assistance

 

[lone wolf]

Read this from the link you posted:
"Then, over a two-year period from August 2003 to October 2005, some 6,000 Canadian soldiers were rotated through Kabul as part of a UN-authorized, NATO-led "international security assistance force" providing security and stability for Afghanistan's new government."
Note: security assistance

Why let facts get in the way of an opportunity to condemn the wrong guy?...

In a fast glance through my link, I found better than two dozen soldiers killed by IEDs/mines, almost as many by suicide bombers and car bombs, a half dozen lost to friendly fire, a few in traffic accidents, one possible suicide and about a dozen in actual firefights. Somehow, Soc's claim doesn't match up....

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Why let facts get in the way of an opportunity to condemn the wrong guy?...

In a fast glance through my link, I found better than two dozen soldiers killed by IEDs/mines, almost as many by suicide bombers and car bombs, a half dozen lost to friendly fire, a few in traffic accidents, one possible suicide and about a dozen in actual firefights. Somehow, Soc's claim doesn't match up....

I may be out of date on some stats, but my good pal Lone W they all died and it dosen't matter in what way, simply by vertue of the fact that they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and wrong place my good pal IS AFGANISTAN............

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Read this from the link you posted:
"Then, over a two-year period from August 2003 to October 2005, some 6,000 Canadian soldiers were rotated through Kabul as part of a UN-authorized, NATO-led "international security assistance force" providing security and stability for Afghanistan's new government."
Note: security assistance

Risus tell me how many Taliban soldiers were killed by the 6000 Canadian soldiers your word (peace keepers), it is estimated that approximately 4000 Taliban soldiers died this far, peace keeping in true real form do not have machine guns and grenades and other killing arsenal, so, what peace keeping some of you here are talking about?????? :roll:

 

[Walter]

Soc, the purpose of the Canadians in Afganistan is not to kill, but rather peace keepers. I don't think there is a brown nose involved....

This was never a peace keeping mission.

 

[Risus]

This was never a peace keeping mission.

OK, it was 'security assistance', basically the same thing.

 

[Risus]

Risus tell me how many Taliban soldiers were killed by the 6000 Canadian soldiers your word (peace keepers), it is estimated that approximately 4000 Taliban soldiers died this far, peace keeping in true real form do not have machine guns and grenades and other killing arsenal, so, what peace keeping some of you here are talking about?????? :roll:

Once again you post figures, don't necessarily believe them, but just let me say this, if the Taliban soldiers didn't shoot first and kept their distance, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Its pretty simple.

 

[Colpy]

Once again you post figures, don't necessarily believe them, but just let me say this, if the Taliban soldiers didn't shoot first and kept their distance, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Its pretty simple.

Risus, I completely support the war in Afghanistan.

But you are completely wrong. This is Canada at war, it is in no way peace keeping, not even close.

At the onset, some of the first troops we sent were PPCLI sniper teams.....who killed Taliban at long range, one at 2430 meters, the longest sniper kill ever made.

That is NOT peacekeeping.

And the Taliban don't have to shoot first. The job of Canadian troops there is kill them where they find them.

 

[lone wolf]

I may be out of date on some stats, but my good pal Lone W they all died and it dosen't matter in what way, simply by vertue of the fact that they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and wrong place my good pal IS AFGANISTAN............

I may stand to be corrected on the peace-keeping. See, hostilities don't generally include the rebuilding of schools and communities. Somalia was "peace-keeping" too. Somehow, in their infinite wisdom, CFor sent in Airborne and expected them to act like the Boy Scouts. I maintain that Canada really should not be there. The fact is we are there now and we cannot withdraw without inviting Taliban's hatred to follow. Victory comes only in total annihilation of the infidel (us) Whether we are there or not, we are a target by virtue of not being of Islam. Really, there is no right place or wrong place. They may already be here.

 

[dancing-loon]

Peacekeepers' Day salutes soldiers' ultimate sacrifice
Terence Leung, Calgary Herald

Published: Monday, August 11, 2008
Although 89 Canadian soldiers have died serving in Afghanistan, a message of peace and remembrance was voiced Sunday in a ceremony for Canada's first National Peacekeepers' Day.

About 300 people were in attendance Sunday at Peacekeeper's Park in Garrison Green to pay tribute to 204 fallen Canadian peacekeepers.

"We stand here today to honour Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of peace and freedom," said Calgary Northeast Conservative MP Art Hanger, who also extended his sympathies to the families of soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, including Master Cpl. Josh Roberts, who was killed Saturday.

The sister of a fallen Calgary soldier spoke of the ceremony's significance.
"It's extremely important. It was extremely moving and important to remember all the soldiers who were killed," said Carolyn Straub, whose brother, Cpl. Michael Starker, was killed near Kandahar in a gun battle against Taliban militants May 6.
"It was really well done," said Straub. "They honoured the guys who should be honoured. He (Michael) would have really enjoyed it."

Bagpipes were played as the names of peacekeepers and where they were killed on duty were read with locations ranging from Afghanistan, Egypt to Vietnam.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...f-86d9cdf12b1f
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This looks like Canada sees our soldiers in Afghanistan as Peacekeepers. That should settle the argument.

 

[Zzarchov]

A peacekeeper is a way to say "Soldier in a warzone we don't have to pay veterans benefits too".

Peacekeepers are deployed as a Politically Correct Euphasim for "Soldiers in a police action".

Peacekeepers were designed to be sent where their is no fighting, currently they are sent as peacemakers.

 

[darkbeaver]

The whole world if we happen to run, quaking in our boots, because we got a nasty letter from a bunch of cowards who have to rely on fear to do their dirty work.

Aren't you being just a bit one sided here Wolf? The Talibam did not invent fear and certainly have no exclusivity with respect to its employment, I suggest real 21st century fear comes from the air in cowardly attacks on wedding parties which I assure you are carried out with full knowledge of what the targets are. There is no glory in war, especially this dirty little bash for the bankers so they may consolodate thier strangle hold on the region to ensure thier continued rape of the region and for no other reason. In truth the west cares not one ****ing bit about the ordinary Afghans. No one uses fear more than the modern army, there is a truth about terrorism that you seem oblivious to and that is that we are the foremost exponents of it. War and terrorism are the same thing, the side that inflicts the most terror usually wins, that is the fundemental nature of war that is obscured by empty patriotism. Wave the flag if you like but remember it's just a colourful rag thats gets dirtier every minute we spend in this richmans enterprize. "Dirty work" theTaliban are rank amateurs when it comes to modern warfare and the world class killing it entails.

 

[gopher]

"You may need an adult to explain this to you. They are attacking not only Canada and the U.S.,but anyone who doesn't see things their way.... You should be safe. "


LOL! The Taliban never attacked the USA. Besides, it was your hero Reagan who created them and said they were the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers:

 

[lone wolf]

Aren't you being just a bit one sided here Wolf? The Talibam did not invent fear and certainly have no exclusivity with respect to its employment, I suggest real 21st century fear comes from the air in cowardly attacks on wedding parties which I assure you are carried out with full knowledge of what the targets are. There is no glory in war, especially this dirty little bash for the bankers so they may consolodate thier strangle hold on the region to ensure thier continued rape of the region and for no other reason. In truth the west cares not one ****ing bit about the ordinary Afghans. No one uses fear more than the modern army, there is a truth about terrorism that you seem oblivious to and that is that we are the foremost exponents of it. War and terrorism are the same thing, the side that inflicts the most terror usually wins, that is the fundemental nature of war that is obscured by empty patriotism. Wave the flag if you like but remember it's just a colourful rag thats gets dirtier every minute we spend in this richmans enterprize. "Dirty work" theTaliban are rank amateurs when it comes to modern warfare and the world class killing it entails.

You really think a bomb can select a wedding party? I know they can paint a target and hit within inches of the mark but if that wedding party is truly innocent, that's called collateral damage or even friendly fire. They're just as dead ... but it's more of the misfortune type deal.

Now ... targeting aid workers, who you know will be unarmed and may only claw some hide off you - to use then to strngthen a threat or as leaverage ... that's being a coward.

You'd have to explain that "foremost exponents of it" thing. I understand the concept of terrorism ... but if you're gonna throw math into the equation, you'll have to wait until harvest time when things get a lot more abstractly meaningful and surreal....

 

[darkbeaver]

You really think a bomb can select a wedding party? I know they can paint a target and hit within inches of the mark but if that wedding party is truly innocent, that's called collateral damage or even friendly fire. They're just as dead ... but it's more of the misfortune type deal.

Now ... targeting aid workers, who you know will be unarmed and may only claw some hide off you - to use then to strngthen a threat or as leaverage ... that's being a coward.

Lots of aid workers aren't Wolf it's one of the standard infiltration tactics employed for two hundred years at least. Many missionarys aren't. Give us a list of all the schools we've built in Afghanistan? The order is to break up any reasonably sized group of Afghans it dosen't matter if they're noncombatants you see, the strike takes them out just in case, it only costs dead ragheads which of course are entirely expendable.
There's nothing like snuffing an aid worker to get the patriotic blood boiling at home what, and such a cheap little operation, everybody knows that the good guys just wouldn't do **** like that right. Cowards join the battle from five miles high.

 

[lone wolf]

Lots of aid workers aren't Wolf it's one of the standard infiltration tactics employed for two hundred years at least. Many missionarys aren't. Give us a list of all the schools we've built in Afghanistan? The order is to break up any reasonably sized group of Afghans it dosen't matter if they're noncombatants you see, the strike takes them out just in case, it only costs dead ragheads which of course are entirely expendable.
There's nothing like snuffing an aid worker to get the patriotic blood boiling at home what, and such a cheap little operation, everybody knows that the good guys just wouldn't do **** like that right. Cowards join the battle from five miles high.

Aid workers can be a disguise. Taliban aren't stupid either. They know the difference. I expect missionaries would have a ten minute life expectency in Extremist Islam. For the rest, you can search the archives. In there somewhere I've already said we're going about it all wrong. We have to go native or go home. Only costs dead ragheads? I'm surprised at you Beave.... I didn't think bigot was in your nature.

 

[Risus]

Risus, I completely support the war in Afghanistan.

But you are completely wrong. This is Canada at war, it is in no way peace keeping, not even close.

At the onset, some of the first troops we sent were PPCLI sniper teams.....who killed Taliban at long range, one at 2430 meters, the longest sniper kill ever made.

That is NOT peacekeeping.

And the Taliban don't have to shoot first. The job of Canadian troops there is kill them where they find them.

Do a bit more reading, you will find that the Canadian troops there are helping to rebuild the area. They are involved in security as well, and that unfortunately necessitates killing at times.