Letter to us from the Taliban!

[Risus]

"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:

Yes, unfortunately the yankees were actually in bed with these guys....

 

[Colpy]

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.

Geezus! You do a little more reading........
Major General Lewis MacKenzie (Ret.) Interview

<H2 class="title nodetitle">

Interviewed by Greg Farries on Mar 31, 2008
Greg Farries: Thank you again for joining me for this interview. I have about 10 or 12

Greg Farries: The current Canadian military operation in Afghanistan is somewhat unique in recent Canadian history. It is not an offensive mission, such as the one Canada played in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. Nor does it seem to be a purely peacekeeping mission, like Canada’s involvement in the former Yugoslavia. How would you characterize Canada’s current military role in Afghanistan?
General MacKenzie: It’s certainly not peacekeeping – don’t get me started on that issue. I’m the guy who has the presentation called, ‘The Peacekeeping Myth.’ Peacekeeping was never really a priority during the time, post-Pearson, when we had maybe 2,000 troops, at any one time, for over 30 years, outside the country conducting peacekeeping missions. We had 15,000 stationed in the central front in Europe, Air Force, Army, armed with nuclear weapons – CF104 and the Honest John missile systems. And we had our Navy, at sea, as part of the North Atlantic Fleet. So that was our number one priority – foreign policy priority – by far. Peacekeeping was way down, maybe fourth of fifth on the list of priorities. But successive governments, of both political stripes, kept pushing this myth because it’s cheap. You don’t need a lot of kit, you just need a blue beret and a pistol and get international credit for it.

So, what is happening in Afghanistan is not peacekeeping, its counter insurgency. It was the recognition after 9/11 of the UN resolution, passed within 48 hours after that particular attack, that the United States had a right to intervene in a country that was harbouring the very people that organized the attacks in New York [and Washington]. NATO then joined the party and called up its Charter – I think it was Article 41 – that says an attack against one is an attack against all, and joined underneath the UN resolution. Having arrived there in early 2002 – we would have been there in 2001, but we didn’t have any enough transport to get there – so my regiment arrived in February 2002 as one-third of the combat power of the American Brigade of Kandahar.
Immediately the media kept referring to it as peacekeeping. The troops were up in the Tora Bora area, they were in the hills overlooking the Pakistani border, chasing down members of Al-Qaeda, and killing as many as they possibly could. Then, after the friendly fire incident – and not because of the friendly fire incident, where the American pilot killed four of our people – [Prime Minister Jean] Chrétien pulled the troops out and brought them back. And we had no one in Afghanistan. But then President Bush came sniffing around, looking for support for the Iraq operation, and Chrétien – even though he couldn’t find 600 to replace the original force – magically, over the objections from the military, found 2,000 to send to Kabul in a constabulary role. That was confusing to the Canadian public. No blue berets, no white vehicles. But it was more of a constabulary role, in spite of the fact that we had a number of individuals killed there. And then America, having shifted a lot of its resources to Iraq, unable to send as many troops as we would have liked, was looking to NATO to reinforce in southern Afghanistan. The Dutch, ourselves, the British, the Romanians, and the Poles, said OK. We deployed to the south, arriving in February, almost 2 years ago.
Since arriving, we’ve gotten involved in classic counter-insurgency. However, lately people are saying the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan. On the contrary. If you look at the implications of failure, you can then judge how well a particular action is doing. By that I mean, during the Cold War, when not much was happening, the implication of failure was probably the end of the world – it was thermal nuclear exchange between massive nuclear powers. That never happened. But it was a very serious situation compared to today, where you have terrorist’s acts here there and everywhere, but it’s not threatening [the] humanity of the entire world. Whereas, when we arrived in Kandahar two years ago, the Taliban was right up against the city limits and they were in large formed groups. They put together a company of 60, 70, 80 battalions of 300 and they made the mistake – fortunately – of taking us on directly in a conventional type operation. And they were soundly defeated. So now the Taliban has been relegated to little teams of two or three, putting [Improvised Explosive Devices] IEDs and mines out on roads. So people are saying, ‘Well, the situation is deteriorating.’ To which I say, ‘No.’ Because the implication of what these people are doing is not the loss of Kandahar city – which is the Jerusalem to the Taliban. I would argue that a strong case could be made that the situation is more stable than it ever was. That doesn’t mean NATO isn’t fighting for a draw, which I think NATO is. I think NATO should be fighting to win. But that’s an issue of resources.
Greg Farries: Does Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan represent something new to the Canadian military? Is this going to move us away from peacekeeping?

General MacKenzie: There is no peacekeeping to do. I shake my head when I hear people like Jack Layton and company say we should return to our historic priority – peacekeeping. First off, it was never a priority. We were good at it, but we were not better than everyone else. And secondly, there is no peacekeeping going on anymore. You can’t call what we’re doing in Afghanistan peacekeeping. I wish to hell we were in Darfur, kicking some ass. But it’s not peacekeeping. We would be going in there to take sides and that’s not peacekeeping. You can call it, peace enforcement or peacemaking. I translate it as, ‘Keep the peace or I’ll kill you.’ You have to go in strong enough that you can put the thugs, goons, and bullies on the run. That doesn’t mean you need a blue beret and a pistol. You need a hell of a lot more than that. In the Congo, the UN troops are killing the rebels in the jungle and being killed.

Peacekeeping as we know it doesn’t exist anymore because, fortunately, countries rarely go to war now. When countries went to war – and Pearson came up with the concept of putting neutral troops in between opposing national militaries – it gave them an excuse to stop fighting so that diplomacy could unfold. What’s happening today is that most of the 40 or so wars that are occurring right now are between different factions. You can’t have peacekeepers separating factions because factions don’t have identifiable leaders, or even a flag flying in front of the UN building. They don’t have a UN delegation, or even a method in which we can punish them if they break an agreement not to fight. So that is not peacekeeping. You need the military force to force them into a particular decision. And finally, most countries are not prepared to provide the resources to do that.

I think the NATO Alliance is seriously threatened. I don’t think it will survive the wash-up of Afghanistan. Because who would trust NATO to come to their rescue in the future, when people are screaming for additional thousands of troops in the south – I think they need 10,000 – and there are 800,000 soldiers sitting on their hands at home in other NATO nations doing nothing, other than training. And we’re at war. So I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the [NATO] Alliance self-destructs. When I was commander within the United Nations and I would run into problems with the UN, with resources, money and personnel, etc., I would always say to myself, ‘Gee, if only NATO had this job, we’d sort that thing out.’ Well no, I’ve discovered that NATO is a bigger debating society than the [UN] Security Council. It’s very disappointing.

</H2>
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/interviews/major-general-lewis-mackenzie-ret-interview
You DO know who General Lewis MacKenzie is, don't you?

Google him.

 

[talloola]

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

You are right, I agree with you re: terrorism, of course each side is terrorized by the other. Perhaps we have to break terrorism into three groups.

a) Each side terrorizing the innocent by their aggression, but they are recognizable, in
their uniforms, and rules, and they make an attempt, 'not' to kill innocent bystanders.

b)The invisible terrorist who strikes the innocent from anywhere, unbenounced and not
in any uniform that is familiar with anyone.

c)Homocide terrorists, who are willing to die to kill, and strike the innocent, away from
any organized war, they are not part of an organized group of military soldiers, but
choose to blend in.(these people, in my opinion, are frozen in the belief that their
religion will take care of everything.)

You're right, it is 'all' terrorism.

 

[EagleSmack]

"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:

What load. The Taliban was not even around during the Soviet-Afghan War. It was created out of the madras in Pakistan made up of mostly Afghan refugees. Most of the Taliban were not even old enough to fight the Soviets. The Taliban emerged in the mid 90's as one of the many factions in the civil war after the Soviets left Afghanistan and after Reagan left office.

 

[Zzarchov]

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.

Rebuilding isn't peacekeeping. Our soldiers in war have ALWAYS (as do most western powers) rebuilt areas as the fighting continues.

That includes the Nazis and Korea.

Peacekeeping is distinct from rebuilding. You can (and usually do in most cases) have peacekeepers who just sit and watch while disease and starvation wrack a region.

 

[wallyj]

This link will lead you to a letter to the Taliban. It was written by a soldier who served over there for 4 years. He explains the reality of the Taliban far better than I could ever. Read it, http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-taliban.html, We lost three more soldiers to these sub-humans today. Another cowardly roadside bomb.

 

[EagleSmack]

"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:

And one more thing...these are supposed to be Taliban? Try taking a look to the person at the far right of the picture.

Looks like a woman doesn't it?

The Taliban require ALL women to wear burquas in public. Do you see one?

The Taliban require that no women can work...they can beg...they can't work. However in Gopher's pic of the "Taliban" he has one meeting with President Reagan.

What a tool. Do some real research before you post silly things like this.

 

[Risus]

Maybe she was begging Reagan for something....

 

[Socrates the Greek]

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

Risus my pal how goes it today? Here you are knocking me for a couple of out dated numbers, while you are backpedalling on the true label of this mission………….
Afghanistan is a stupid war, and today ANOTHER THREE MEN LOST THEIR LIFE’S IN YOUR SO CALLED PEACE KEEPING BATTLE FIELD OF AFGHANISTAN…..
CANADA SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE……………………….:roll::roll::roll:

 

[typingrandomstuff]

More stuff to talk about: ordered chaos... It's like adding ! to every word. I ! am ! going! to leave! The real sentence is more like: I am going to leave.

 

[EagleSmack]

Risus my pal how goes it today? Here you are knocking me for a couple of out dated numbers, while you are backpedalling on the true label of this mission………….
Afghanistan is a stupid war, and today ANOTHER THREE MEN LOST THEIR LIFE’S IN YOUR SO CALLED PEACE KEEPING BATTLE FIELD OF AFGHANISTAN…..
CANADA SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE……………………….:roll::roll::roll:

In other words...retreat and surrender.

Is that your vision for Canada? Is that the new Canada...placate...bow down...run away? I am sure glad all Canadians aren't like you. Think of how many Canadians were killed on D-Day...did Canada fold their tents up? Hell no...they fought on for the likes of you.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

This link will lead you to a letter to the Taliban. It was written by a soldier who served over there for 4 years. He explains the reality of the Taliban far better than I could ever. Read it, http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-taliban.html, We lost three more soldiers to these sub-humans today. Another cowardly roadside bomb.

Where is the letter to us from the Taleban??

 

[Socrates the Greek]

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.

Man oh man Risus, what will it take to make you understand that Afghanistan is making Canada suffer ……………… This is the stupidest war of the 21st century,
Peace keeping my ass………..
:roll:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

In other words...retreat and surrender.

Is that your vision for Canada? Is that the new Canada...placate...bow down...run away? I am sure glad all Canadians aren't like you. Think of how many Canadians were killed on D-Day...did Canada fold their tents up? Hell no...they fought on for the likes of you.

Retreat and surrender? Canada has no business there……..
D-Day doesn’t come close to this stupid war….
This war has reached the point where the western forces have entered the stage in which they are fighting a draw not a win
A DRAW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WORD A DRAW!!!!!!!!
What win are you talking about??????:roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[lone wolf]

Man oh man Risus, what will it take to make you understand that Afghanistan is making Canada suffer ……………… This is the stupidest war of the 21st century,
Peace keeping my ass………..
:roll:

Oh Soc.... What will it take to make you understand that it's NOT Afghanistan pulling this crap. That would be like saying it was Trudeau's Liberal government who were responsible for the kidnap of Pierre LaPorte and the murder of James Cross.

 

[wallyj]

Where is the letter to us from the Taleban??

This whole thread started because of the letter to Canadians from the taliban. The first post quotes most of it. I'm sure that if you took the time to look for it you could find it.Of course,knowing what you are ranting about never occurred to you,did it? Rave on!

 

[EagleSmack]

Retreat and surrender? Canada has no business there……..
D-Day doesn’t come close to this stupid war….
This war has reached the point where the western forces have entered the stage in which they are fighting a draw not a win
A DRAW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WORD A DRAW!!!!!!!!
What win are you talking about??????:roll::roll::roll::roll:

A draw... too funny. Keep telling yourself that if Canada leaves it will be considered "a draw".

 

[Socrates the Greek]

A draw... too funny. Keep telling yourself that if Canada leaves it will be considered "a draw".

Eagle Smack your view in this debate is self serving….
US and Canada will get out of Afghanistan as losers from this war. The reason the rest of the NATO countries stayed out is because NATO understands that the number of troops NECESSARY ARE FAR MORE THAN ORIGINALLY THOUGHT AND WITH NO GUARANTEES EVEN IF FORE TROOPS WERE OFFERED FOR THIS WAR……
IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS YOU WILL SEE THINGS WILL GET REAL STUPID OVER THERE….

WAR SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSS AND I DON’T AGREE THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE OTHERS UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW IF THEY DON’T WE SHOULD KILL THEM………………

 

[Socrates the Greek]

This link will lead you to a letter to the Taliban. It was written by a soldier who served over there for 4 years. He explains the reality of the Taliban far better than I could ever. Read it, http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-taliban.html, We lost three more soldiers to these sub-humans today. Another cowardly roadside bomb.

Sorry Wally, this letter is about what you want to bilive..........
When you look at this phrase bellow you can help your brain calabrate to the truth....

"The Afghans did not go to Canada to kill the Canadians. Rather, it is the Canadians who came to Afghanistan to kill and torture the Afghan, to please the fascist regime of America," the letter said.

 

[Walter]

We lost three more soldiers to these sub-humans today.

I'll be on the bridge to pay my respects.