Afghan Facts and Fiction?

[a_majoor]

There are plenty of reference works regarding the history of Afghanistan and the wars, but they are pretty consistent in the division between the Mujahideen and the Taliban.

The Mujahideen were a very fragile coalition of dissimilar partners united in the common goal of defeating the Soviet invasion. Once the Soviets left in 1989, they fell apart and fought each other either to gain power over Afghanistan as a whole, or later (once they had exhausted most of their resources) to keep a hold of their local fiefdoms.

The Taliban were formed as a reaction against the predation of the ex-Mujahideen warlords, and gained support from the locals by their promise to suppress these warlords. The locals may have found the endless predation of the Warlords bad enough, but soon had reason to regret their choice of savior.

As for Osama Bin Laden, he was never a Mujahideen in the proper sense, but rather an adventurer and mercenary. The AQ moved into Afghanistan after Saudi Arabia and Africa became unwelcoming, and they were and are almost universally despised by the Afghans, collectively known (regardless of origin) as "the Arabs".

 

[George Wallace]

Osama bin Laden supported the jihad against the Russians and in the mid 1980's moved to Afghanistan where he established an organization, Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), to recruit Islamic soldiers from around the world who later form the basis of an international network. (The MAK maintained recruiting offices in Detroit and Brooklyn in the 1980s.)  In 1989, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and worked in his family's construction business. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, and the Philippines.  Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities. He eventually wound up in Sudan, where he worked with Egyptian radical groups in exile.  In 1992 bin Laden claimed responsibility for attempting to bomb U.S. soldiers in Yemen and for attacking U.S. troops in Somalia the following year. In 1994 pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia prompted Sudan to expel bin Laden, and he returned to Afghanistan where the Taliban offered him sanctuary in 1996.  He wasn't a member of the Taliban, but supported them with funding from his organization, al-Qaeda.

 

[Majstorovic]

I see you are a big fan of Prof Michael Byers.  Not a very credible person around these parts.

Oh!  By the way, where did you get your information on Osama Bin Laden?  I think you weren't paying much attention in class that day.

Who said I was a fan of anyone?  I don't have to be a fan of someone in order to think their argument is sound. 
And why isn't he credible "around these parts"? Because he disagrees with you?

 

[Majstorovic]

And seriously, if you think that Canada/NATO is in Afghanistan for human rights, etc., and if you think that in general, wars are fought for noble principles like justice, equality, blah, blah. then you are sorely mistaken to be blunt. 
If that was the case, why was nothing done in Rwanda? Why is nothing being done in Darfur? Why are so many of NATO/US/Canada's allies some of the worst human rights violators on the planet?
Are you telling me that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. are our "friends" because they are democratic,  human rights respecting, upstanding global citizens?  Doubt it.  They are our friends because it suits our interests.
And nothing was done in Rwanda and Darfur because it's not in our interest to do something there. Simple cost/benefit basis.

 

[vonGarvin]

I was kind enough to read the article.  Please allow me to retort, point by point.
Before I do, however, please note that I shall focus on the asserted facts of the article, which, I suppose, will lead a reasonable person to rethink the author's conclusions, given that many of the premises are false.
It states that in "2005 the focus of Canada's military effort reverted to the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar."  Wrong. It focussed on the PRT, and when I was in Kabul in 2003, discussions were already underway for many of the ISAF nations to push out of Kabul and into the provinces.  As I recall, a critique of ISAF at the time was that it was sitting in relative safety in Kabul, neglecting the provinces.  To this day, securing Khandahar so that the PRT can do its job remains the focus.  Building schools, digging wells and what have you don't make news: operations that make those multitude of successes possible do, such as Op MEDUSA.

There is one line that is total guesstimation on the author's part:
"Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have died in such strikes, prompting angry family members and friends to join the insurgency."
Have civilians died in bombings?  Damn straight.  Have all of those bombings been from "heavy handed US strikes?"  No fucking way.  When US or other forces kill civilians, it is error, either of judgement in the assessment of the target area or due to blind, rotten luck.  Not so when the taliban detonate devices, sometimes in the midst of children.  To call what the US forces do as "heavy handed" is a blantant anti-americanism that holds up what is perceived as a largely white nation to one standard, while failing to hold that same standard of conduct to a "non-white" group, eg: it is racist.



The article talks of the 39 dead Canadians (accurate to the time of the article's creation).  That number is nearing 80.  80 soldiers killed in action in some 6 years.  We were at war against Germany for 6 years and lost thousands dead, and many more wounded.  Some 40,000 if I'm not mistaken.  In the past year alone, there have been well in excess of 80 murders in Canada.  Those deaths in Afghanistan, though tragic, are indeed noble because of the sacrifice those people knew that they could be making.  Where is the nobility in getting a shiv in your back because you wear the wrong colours in the wrong neighbourhood?  Because your husband is an abusive wretch?  If I had a choice of the method in which I would meet my maker, I would rather it be in the service of what I believe to be right.
39 deaths (at the time of the article's writing) is not a sobering number.  Neither is 80.

I shall only examine one more point.  It is this:

First, it's argued that the mission is necessary to protect Canadians from the threat posed by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This is a serious argument, but it can be exaggerated. The Taliban do not pose a threat to the existence of Canada. They're not about to invade. Nor are they developing weapons of mass destruction and missiles capable of reaching North America.

First of all, the author is correct in that Canada will continue to exist.  I just hope that ALL Canadians will continue to exist.  Unlike the author, I care about the parts of Canada, not just its mere existence.  This includes my family, my friends, strangers: Hell, it even includes Montreal Canadiens fans!  
We know that they aren't going to invade: what kind of fool does the author take us for?  No "missiles" capable of reaching North America?   Dude, that author has to get with the times.  This is not a nation-state, such as Germany, building V weapons and launching them en masse prior to the Panzer invasion.  These are fanatics who stab stewardesses and drive planes full of people into buildings.  These are people who strap bombs to the mentally challenged and then blow them up remotely.  These are people who would go to any lengths to see you strung up because, oh, I don't know, because you reject God.

I cannot read any more of the article, because in only a few paragraphs, the author has proven himself to be ignorant of the facts, head firmly in the sand to the reality that (a) the USA is not all that bad and (b) extremism is a threat to us all, be it Islamofascism, or the blatherings of Lenin's little idiots, such as we see even in our House of Commons.

 

[vonGarvin]

And seriously, if you think that Canada/NATO is in Afghanistan for human rights, etc., and if you think that in general, wars are fought for noble principles like justice, equality, blah, blah. then you are sorely mistaken to be blunt. 
If that was the case, why was nothing done in Rwanda? Why is nothing being done in Darfur? Why are so many of NATO/US/Canada's allies some of the worst human rights violators on the planet?
Are you telling me that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. are our "friends" because they are democratic,  human rights respecting, upstanding global citizens?  Doubt it.  They are our friends because it suits our interests.
And nothing was done in Rwanda and Darfur because it's not in our interest to do something there. Simple cost/benefit basis.

Your position is really alarming.  You suggest that we go to Darfur.  Why?  Explain why we don't go to OIL RICH Darfur instead of sand flea infested Afghanistan?  Please do it with a straight face, because I really want to know the reason for invading a sovereign nation, vice coming to the help of a government, partially for our own good, and partially for theirs.  We abandoned Afghanistan once before.  Never again.

 

[vonGarvin]

Who said I was a fan of anyone?  I don't have to be a fan of someone in order to think their argument is sound. 
And why isn't he credible "around these parts"? Because he disagrees with you?

His arguments are not sound because his premises are rarely true.  They may be valid arguments, but they certainly aren't sound.

He is not credible around any parts because of the above.

 

[vonGarvin]

Slightly OT:
Majstorovic: could you fill out your profile?  It helps people know where you are coming from, whether you are an ill-informed teen, or whatever.  Thank you.

 

[warspite]

In any case here is a nice, straightforward article that, if you would be so kind to read, might make you rethink your positions.

Why yes it did make me think.... probably just not in the way you had hoped for, allow me to present my modest views....

Hmm that article did raise many "good" point's -X ahhh it burns to say) but it missed one.... namely....
For the supporting side....
A. Its the right thing to do...case closed. No more need be said for the supporting side.

Also i found it amusing how the author advocates peacekeeping in Lebanon and darfur. Because these are obviously much safer and nobler causes and therefore where we must be. The author even goes so far as to say...

The agents of this destruction -- the Janjaweed (who ride camels and horses) and the Sudanese military (which pushes crude barrel bombs out of the back of cargo planes) -- would be no match for a well-trained, well-equipped Western military

Now I'm a little short on first hand experience but it seems to me that the taliban would be no match for a well-trained, well-equipped Western military. Does the author think arments are only to be found in Afghanistan and insurgents in Africa are armed only with the fearsome sharpened mango.

Some other comments were also "amusing":

Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, hasn't helped matters by publicly characterizing the insurgents as "detestable murderers and scumbags."

They are detestable murderers and scumbags. Or are you arguing that they are noble freedom fighters riding out against the infidel western monsters to fight for the right to oppress those who disagree with them. I view them as detestable scum bags.

Take Lebanon, for instance. On August 11, 2006, the UN Security Council imposed a ceasefire on Hezbollah and Israel. It authorized a peacekeeping operation of 15,000 soldiers with a robust mandate to "use all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind."

Many of the peacekeepers have been provided by France, Italy and Spain. Belgium, Finland, Norway and Poland are sending smaller contingents, with Germany and Denmark providing maritime support

There we go peace keepers have already been provided. Last time i checked Canada is busy in Afghanistan is not solely responsible for supplying the UN with peace keepers.

Canada is conspicuously absent

See above comment.

There are financial costs. In August 2006, the Polaris Institute estimated that the counter-insurgency mission would cost Canadian taxpayers around $4 billion over two years. That, of course, works out to $2 billion per year. This compares to the $1 billion, over ten years, that Canada is providing for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, which works out to $100 million per year -- or five per cent of what we're spending on the military mission.

1. Bullets cost much more than nails. deal with it.
2. You assume that combat is an unnecessary expense and that if we directed our efforts solely to construction the insurgents would nicely let us be therefore eliminating the need to buy bullets. WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE...... ITS THE PERFECT SOLUTION ...... oh wait it defies logic :brickwall:

These financial costs also constitute opportunity costs. Four billion dollars could provide a massive amount of development and humanitarian assistance, and not just in Afghanistan.
Wisely spent, this money could save millions of lives, especially in disease and famine-ridden sub-Sahara Africa.

Excellent point, money could be spent on this, it would help others and there are far worse ways to spend money. However i suggest the professor find a way to raise said money other than government funds. Perhaps go before the almighty UN itself to petition member nations to donate. Perhaps his university departments budget could be donated as well. Or even for every dollar he raises the federal government will match. Just don't suggest that the federal government be responsible for using the funds of 32 million citizens taxes solely based on his words and opinion not his actions.

Now that being said its late and so i have probably missed some key point so anyone who disagrees fire away.


Now having done my rant for the day back to the issue at hand...
Would I vote for the ndp.....
This indeed is a deep and interesting question and in trying to answer it I was faced with a delema.
Should i answer:
1 NO
2 HELL NO
3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA........ETC....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you have got to be kidding....of course HELL NO.
4. Just as soon as hell freezes over and the 29 signs of the Apocalypse come to pass and the four horsemen of said Apocalypse come knocking at my door....... I will still say HELL NO
Someone help me decide... ;D

 

[Majstorovic]

There is one line that is total guesstimation on the author's part:
"Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have died in such strikes, prompting angry family members and friends to join the insurgency."
Have civilians died in bombings?  Damn straight.  Have all of those bombings been from "heavy handed US strikes?"  No ******* way.  When US or other forces kill civilians, it is error, either of judgement in the assessment of the target area or due to blind, rotten luck.  Not so when the taliban detonate devices, sometimes in the midst of children.  To call what the US forces do as "heavy handed" is a blantant anti-americanism that holds up what is perceived as a largely white nation to one standard, while failing to hold that same standard of conduct to a "non-white" group, eg: it is racist.

The defence of "collateral damage" is worthless in the eyes of those who have lost a loved one. If the Taliban went to blow up a military target, and accidentally misidentified the target, due to bad weather, or whatever, and killed your child, would you forgive them because they didn't mean it?

The article talks of the 39 dead Canadians (accurate to the time of the article's creation).  That number is nearing 80.  80 soldiers killed in action in some 6 years.  We were at war against Germany for 6 years and lost thousands dead, and many more wounded.  Some 40,000 if I'm not mistaken.  In the past year alone, there have been well in excess of 80 murders in Canada.  Those deaths in Afghanistan, though tragic, are indeed noble because of the sacrifice those people knew that they could be making.  Where is the nobility in getting a shiv in your back because you wear the wrong colours in the wrong neighbourhood?  Because your husband is an abusive wretch?  If I had a choice of the method in which I would meet my maker, I would rather it be in the service of what I believe to be right.
39 deaths (at the time of the article's writing) is not a sobering number.  Neither is 80.

Maybe to you, the number of Canadian casualties that are acceptable or not varies from other people's.  BUT, the number of Afghans killed, wounded, and the number of people affected by those deaths/injuries is not for you to judge as being acceptable or not.
Yes, people will die even if there is no war. In fact, 100% of the world will die eventually from something, so it would be OK to take 100 million lives because that's less than would have died anyways.

I shall only examine one more point.  It is this:
First of all, the author is correct in that Canada will continue to exist.  I just hope that ALL Canadians will continue to exist.  Unlike the author, I care about the parts of Canada, not just its mere existence.  This includes my family, my friends, strangers: Hell, it even includes Montreal Canadiens fans! 
We know that they aren't going to invade: what kind of fool does the author take us for?  No "missiles" capable of reaching North America?  Dude, that author has to get with the times.  This is not a nation-state, such as Germany, building V weapons and launching them en masse prior to the Panzer invasion.  These are fanatics who stab stewardesses and drive planes full of people into buildings.  These are people who strap bombs to the mentally challenged and then blow them up remotely.  These are people who would go to any lengths to see you strung up because, oh, I don't know, because you reject God.

There is no doubt that the people you are referring to are awful, nasty human beings. But awful, nasty human beings exist everywhere on the planet.  Does going to a place where some of these people live and killing them, along with other innocent ones solve the problem? No. There will always be more as a reaction to the foreign occupation of their land.
And while we are comparing numbers, how many people can improvised, low budget tactics like suicide bombing and hijacking take out compared to missiles, planes, tanks, artillery and helicopter gunships?  Very little by comparison.

Whatever threat is posed by psychos in Afghanistan is being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources, not human rights, and all that nonsense.

I cannot read any more of the article, because in only a few paragraphs, the author has proven himself to be ignorant of the facts, head firmly in the sand to the reality that (a) the USA is not all that bad and (b) extremism is a threat to us all, be it Islamofascism, or the blatherings of Lenin's little idiots, such as we see even in our House of Commons.

Seriously, what planet are you from? "Lenin's little idiots"? Where? Oh, you mean the party without whom you'd have the wonderful health care system that you see in the US? Right, they're such crazy Commies. 
Yeah, it's better that we have a PM who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs co-existed alongside humans and that global warming is a socialist plot to bring Capitalism to its knees.

 

[Yrys]

Whatever threat is posed by psychos in Afghanistan is being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources,

OIL ? Go back to yours reading...

C.I.A. world factbook

Oil - production: 0 bbl/day (2005)
Oil - consumption: 5,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports: 0 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports: 4,120 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves:0 bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

 

[Majstorovic]

OIL ? Go back to yours reading...

C.I.A. world factbook

Oil - production: 0 bbl/day (2005)
Oil - consumption: 5,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports: 0 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports: 4,120 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves:0 bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

 

[aesop081]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

:rofl:

Tin foil time.........

 

[eurowing]

op:

 

[Koenigsegg]

The proposed pipeline is for natural gas, as most of your sources say...so your comment of...

being made worse by the fact that the West is propping up a corrupt government there whose job it is to help the West secure oil resources

...is crap.  Make sure your sources support what you say.  Natural gas does not equal Oil.  And it would do almost nothing for us, economically.  It would help the countries it goes through (like Afghanistan), and even China.
But we're good over here.

*Edit*
Oh, and key word is, "proposed".
A lot of things have been proposed in history.  Doesn't mean they came to fruition.  Like "War Plan Red", Canada's acquisition of MGS, Beta tapes (Sadly they lost), and my putting aftermarket pipes on my bike.  A proposal in a lot of cases doesn't mean ****.

 

[Majstorovic]

:rofl:

Tin foil time.........

Yes, that's right. It's ridiculous to think that governments do things for reasons other than stated. All governments are totally forthcoming with all their plans and intentions. I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist and the BBC is run by a bunch of commies. Oh, you are so smart.

 

[aesop081]

Oh, you are so smart.

Smart enough to know theres no Oil in Afghanistan. Smart enough to know the difference between oil and natural gas. Smart enough to know that natural gas in asia is of no consequence here in North America.

Even the anti-war wingnuts have given up on using oil as an argument against the war because it doesnt stand up to examination.

 

[Koenigsegg]

Ok.  if YOU are so smart.  Why did BBC talk of a a "gas" (natural gas) pipeline, and not OIL?
(Like you stated before).

Becareful who you try to patronize.  Because there are a lot of people on this forum who have a lot more experience with, and knowledge of what is going on in Afghanistan than you (may) ever will.  A lot of it first hand.

People here could just as easily bug you for seemingly trusting the media so much, and even more so for using Wikipedia as a source.  If you want to talk about lying, misinformation, and leaving out information...the main stream media is at least just as bad as the governments are.

*Ok....Too fast with the second button press there.  My bad.*

 

[aesop081]

Yes, that's right. It's ridiculous to think that governments do things for reasons other than stated. All governments are totally forthcoming with all their plans and intentions. I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist and the BBC is run by a bunch of commies.

Your tone not withstanding, you do not make a compeling argument. You use Wikkipedia as a source. Theres a reason why most academic institutions do not recognize it as a source. Also, if you wish to convince me that you are correct, you are certainy taking the wrong aproach.

 

[Majstorovic]

Your tone not withstanding, you do not make a compeling argument. You use Wikkipedia as a source. Theres a reason why most academic institutions do not recognize it as a source. Also, if you wish to convince me that you are correct, you are certainy taking the wrong aproach.

I chucked wikipedia in there, true, but what about BBC? Are they a shady source?
As for tone, I apologize, but in post after post I am made out to be some insane commie conspiracy theorist.  It gets old fast, and is a cheapshot.