• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

pinko said:
You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.

I'm sorry, but this and your other slurs beg the question: If you think so little of the Canadian Forces and its members, what the holy heck are you doing posting on Milnet.ca? ???  (Mil = military!!)  ::)

OK, I just had to say that, and now I am done feeding the troll, I promise.  :blotto:
 
pinko said:
You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.

Pinko,

If you want to debate your own ideas I will happily debate with you.  It seems to me, however, that you ignore the counter-points to your points.  You also resort to insults as a smokescreen.  This tells me that you are not really interested in hearing from anybody that does not think in lock-step with you.  If you want to post propaganda then I would suggest that you post it somewhere else.
 
You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.

Enough with the sophomoric generalizations.  If you think that having your ill-informed beliefs or opinions challenged here, especially by people who have lived and breathed the Afghanistan problem for years and have actually been to Afghanistan and spoken to the residents therein, is too "demanding" for you then go to Rabble.ca or some other sorry excuse for a website and quit wasting the bandwidth here.

You will find that the denizens of this site love a good debate (good lord do they ever...), but spare us the slogans and stereotypes.  You are dealing with some of the foremost experts in Afghanistan that Canada possesses here (I'm not one of them, BTW). You want to debate- bring facts and be prepared to use your 'A' game.
 
pinko said:
You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.
Pinko,
Our expectations of you are not something unique to the military.  They are common expectations of intelligent people engaged in honest discussion.  You've boasted of your academic background previously.  Given that background, you would be aware that arguing in an academic environment by ignoring those arguments that do not fit your thesis and which you cannot counter, would result in your being sidelined as irrelevant. 
 
Seeing how you cannot play nice and act mature, welcome to our Warning System. We have an expectation here of respect between users and co-operation. So far you have yet to follow those tenents. Keep it up and you can tell your buddies how the jack boot wearing Capitialist storm troopers were mean to you and did not let you speak your mind.

Milnet.Ca Staff
 
pinko said:
Leroi:

Thank-you.

That was a very well thought out post.

Here is a copy of an article from the Hiffington Post. I would like some feedback on the article.

Sorry Pinko,  I will not comment on the Hiffington Post article because it's not germane to the topic of this thread.

I chose this particular thread because I want to help find solutions to the problems in Afghanistan not because I want to

analyze American foreign policy.

Mr. Wallace asked you an important question and I've yet to see the answer. That's disrespectful.

Tango2Bravo gave an excellent answer to your second-last question WRT "culture" in Afghanistan which you

neglected to acknowledge. I do not deserve a thank you for merely suggesting that the scope of your second-last

question was way too broad to be done any justice on any on-line forum.

As human beings we receive respect when we extend it to others.

By the way, aside from criticizing ISAF and American foreign policy, what have you done for the peoples of Afghanistan lately?
















 
pinko said:
Save the lecture for someone else.

Don't show up in my armories. I'll give you fair warning right now.
You PINKO, have shown NO respect. Therefore do not expect to get any in return.
 
He couldn't articulate the debate, so he resorted to trolling.

Don't feed the troll.

Let's not let this blip ruin a good discussion and thread.

Everyone move along. Nothing more to see here.
50.gif


Milnet.ca Fun Police

 
What was the question?  Oh yah.............

Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not)

I will not comment on how the mission should be conducted as I am not there and everything I hear from soldiers over there makes it seem like things are working and progress is being made.

Why should we be there?   I searched for the answer and this picture answers the question for me.............

AfghanSplash_pro.jpg


I think that it is every parents' dream, to give their children what they themselves did not have.  People in Afghanistan want peace, they want food, they want water, they want jobs, they want an education.  They want to give their children more.  I think that we should help them.
 
And here's a few more reasons why we should be there based on the Taliban's perverse 1994 interpretation of Shar'ia Law which is designed to negate half the population (females):

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin.

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily.

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed.

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping.

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban.

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed.

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed.

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education".

- Non-Muslim minorities must wear a distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what the Nazis did with Jews.

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners.

And so on...

ON November 8, 1994 the UN Secretary-General presented the interim report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan prepared by Mr. Felix Ermacora, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/84 of 9 March 1994, and Economic and Social Council decision 1994/268 of 25 July 1994.

Parts of the report about women's rights sitaution says: 

The Special Rapporteur's attention has been drawn to the Ordinance on the Women's Veil, which is reported to have been issued by a nine-member professional committee of the High Court of the Islamic State of Afghanistan and which reads as follows:

"A denier of veil is an infidel and an unveiled woman is lewd".


Conditions of wearing veil:

1. The veil must cover the whole body.
2. Women's clothes must not be thin.
3. Women's clothes must not be decorated and colourful.
4. Women's clothes must not be narrow and tight to prevent the seditious limbs from being noticed.
5. Women must not perfume themselves. If a perfumed woman passes by a crowd of men, she is considered to be an adulteress.
6. Women's clothes must not resemble men's clothes.

"In addition,

1. They must not perfume themselves.
2. They must not wear adorning clothes.
3. They must not wear thin clothes.
4. They must not wear narrow and tight clothes.
5. They must cover their entire bodies.
6. Their clothes must not resemble men's clothes.
7. Muslim women's clothes must not resemble non-Muslim women's clothes.
8. Their foot ornaments must not produce sound.
9. They must not wear sound-producing garments.
10. They must not walk in the middle of streets.
11. They must not go out of their houses without their husband's permission.
12. They must not talk to strange men.
13. If it is necessary to talk, they must talk in a low voice and without laughter.
14. They must not look at strangers.
15. They must not mix with strangers."




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Thanks for that Leroi - looks like a handy reference.

I'm a little surprized by how long this has gone on, As trolls go this one doesn't even rate top 20.

The rhetoric is outdated and has been dealt with before.
Perhaps we haven't had enough trolls lately.... ;D

If the troll were able to complete his thoughts or explain his point of view with more than the usual noise  it might be intresting.  Really, I would like to learn something new.  Sadly, this guy has nothing new.

 
I thought this argument was hopeless. I'm glad to see that I'm wrong.
The posts made by Recceguy, George, Tango2Bravo, MCG,  and friends really reinforced the fact that what we're doing here is needed. I've also picked up a lot of ammunition in terms of combating the buzzword bullshit thrown out by the Anti-Canadians-in-Afghanistan people. 
I chalked it up as useless, trying to argue our side with a Troll. I still think it's a lost cause, but in doing so I have an even better understanding of our situation here. Thank you guys.

As for Pinko only responding to what he feels like- that's common.

Trolls answer what they feel they can answer while arguing their point but are afraid to venture onto topics that could see them proven wrong. He's right there IS a difference with "military types". We'll cover every point even if it may put us at a disadvantage or be turned around on us. In the military we try to avoid doing things half-assed or leaving stuff unfinished- I see the same thing in the threads.

Pinko sounded very intelligent, I was surprised. I admit even impressed at some stages even though I didn't agree with what he was saying.
But true to form as soon as he couldn't effectively engage, he pulled-pole.  Enter the one line jabs.
That's common to these types.
Ask them 8 things and they will answer 2. Once their argument starts to falter, they try and push your buttons.

If he's not respecting the forum or it's posters by answering the questions put to him after launching all his questions, well to me that's trolling pure and simple and he should be shown the door.
You can't post expecting every one of your questions to be answered and not affording the same respect to everyone else.
 
Pinko,.....I removed your post, not for its content. but because you haven't earned the right to keep 'posting and running' various tangents until you have responded to rebuttals made to you.

If you wish to continue debating, than debate, if not then I guess you have already conceded intellectual defeat and must resort to internet guerrilla tactics. Sorry lad, but that doesn't cut it here.

Bruce
army.ca staff
 
Flip said:
Thanks for that Leroi - looks like a handy reference.

I'm a little surprized by how long this has gone on, As trolls go this one doesn't even rate top 20.

The rhetoric is outdated and has been dealt with before.
Perhaps we haven't had enough trolls lately.... ;D

If the troll were able to complete his thoughts or explain his point of view with more than the usual noise  it might be intresting.  Really, I would like to learn something new.  Sadly, this guy has nothing new

I think the Admin. here likes to give everyone a fair chance. It's one of the reasons I stuck around--a fairer playing field than many forums and higher level of discourse.

(It's unbelievable how predictable the trolls are, though. I think they might be using a "Troll Cookie Cutter Template" ;D--same keywords used over and over again as Celticgirl astutely observed.)

Back on topic: The CF has done an excellent job in Afghanistan and I sincerely hope they get to finish it to the high standard that has characterized their many historic achievements: with pride, honour and a sense that they've made the world a better place. 





 
Pinko;

I commend you, as a civilian, attempting to bring your ideas here (as a thread with only a one sided discussion is not a debate, only an echo chamber of the same opinions). However you are not doing yourself, or your movement any justice by the way you have treated this discussion. You brought up some valid points, its a shame you had to go down the easier road of, as someone above me quaintly put it, "drive by posting". I am interested in your points, and I hope you can bring them in with better decorum and tact in the future so that we could have an honest and frank discussion.

As for your positions, I myself have not come to any conclusion on the initial "morality" of the operations in Afghanistan. Whether or not we should have been there or not isn't as important as what we need to do now. With that in mind, any way you slice it I believe that the current plan for 2011 is a fair one. It has us leaving Afghanistan, thus its viable to the anti-war movement. Also, however I believe no one can question our services and sacrifices for Canada with our mission in Afghanistan and thus we have certainly held up a very valiant effort at doing our job, that is accomplishing the mission in service of NATO and Canada. Thus, I think no one can argue against Canada bowing out after stretching and prying at our armed forces, and doing a job well done. The Canadian public have spoken, and we have served our time in Afghanistan, and it is time we moved on.

I am however irked by your attitudes towards the military. While there certainly is some reprehensible members of our organization, on the whole its not fair to blame individual responsibility for service members. The fireman analogy given above I believe is an apt one. I find myself bemused by some of the attitudes of my fellow "left-wing" community in regards to members of the Canadian Forces. On the one hand, the left has traditionally been against the "individual responsibility" espoused by many on the right, and the "bootstraps" and "rugged individualism". Our spectrum routinely bemoans the attitudes of some against the supposed individual responsibility of those in poverty, as we argue that there are much greater social currents leading them to their positions, rather then their own lack of volition. But then, we completely ignore that and somehow dive head first into attacking the individuals of the Canadian Forces as blood thirsty, or violent war-seekers, and then we blame them for their own personal and "individual responsibility" in joining the Canadian Forces. Its as if that the same social currents we see pushing people towards poverty don't exist for those joining the military, which I find preposterous. As many of those in poverty conditions are a product of our society, as are the members of our military. I make myself clear however I am not comparing the social problem of poverty and the recruitment of people in the military as of the same problem, not at all (afterall I am in the military...). What I am saying is that, social pressures and environment are very much a catalyst for joining the military, just as social pressures and environment are catalysts for many other issues. It seems that those on my side of the spectrum fail to recognize that and are quick to denounce service members. A shame indeed.

-C/D
 
C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.
 
PMedMoe said:
C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.

I just did a bit of reading on the Canadian Military in Afghanistan thread of that forum. You're right, Moe. I see only childish posturing and insults. Actual debate skills on the part of the aforementioned poster (and a few others there) are zero.  ::)
 
PMedMoe said:
C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.

That's a shame, I always look forward to good discussions from people with differing opinions.

-C/D
 
Back
Top