Mind of a Protester

[Zell_Dietrich]

Okay,  I pride myself on being open intellectually to many points of view.  I do my best to understand, logically not just what other people think, but also why they think what they do.  I have found that I am much better at communicating and in some cases structuring a convincing argument if I understand the others persons point of view.

Here is what I have gathered from my many NDP friends,  most of whom I’ve turned around on this issue. I know people will be tempted to write rebuttals on this thread,  feel free to read my other postings to find what I have found to be logical arguments against these.

Here are some of the fundamental underpinnings to the arguments that I’ve found common to most of those who oppose the Afghanistan mission.  They are not in any particular order,  some contradict,  some seem like repeats – I’ve encountered them all. I might not have done proper justice to some of the points(I’ve fought hard against my personal bias while writing these). 

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


1) The government and people of Afghanistan did not attack us. It was Al-quida.  Al-quida is in many other countries training openly and we are not invading them. 

2)  Now that we have chased Al-Quida away,  the legitimate authorities in Afghanistan can already exert  their authority.  We are involved now in a occupation mission,  not a liberation mission.

3) We have substantially increased our military efforts in Afghanistan so that we would ‘free up’ American units for Iraq – an illegal war of aggression.  Any action that we do in support if an illegal and immoral war,  is both illegal and immoral.  We can not do good by doing bad things.

4)  We are knowingly handing people that we capture over for torture.  When we capture a person,  it is our moral,  and legal, obligation to ensure that they are not subjected to that which is against the Geneva conventions.  No,  the Taliban insurgency didn’t sign the Geneva conventions – it doesn’t matter,  we did.  Not torturing people or by extension knowingly helping those who do isn’t about who we are fighting,  it is about who we are. We are doing a disservice to the ideals we were raised with,  the ideals Canadians have fought and died for the ideals that we are now robbing from our children.

5)  The Americans have failed to meet their commitments to the Afghanistan mission,  favoring instead to put their efforts into Iraq.  Our allies,  some of whom are under orders not to go out after dark, have left the hardest work to us.  And we agree to do it because we are trying to warm up relations with the Americans.  Keeping our trade relations and improving our national debt to GDP ratio in good position is NOT worth the lives of our fellow Canadians.  We know we can’t do it alone and if we aren’t receiving the help we need we might as well leave now.

6)  In order to really succeed we also need to substantially increase our aid. We are engaged in predominantly a seek and destroy mission, which while looks good on TV,  doesn’t really support the overall goal of establishing Afghanistan as a stable democratic country.    The vast majority of what we are doing there is exert force when the vast majority of what needs to be done is reconstruction.  You don’t win hearts and minds by stirring up hornets nests of fighters and dislocating thousands from their homes from the fighting.  You don’t gain their support when their home they come back to is bombed out.

7)  We have taken actions that have made it impossible for independent organizations to provide help.  We have tied any aid they receive to the local population helping coalition forces and set things up so that now any aid they receive is “from” the coalition forces.  This sets up aid workers as being working for the coalition forces instead of for the people of Afghanistan – this makes them a target.  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/transcripts/afghanistan_pressconference.cfm

8)  So Al-quida had training camps in Afghanistan;  America funds “The school of the America’s”  which is responsible for worse atrocities than anything Al-quida has done.

9)  We should be looking after our own country,  improving our own infrastructure before we spend all that money and resources to build hospitals and schools in a country filled with backwards and ignorant people who will just strap explosives to themselves and take out as many children as they can while they blow up the buildings. (Interesting note,  this argument I heard while talking to a brown guy,  and I put only his implied meaning if I put his actual language I’d get banned for using racist slurs.  This argument I call the ‘they are to dumb to ever be civilized argument)

10)Most of the insurgency is in response to coalition forces simply being there.  If we pulled out,  the majority of the support for the insurgency would simply disappear and the local government would then receive that support.  Order would be restored and foreign aid would then be able to get into the country – in much larger number than it can now because of how we have tied foreign aid to ‘supporting us’

11)  War is bad and hearing about Canadians dieing is heart wrenching.  Whatever it is for,  it can’t be worth it,  nothing is worth the price of Canadian blood.   

12)  No country has ever invaded Afghanistan and tried to exert control and survived.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,  conquest is easy,  control is hard,  that is why the yanks bailed at the first chance they could.  To think that we can win a prolonged conflict agaist a locally supported resistance is totally foolish.  Where are they going to go?  They are home,  they have nowhere else to flee to,  they can’t retreat, all they can do is wait us out wear us down.  Two here,  three there week after week,  year after year.  History tells us, they will win.

 

[a_majoor]

Acting CQ for today, passing out some rebuttal ammo:

1) The government and people of Afghanistan did not attack us. It was Al-quida.  Al-quida is in many other countries training openly and we are not invading them. 

Canada is doing what is possible with the limited resources we have available. There is a global coalition of like minded nations taking actions in many parts of the world against radical groups like the Al Qaeda, many of which are not covered by the media.

2)  Now that we have chased Al-Quida away,  the legitimate authorities in Afghanistan can already exert their authority.   We are involved now in a occupation mission,  not a liberation mission.

The Taliban and their foreign allies are regrouping in parts of Pakistan, and attempting to challenge the legal government and take control from the elected government of Afghanistan. Since the nation is recovering from three decades of civil war, the elected government of Afghanistan has requested the assistence of the United Nations to maintain security and control over its sovereign territory, and Canada has responded as a member of that coalition.

3) We have substantially increased our military efforts in Afghanistan so that we would ‘free up’ American units for Iraq – an illegal war of aggression.  Any action that we do in support if an illegal and immoral war,  is both illegal and immoral.  We can not do good by doing bad things.

Tha American effort in Afghanistan still consists of 20,000 service members, by far the largest component of the UN effort to stabilize Afghanistan and assist the democratically elected government. Canada's efforts in Afgnanistan reflect the wishes of the Afghan government and the UN mandate, and are independent of Allied efforts elsewhere on the globe.

4)  We are knowingly handing people that we capture over for torture.   When we capture a person,  it is our moral,  and legal, obligation to ensure that they are not subjected to that which is against the Geneva conventions.  No,  the Taliban insurgency didn’t sign the Geneva conventions – it doesn’t matter,  we did.  Not torturing people or by extension knowingly helping those who do isn’t about who we are fighting,  it is about who we are. We are doing a disservice to the ideals we were raised with,  the ideals Canadians have fought and died for the ideals that we are now robbing from our children.

This is a contentious accusation, and certainly a charge this serious requires documented proof. It is a documented fact that a senior Taliban leader was induced to come over to the government side in part due to being given medical attention after being captured by Canadian troops. No force which would knowingly turn captives over for torture would have taken such pains with their prisoners.

5)  The Americans have failed to meet their commitments to the Afghanistan mission,  favoring instead to put their efforts into Iraq.  Our allies,  some of whom are under orders not to go out after dark, have left the hardest work to us.  And we agree to do it because we are trying to warm up relations with the Americans.   Keeping our trade relations and improving our national debt to GDP ratio in good position is NOT worth the lives of our fellow Canadians.  We know we can’t do it alone and if we aren’t receiving the help we need we might as well leave now.

While Canadians can and should expect to receive good will from their efforts, the size, scale and scope of our efforts are determined by the elected government of Afghanistan, which requested help, and the UN, which has the mandate to deliver the help.

6)  In order to really succeed we also need to substantially increase our aid. We are engaged in predominantly a seek and destroy mission, which while looks good on TV,  doesn’t really support the overall goal of establishing Afghanistan as a stable democratic country.    The vast majority of what we are doing there is exert force when the vast majority of what needs to be done is reconstruction.  You don’t win hearts and minds by stirring up hornets nests of fighters and dislocating thousands from their homes from the fighting.  You don’t gain their support when their home they come back to is bombed out.

The key to Canada's comitment to Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT's). The Taliban make every effort to attack the PRT's and their associated works, which requires a security force to allow the PRT's to do their job. It is a testament to the effect of the PRT's that the Taliban takes such steps to destroy their work.

7)  We have taken actions that have made it impossible for independent organizations to provide help.  We have tied any aid they receive to the local population helping coalition forces and set things up so that now any aid they receive is “from” the coalition forces.  This sets up aid workers as being working for the coalition forces instead of for the people of Afghanistan – this makes them a target.  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/transcripts/afghanistan_pressconference.cfm

During the years of the Taliban rule, NGO's like "Doctors Without Borders" were prevented from entering or working in Afghanistan. Today, they can operate freely in 3/4 of the country, while military  PRT's do similar work in the south of Afghanistan until such time the Taliban have been driven out.

8)  So Al-quida had training camps in Afghanistan;  America funds “The school of the America’s”  which is responsible for worse atrocities than anything Al-quida has done.

The Al Qaeda is responsible for individual and mass murders across the globe for two decades, attacking people in North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. The vast majority of the victims have been innocent bystanders (such as the over 200 people killed or injured outside the American Embassy in Kenya). All of this is well documented in open sources, not shadowy conspiracy theories.

9)   We should be looking after our own country,  improving our own infrastructure before we spend all that money and resources to build hospitals and schools in a country filled with backwards and ignorant people who will just strap explosives to themselves and take out as many children as they can while they blow up the buildings. (Interesting note,  this argument I heard while talking to a brown guy,  and I put only his implied meaning if I put his actual language I’d get banned for using racist slurs.  This argument I call the ‘they are to dumb to ever be civilized argument)

As a wealthy and powerful nation, should we advocate a selfish hording of our good fortune, or work to share our vlaues and good fortune woth others who could benefit?

10)Most of the insurgency is in response to coalition forces simply being there.  If we pulled out,  the majority of the support for the insurgency would simply disappear and the local government would then receive that support.  Order would be restored and foreign aid would then be able to get into the country – in much larger number than it can now because of how we have tied foreign aid to ‘supporting us’

The roots of the insurgency is the desire to rule and dominate. Since the people of Afghanistan do not give their consent to be ruled by the Taliban, the Taliban responds by attempting to impose their ideals by force, with assistence from outside agencies like the Pakistani ISI. The Taliban have no interest in foreign aid, and took vigerous steps to exclude foreign aid or help during their rule of Afgnanistan.

11)   War is bad and hearing about Canadians dieing is heart wrenching.  Whatever it is for,  it can’t be worth it,  nothing is worth the price of Canadian blood.

We freely spent far more in blood and treasure to fight against German agression in WWI, Nazi, Fascist and "State Shinto" ideologies in WW II, and Communism throughout the cold war. We are fighting against a terrible enemy who is willing to comit horrible atrocities against anyone who stands against them, and thinks nothing of civilians who die as a result of thier actions.    

12)  No country has ever invaded Afghanistan and tried to exert control and survived.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,  conquest is easy,  control is hard,  that is why the yanks bailed at the first chance they could.  To think that we can win a prolonged conflict agaist a locally supported resistance is totally foolish.  Where are they going to go?  They are home,  they have nowhere else to flee to,  they can’t retreat, all they can do is wait us out wear us down.  Two here,  three there week after week,  year after year.  History tells us, they will win.

Canada is not an occupying power, but part of a UN force invited into the country by the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan.


This took some time, and some facts might need to be checked, but it was well worth it since you now have the extra firepower you need to engage.


(Spell check seems very wonky right now, feel free to use this with your corrections.)

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

HA!  I knew someone would go point by point through it.  :warstory:
(I think I've already pointed out that I support the operation in Afghanistan - here and on several other threads - feel like a broken record. Please I am putting this up here not to start argument but for the edification of those who want to know the other side's point of view and when necessary the effective way to properly debate the issue. I have listened very carefully,  and here are the points I hear.  I don't personally hold these opinions,  I just think that knowing more is a good thing for everyone.  You can’t fight that which you don’t understand.  Nor can you convince someone to support Afghanistan if you don’t understand their thinking or rational against it.)

a_majoor I respect that you took the effort to reply to each point.  Now,  May I help you with some ammunition? I want to stress, this is an intellectual role playing I am doing. I mean no insult or disrespect,  but I think it is better to do this here than to get caught unprepared when talking with them face to face.  In most cases I give a rebuttal as you would hear it, in other cases I break voice and give my advice for talking with the anti-war group, sometimes I switch half way through. This is about “sharpening our teeth” we need to have our facts and rebuttals down so that when we need them they are there for us. If I go to far in my argument, I am sorry,  but these are arguments I hear/have heard. If you feel like tracing my ip address and going to my apartment and giving me a wedgie,  just pm me and I’ll be happy to apologies before you have to drive DT Toronto.

(Standard Counter rebuttals I've heard to your assertions)

On Point 1
"Canada is doing what is possible with the limited resources we have available. There is a global coalition of like minded nations taking actions in many parts of the world against radical groups like the Al Qaeda, many of which are not covered by the media"

This is where I would inexorably hear about secret torture prisons (well not so secret anymore),  how many countries are being bullied into helping and it is creating resentment.  Also this is where what I call the "Power of Nightmares" argument comes out.  (BBC documentary 'The power of nightmares - the rise of the politics of fear' I highly recommend it.  It is very insightful in many ways)  They will talk about how they are skeptical of what there is no proof of.  Either something is there or it is not,  either something is provable or not.  If a crazy man on the street said that an invisible dog would attack you unless you gave him a dollar,  how much would you trust him?  Now if a politician says 'vote for me or the terrorists will win' how much should you trust him?

On point 2
"The Taliban and their foreign allies are regrouping in parts of Pakistan, and attempting to challenge the legal government and take control from the elected government of Afghanistan. Since the nation is recovering from three decades of civil war, the elected government of Afghanistan has requested the assistance of the United Nations to maintain security and control over its sovereign territory, and Canada has responded as a member of that coalition."

As soon as you mention the elected Afghan government,  you will hear how it is just our puppet government.  You'll hear of corruption.  Unfortunately,  apart from saying it was elected this is a conversational dead end. You might hear how Afghanistan was in a civil war and we just chose the Northern Alliance to win and now they are acting worse than the Taliban ever did.  All we did was to choose which side would win the civil war,  and we chose the more evil of the two because that group hadn't attacked us - yet.

On point 3
"The American effort in Afghanistan still consists of 20,000 service members, by far the largest component of the UN effort to stabilize Afghanistan and assist the democratically elected government. Canada's efforts in Afghanistan reflect the wishes of the Afghan government and the UN mandate, and are independent of Allied efforts elsewhere on the globe."

Simply saying that the Americans have troops in Afghanistan doesn't negate that because we are there we are freeing up and indirectly supporting what is going on in Iraq.  If you don’t deal with that point, head on, the debate will be lost and quickly.

On Point 4
"This is a contentious accusation, and certainly a charge this serious requires documented proof. It is a documented fact that a senior Taliban leader was induced to come over to the government side in part due to being given medical attention after being captured by Canadian troops. No force which would knowingly turn captives over for torture would have taken such pains with their prisoners."

Canada presently hand our captives to the Afghan authorities,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061010/wl_canada_afp/canadaafghanistanus_061010184624

Who screen them and send anyone of note to the Americans for questioning.  (Aka water-boarding the retard who didn't bribe the army officer to not get sent to the Americans) So then they get sent to one of those many American torture facilities where young white guys get to act out homoerotic acts of torture because America can do no wrong.

In the past we regularly handed over prisoners to the Americans.  Now we let the local Afghan authorities extort money from them – those that don’t pay are sent to the American gulags. Those who can bribe are stuffed into crowded inhumane jails where their civil rights are violated.


On point 5
"While Canadians can and should expect to receive good will from their efforts, the size, scale and scope of our efforts are determined by the elected government of Afghanistan, which requested help, and the UN, which has the mandate to deliver the help."

I don't believe the Afghan government picks and chooses which countries show up with what.  If it did I think it would have double or tipple the number they presently do,  with note from other Muslim countries.  I don't think the "no blood to appease the American" argument can be countered with "a puppet government controlled by Americans asked us to be there". 

On Point 6
"The key to Canada's commitment to Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT's). The Taliban make every effort to attack the PRT's and their associated works, which requires a security force to allow the PRT's to do their job. It is a testament to the effect of the PRT's that the Taliban takes such steps to destroy their work."

... snap,  I can't counter that.  Although one could try to rehash how the coalition forces tied humanitarian aid to western support so it then became a legitimate target.  By violating the neutrality of aid agencies, you are the ones who are preventing them from doing their work.


On Point 7

"During the years of the Taliban rule, NGO's like "Doctors Without Borders" were prevented from entering or working in Afghanistan. Today, they can operate freely in 3/4 of the country, while military  PRT's do similar work in the south of Afghanistan until such time the Taliban have been driven out."

With respect http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/18/DDGSLDOCIP1.DTL  It is important to get your facts straight.  They were there before the Taliban were toppled,  they were there during the worst of the war,  but once their neutrality was compromised they then were attacked by the Taliban.  If you goy nailed with this in a debate,  it would be hard to recover.

On point 8

"The Al Qaeda is responsible for individual and mass murders across the globe for two decades, attacking people in North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. The vast majority of the victims have been innocent bystanders (such as the over 200 people killed or injured outside the American Embassy in Kenya). All of this is well documented in open sources, not shadowy conspiracy theories."

I would respectfully like to point out that countering the "America does bad things too" argument with "Terrorist do bad things" is silly,  and not only be unconvincing, it would easily open up several avenues for the anti-war protester to peruse.  (Basically by not dealing directly with the accusation you admitted a great weakness,  they are now able to drudge up past atrocities done by the Yanks and are completely free to toss out theories as to why the Muslim world hates us so much.  If they can prove that we in some way deserved to be attacked,  the argument for pulling out is greatly increased.

On point 9

"As a wealthy and powerful nation, should we advocate a selfish hording of our good fortune, or work to share our values and good fortune with others who could benefit?"

Not everyone shares our values,  not all of us share "our" values.  Who are we to go into other countries and impose our will,  our culture, our value system onto others?  Also I usually hear about how there is big money in reconstruction and that the countries own natural resources would be stripped to pay for it.  Basically invade to redecorate and then send them the bill.

On point 10

"The roots of the insurgency is the desire to rule and dominate. Since the people of Afghanistan do not give their consent to be ruled by the Taliban, the Taliban responds by attempting to impose their ideals by force, with assistance from outside agencies like the Pakistani ISI. The Taliban have no interest in foreign aid, and took vigorous steps to exclude foreign aid or help during their rule of Afghanistan."

Not dealing with the "There are many Muslims that are taking up arms only because we are there,  if we left they would support a democratic system" point is bad form.  To a third party observer it appears that you've conceded the point.

On point 11

"We freely spent far more in blood and treasure to fight against German aggression in WWI, Nazi, Fascist and "State Shinto" ideologies in WW II, and Communism throughout the cold war. We are fighting against a terrible enemy who is willing to commit horrible atrocities against anyone who stands against them, and thinks nothing of civilians who die as a result of their actions.  "

    I like the dramatic language.  However,  there needs to be a clear link between the 'Terrorists' and how they are real and present threat.  Saying they're bad and we fought bad guys before isn't enough.  You need to establish a direct link that shows them as a threat.  (Any quote from an important sounding terrorist will do,  about how they will suicide bomb our children's school bus or whatever)

On Point 12
"Canada is not an occupying power, but part of a UN force invited into the country by the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan."

I don't think you dealt with the "No one has ever tried to hold Afghanistan and survived the attempt" point.  Alexander the Great,  the Soviets just to name a few of the notables.  If you don't deal with what they are saying,  you concede their point.

 

[a_majoor]

Zell, we are trying to rebut points with facts, although this is akin to fixing a leaking dam with some chewing gum. I answered the points using provable facts (and I am sure you have a supply of them as well). Most of the arguments presented by the "protesters" are of the have you stopped beating your wife yet variety, and others like the school of the Americas argument and torture allegations revolve around unproven and mostly unprovable allegations. I find it quicker to fire a factual argument than debate how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

WRT Doctors without frontiers, it was my understanding they and other NGO's were excluded, but I will concede the point. I certainly see very little evidence NGO's ever had any real influence in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, and their silence on Taliban era torture and killing is signifigent as well. If NGOs were there at the pleasure of the Taliban and were silent as part of their "acceptence", then they were complicit with torture and mass murder, full stop.

I would like other, more informed people weigh in and provide as much factual counter evidence as possible. Media types lurking should know that "your" ignoring large parts of the story for cheap sensationalism is simply ruining any credibility that you may have had with us, and with the larger public, who can see there is more of the story now, via means like this.

 

[alfie]

I am so tired fo trying to explain to the misguided uniformed, stupid or taliban supporters that it makes me wonder, if they don't know or care to instead of explaining it to them just tell them to @#$%@!@ off that
won't help anything but it makes you feel better.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I am so tired fo trying to explain to the misguided uniformed, stupid or taliban supporters that it makes me wonder, if they don't know or care to instead of explaining it to them just tell them to @#$%@!@ off that
won't help anything but it makes you feel better.

It is very easy to get burnt out.  Allot of people get really emotionally charged up over this issue.  It has been my experience that most of the people who are against the war in Afghanistan are so because they see what is going on in Iraq and they don't like it.  Another large group are the ones who don't believe that we were threatened or that there was proper justification for Afghanistan.  Another group are the hippies who missed out on Vietnam and want to be persecuted by the state for their radical beliefs.

    The first two groups can be swayed if you simply go over what happened and why we're there.  Clearly establish a link between the embassy bombings,  the other terrorist attacks and the attempts at diplomacy.  The say Sept 11 and then say how they tried diplomacy,  asking nicely for the ones responsible, and were flatly refused and then received more threats.  Clearly establish that they attacked and that they intended harm and had the ability to do so in the future.  Then simply go into detail of what would happen if the Taliban took over,  they would do exactly what they did before, but this time they would be emboldened. This gets 80% of them begrudgingly admitting that we need to be there. On these two groups, little effort is needed and it is civil the entire time.  (I think you're seeing where I'm going with this)

    Invariably,  the war will come up in a group of people (5 or so) and the hippie who missed Vietnam,  the war resister without a draft,  will speak up and present a rather emotionally compelling argument.  It isn't hard to convince people that death and distruction are bad things.  Canadians hate seeing soldiers come home in boxes.  The argument presented for pulling out immediately is very convenient. No one thinks of themselves as the bad guy.  I honestly believe that they think that they are doing good. I am speaking from my personal experience in these types of situations,  a group of people and it is you, a former Federal NDP candidate and a table of people. 

    I've even had the rare pleasure of sitting down at a table of Muslims and had the topic of the war come up.  The biggest single issue I heard over and over was that they don't like having foreigners invade and tell them what to do.  I followed the same formula of establishing a clear pattern of them attacking,  America trying diplomacy and then Sept 11, more failed attempts at diplomacy and more threats then the invasion.  I then put the twist of "We helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviets,  then we abandoned the people of Afghanistan to those butchers and rapists.  We ignored their cries for help because we don't want to interfere with internal matters.  We forgot that when you allow evil to grow and fester it will eventually harm you and they started to attack us.  So now we are paying for our sins and rectifying our mistakes.  We can not allow the Taliban to have controll over Afghanistan, not just for the sake of the people of Afghanistan but out of our own intrest."  Now if you thought a card carrying NDP member would have a hard time admitting the war is just, you haven't seen a table of Muslims (in North York) fidget because they just can't find another argument.  (this was 2 hours of my life I consider well spent)

I certainly see very little evidence NGO's ever had any real influence in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, and their silence on Taliban era torture and killing is significant as well. If NGOs were there at the pleasure of the Taliban and were silent as part of their "acceptance", then they were complicit with torture and mass murder, full stop.

The Taliban kept the country impoverished and undeveloped.  There is strong evidence that they wanted to keep Afghanistan backwards so they could more easily keep controll.  (I'm referring to the TVs they weren't allowed to have)  So yes,  the development under the Taliban was non existant.  Your point on how Aid agencies help brutal dictators because of their imposed neutrality is a powerfull one and a case could be made that yes be helping at the wrong time they do more harm than good.  Please feel free to look at a starving child and say "I'm sorry but if I feed you I will be validating the government that is in power and the actions they have taken.  By you dieing it will create frustration in those around you and they might take up arms and overthrough the dictators."  (Now that is a tendentious argument I just gave,  I see several huge holes in it,  anyone care to point them out)

    And on a side note, a fun point to bring up is how Afghanistan was at a almost perpetual state of war.  This significantly reduced the number of men in the country and since women were not allowed to to work (or were stoned to death if they dressed up like a man so they don't starve to death) the solution was polygamy.  Isn't it nice how the same men who start the wars,  keep the population impoverished now are forced to marry all of the surplus women (and females younger than women)?  (I recommend watching the movie Osama http://www.osamamovie.com )

I would like other, more informed people weigh in and provide as much factual counter evidence as possible. Media types lurking should know that "your" ignoring large parts of the story for cheap sensationalism is simply ruining any credibility that you may have had with us, and with the larger public, who can see there is more of the story now, via means like this.

    Okay,  I respect that most of what I said above can be easily debunked.  If you think I am ignorant of the facts,  please enlighten me. Please understand,  the topic was "the mind of a protester" I have done my best to put forward their argument as I understand it and have experienced it.  Simply because I am using their argument and structuring it in the same tendentious manner doesn't mean I don't know the holes in it.  I think I've been very clear that I am taking up a position I don't agree with, and hopefully being true to that position, so that others can be better prepaired when they encounter this in the real world.  If a member of the media wants to misquote me ... quoting an on-line discussion forum is like citing Wikipidia as a reference,  you can do it but you'll be mocked in the academic world.  Now your point is taken,  I'll sit back and just lurk on this thread for a while.

Now for the secret prisons,
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.transcript/index.html
Do you want me to drudge up the links for abu grave, Guantanamo and then back them up with the Presiden's stated desire to redefine the Geneva convention and how "An outrage on human dignity" is a vague term,  which could mean anything?

*****
Now this is an aside note just because I hate being too serious for too long
"how many angels dance on the head of a pin"  -- as many that want.  Now here is the fun question "Did Jesus own his own clothes?"

 

[Zarathustra]

Here are some of the fundamental underpinnings to the arguments that I’ve found common to most of those who oppose the Afghanistan mission.  They are not in any particular order,  some contradict,  some seem like repeats – I’ve encountered them all. I might not have done proper justice to some of the points(I’ve fought hard against my personal bias while writing these). 

I'm impressed that you're able to express their arguments so clearly and in a logical way. You presented them without making them look stupid. Not that many people can do this I think.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I'm impressed that you're able to express their arguments so clearly and in a logical way. You presented them without making them look stupid. Not that many people can do this I think.

I know I promised I'd hold off on this thread and lurk for a bit,  but I just have to say thank you.  Thank you.
(going back into the background now so other people can get a word in edgewise and I can hear new and maybe better rebuttals to the arguments than I presently use)

 

[Bigmac]

    The link below will take you to a video of the latest anti war protest. From what I see in the video a majority of the protestors are misguided and being further influenced by Layton's NDP political platform. Sorry I said the "L" word.
    For the most part they don't appear to be the brightest of bulbs. In one protest they use a supposed former soldier who quit recently. He sounds like a big loser. Sorry yet another "L" word that may cause you to think of the previous mentioned "L" word!

http://Video.sympatico.msn.com/v/en-ca/v.htm?g=8D45A9E4-9935-407A-B7D8-FE166C47C0BE&f=37&fg=copy

 

[GAP]

Here's a link for the video report of interviews of Canadians in the sandbox and what they think of the protests.

Francis Silvaggio reports from Afghanistan on the Canadian troops reaction to an anti-war rally across the country.
Video Report

the link to the video is found in the section called "Global National Online Extras" Click on Troop Reactions
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=67e76990-66eb-473a-ab8c-5e9b26dbe018#


End

 

[patrick666]

That link didn't work for me. Is the video available anywhere else?

 

[Troop Suporter]

Have you seen this article by MICHELLE MANDEL from today's Toronto Sun?

Even she gets it. 

<b>Ask soldiers about Afghanistan, not protesters</b>


Jack Layton has never heard of Josh Forbes or his poem, Thoughts of a Soldier.

He has never read the verses now tearing across the Internet, transferred from blog to blog, in angry response to the NDP leader's controversial call to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan.

A call Layton repeated yet again at yesterday's anti-war rally, one of 37 anti-war protests staged across the country.

"This seek-and-kill mission isn't easing aggression and extremism -- it's feeding it, it's fuelling it," Layton told about 1,500 demonstrators gathered on University Ave. across from the U.S. Consulate. "Harper claims the mission is following a

3-D approach: Disarmament, diplomacy and development. So far we've seen very little of the 3-Ds. But we have seen a whole lot of the 3-Cs: Combat, chaos and casualties."

What do our soldiers think, their brave efforts being described as a "seek-and-kill" mission? How do they feel, putting their lives on the line half a world away, while politicians back home make speeches accusing them of creating chaos and demonstrators call them imperialist occupiers?

What would they say, our Canadian troops who have to worry about being blown to pieces giving out candy to children or being attacked with an axe when sitting down to make peaceful overtures?

No doubt, they would love to reply with lines very similar to these from "Ole Jack Layton -- Thoughts of a soldier:"

"I am here and you are there/Pretending you know best./Well, Ole Jack, now listen close/While I get this off my chest."

The Calgary writer goes on: "Ask the p eople in Afghanistan/If they want me to stay/ Women and children depend on me/You say just walk away?"

It continues later: "I'm doing good, we're winning here/But no one will believe/ Because we are way over here/Where no one there can see.

"Women here can work you see/Children starting school./We built a working government/We've broken Taliban rule."

Layton was unaware of the protest poem when asked yesterday, but conceded that many may disagree with his stand.

"I think Canadians are having a good, honest, respectful debate," he insisted.

Yet even he admitted that yesterday's protest hardly drew the thousands that have turned out in the past to demonstrate against the American war in Iraq. Layton was speaking to the usual suspects, a gathering of union groups, NDPers and anti-poverty activists, but it was nowhere near the crowd that had obviously been expected.

Hundreds of unused placards -- "Stephen Harper War Monger"; "Canada out of Afghanistan"; "Hands off North Korea and Iran" -- lay piled up at the side.

Layton blamed Harper, of course, for the low turnout.

The prime minister, he said, derides those who question the Afghanistan mission as "unpatriotic" and "cut and runners" and that tends to keep protesters away from public demonstrations.

In Halifax, the national day of action drew just 200 people. In Montreal, only 500 turned out.

Yet polls show that Canadians are increasingly ambivalent about this mission. Seeing more than 40 brave men and women repatriated to this country in flag-draped coffins can shake any country's resolve. There are questions about the changing nature of our role in this NATO-led effort, of how combat has increasingly overtaken reconstruction.

And yet even with that questioning, most Canadians would not think of joining Layton out on the streets when our military are risking life and limb in our name. He can talk all he wants about how this is not about demoralizing our troops, but it certainly can't feel that way to those on the front lines.

"You know its hard to do this when I think I'm all alone./I hear stories of young punks pissing on memorial stones.

"I read the papers over here and they tell me what is said/ Canadians are losing faith I can't get it through my head."

There is nothing wrong with a debate about our role in Afghanistan -- that is a democratic right our armed forces have waged battle to protect. Let it be fought in Parliament or on the election stump.

But in the meantime, our soldiers deserve more than to be accused, as they were by Layton yesterday, of taking part in a mission that is only making matters worse for Afghans.

They have earned more than to be painted as some kind of cold-hearted assassins on a "seek-and-kill" spree.

Or as "Ole Jack Layton -- Thoughts of a soldier" concludes:

"We are so close to winning this/It's not too far away/History will show that we were in the right to stay.

"When that brilliant day arrives, victory you'll claim is ours/You'll forget you said to run away -- forget you are a coward.

"On that day just thank me for my courage and my trouble/Find another place that needs help, and send me on the double."

<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mandel_Michele/2006/10/29/pf-2165505.html">http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mandel_Michele/2006/10/29/pf-2165505.html</a>



There were 200 'protesters' in Ottawa, and we had 12-15,000 at the Wear Red Friday Rally on Parliament Hill!!!

Layton blamed Harper, of course, for the low turnout.

:

 

[vonGarvin]

"Layton blamed Harper, of course, for the low turnout."
Of course Harper was to blame.  He's also to blame for the hole in the Ozone, for my kids getting rotten marks on tests and for the fact that my dog ate some of my chickens.  You see, Harper has created uber-mind control machines, and only causes bad things to happen to good people


Well, either it's that, or not that many people agree with ole' Jack himself!

 

[Troop Suporter]

You see, Harper has created uber-mind control machines, and only causes bad things to happen to good people

LOL!

Now that Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, he gets those machines wholesale, from Karl Rove.
;D

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a real "protester" in action. He would fit right in with the Taliban or any other number of collectiveist thugs who demand the right to control our actions:

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2006/10/look-for-ute-sei-union-label-at-peace.html#comments

Look For The UTE-SEI Union Label At The Peace Protest (But Don't Take Its Picture)

Elhaz Inverted: There may be hidden danger waiting to ensnare you. Hasty and ill-considered actions will plunge you into serious problems. There is the danger of being swallowed up by archetypal forces, which you think to shape to your will with inadequate knowledge or preparation. This can result in damage to both spiritual and physical health.

Alerted by Darcey on my morning blog rounds that yesterday was A Day Of Protests, I checked and sure enough there was one in London. I went out to document yesterday's Troops Out Now! protest here in London, at Victoria Park, on a miserable, rainy afternoon. I had no intention of talking to anyone -- just of taking pictures and recording a publicly announced demonstration in a public place.

I got to Victoria Park just as people started arriving. At that point, the Jack Layton signs were front and foremost on Richmond Street (the main vantage point to that part of the park). Indeed, it was a largely NDP and union affair. Not precisely a grass roots outpouring of megaphone-synchronized support-our-troops bring-them-homage.

I tried to find some good shots. Entering the park, which held perhaps 80 people, I passed an older man with a handful of pamphlets, questioning a yet older man sitting on a pillar bearing a poppy on his lapel:
Old man: Excuse me, I see you're wearing a poppy -- do you support the war?
Older man: Oh, no, I... (some explanation)
Old man: (relaxing) Well, OK... you never know...

I wanted a picture of the CAW flag to the left: WOMEN UNITE. As the Taliban are renowned for stoning women to death for indulging in the slightest tinge of reproductive freedom, this was a particularly jarring motto. Do -- do you intend to climb into the stoning hole too, in the spirit of sisterhood, or what? If hypocrisy carried its own physical weight then there'd be no way any ten people could manage to lift that flag off the ground.

As I clicked my inept fingers around the camera to try to capture the text of the flag as the winds ruffled it, I was peremptorily approached by this man:

Seeing me photographing while wearing a poppy on my overcoat, he demanded to know whether I "support the war". At my polite, generally affirmative answer, this guy demanded my name, some ID, and to know who I was with: CSIS, or the Conservatives? As he saw it, the problem was me taking pictures of people demonstrating in a public park without asking permission -- during a protest presumably staged and advertised for publicity's sake! Worse yet I wouldn't identify myself to this power tripping union security guard, so he started blocking my shots. No diversity activists within earshot seemed to care enough about this to help stop him. So, I started recording.

Union Thug: You didn't ask to record me, turn it off.
Mike: Why do you care who I am?
UT: You didn't ask, turn it off.
Mike: I don't have to ask, this is a public place.
UT: Well, then, I'm not talking to you.
Mike: Well, that's fine!
UT: I want some ID from you.

(More.) Little did I know that this unhinged representative of Canada's public service would insist on standing in front of my camera for the next fifteen minutes. As you may have suspected, Blaganovich's Fundamental Constant of Bullying held; he was bigger than me and I was alone. I trust the UTE-SEI do not endorse their members doing this so as to prevent other Canadians from photographing public union members engaging in political activity? Don't get me wrong, this guy made it a memorable protest and I found his behaviour more comical (and instructive to open-minded observers) than threatening to me -- but it sure puts a bad light on the UTE-SEI public relations department, to utter racist slurs and thuggish demands for ID into a microphone. Dumb, dumb, dumb, but funny, funny, funny.

But -- what did he believe they had to hide? Perhaps CSIS has reason to be concerned about the activities of the UTE-SEI. Why would a UTE-SEI member be so concerned about someone photographing their activities in a public park to which the public (including me) is welcome?

This fruitjob kept following me around, moving his body around to block me every time I raised my camera, announcing to passers by that "this guy supports the war! he's a spy! he works for CSIS!" To their credit, most everyone recognized his paranoia, if not quite defending my right to take pictures unmolested even without showing this Stasi-in-his-own-mind my papers. I look too much like a spy to be a spy, and I would have a better camera if I were.

Three or four young and, as it turned out, intellectually honest NDP supporters in their orange toques gathered around us as I tried to get away from him to take pictures. The union representative wasn't exactly endearing himself to his young fellow travellers by going after my race, of all things: Check this out:

Union Thug: You said "I support killing the Taliban."
Mike: I do.
UT: Yep, you're a killer. What a typical killer too -- blue eyes, blond hair, very, very...
Mike: What the hell's that? What's this blue eyes -- you have a problem with my race?

The funniest part was when he ended up blocking an A-Channel interview shot, as he was trying to block my shots using his amazing People Power. Well, in the end he pretty much did end up preventing me from taking pictures of anything but his face, though the A-Channel ended up filming his meltdown.

NDP candidate Stephen Maynard passed by around this point. Apparently I was the first person ever to inform him that the Taliban made a practice of stoning "adulteresses" to death. Don't the NDP brief their reps on the subject of the protest beforehand? I'd been getting nowhere asking the union goon to tell me what he thought of stoning people, so I turned to Stephen Maynard. (Audio)
Mike: Stephen Maynard, you object to taking women and burying them in the sand and throwing rocks at their heads, right?
NDP Candidate Stephen Maynard: What? Do you have reports of this happening?
Yes.

The UTE-SEI thug finally buzzed off when A-Channel came up to interview me. I was feeling gregarious after such interesting conversation, so I agreed against my better judgment. I don't watch TV, so I'm afraid but don't know whether I was slotted into the story as some kind of counter-demonstrator, which I absolutely was not. Just a citizen photographer hassled by the Man, folks.

If anyone wants me to post the whole recording (15 minutes), ask in comments.

By the way, I then had a very good conversation with several of the young NDP. I was impressed by their inquisitiveness and intellectual honesty enough that it made this a protest of two extremes: UTE-SEI goon, and well-meaning students who've never encountered Bastiat.

posted by Mike at 10/29/2006 05:55:00 PM

It is particulary telling that a person who was presumably going to represent London North Centre (he won the nomination but gave it away to an ineligable person, talk about democracy in action!) was totally clueless about ground truth about Taliban era Afghanistan.

 

[PSY OPS]

asking a soldier about the mind of a protester
makes about as much sense as
asking a protester about the mind of a soldier.

funny protester sign:
bombing for peace is like fukcing for virginity

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

PSY OPS, that's a pretty generalized statement. If you want to make meaningful points here, make sure they have some meaning. I don't think anyone should be shocked at the fact we have a large number of intelligent, well read soldiers in Canada. Is it really a leap to believe that a soldier can look at both sides the Afghan debate in depth, and come away from it firmly believing in one side? (I.E. That our soldiers can genuinely understand the situation and still be "for" the mission?)

If your answer is no, then you have to ask yourself: What makes you believe protesters are capable of what soldiers are not?

 

[cplcaldwell]

Interesting read.

I've followed this from the through the "Harper is Bush-lite" phase, "support out troops bring them home" phase, through the counter recruitment "the military is engaging in the poverty draft" phase to this.

I have read the ridiculous ad hominems of trolls, especially during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

I have studied the mood in the street.

It seems to me that it all boils down to a central issue. Some people accept the world is a nasty place and we should help try to fix it and some people can't accept the world is a nasty place.

There are those who will pander  to the latter group and will continue to create issues as often as possible to create fear uncertainty and doubt.

Mr Chretien, Mr Martin, Mr Graham and now Mr Harper have all said that world is a nasty place and we should do something about it. Perhaps Mr Chretien thought he could do as little as possible to get by, but he did commit. Perhaps Mr Martin made this issue the issue of the day, but he did commit. Mr Graham's job is to oppose, he has done so in an elegant and mature manner, although he may differ by degree he does commit. The PM has made it clear he is committed.

I see no commitment in the so called protesters. Mr Layton is the focus of this issue, he has been, by turns, opposed to the war because it is American imperialism, because it violates our 'tradition' of being peacekeepers, because our troops are not supported because they are 'in country' doing the job they were trained for, and now apparently, because we are committing, or abetting atrocities.

Could someone on the left please come up with an argument and stick to it please? This is an important issue, it deserves some attention and debate, Jack Layton's recent comment that the PM is to blame for low protest turnout is ridiculous.

Perhaps Mr Layton could consider that it is equally true that poor protestor turn out is equally his blame, as he has, in the last year attacked this issue from every angle, holding that axis of advance only as long as it garnered headlines, then switched tack.

Now apparently it is the PM's fault that Jack Layton cannot make his tenditious arguments stick in the minds of Canadians.

The way I see it that sort opportunism and not a meaningful debate. Rather it is crass political one upmanship.

0.02

 

[George Wallace]

One could always counter that with the fact that Soldiers were at one time Civilians.

Civilians, however, were not necessarily at one time Soldiers.

 

[patrick666]

One could always counter that with the fact that Soldiers were at one time Civilians.

Civilians, however, were not necessarily at one time Soldiers.

+1!