A "Nice Little" Tale of War

[darkeyes]

I am not going to harp on about this..not yet anyway... but it does make such uncomfy reading... now u didn't expect me to ignore it did you? aaahh the honesty of our war machines and governments.. dontcha jus luff 'em... :(

[DuckiesDarling]

ummm which of the lovely news stories are you referring to? I can think of at least three I read today.

[darkeyes]

ummm which of the lovely news stories are you referring to? I can think of at least three I read today.

oops forgot the link.. silly me..:eek:... daft tart!!!

This one...

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010

Glad u said at least 3 Darling, darling..

[DuckiesDarling]

Well, Fran, it is a war. I believe there were many instances of civilian and other casualties resulting from friendly fire and the fact that some people were in the wrong place at the wrong time have occurred in every war ever fought.

From the time of the ancient Romans when a child was run over by chariots to the current conflicts flaring up all around the world.

It happens, should it be acknowledged and mourned yes? Flamed, no. Accidents happen and that is just a fact of life.

[tenni]

"Friendly fire"

This issue is surfacing in Canada. The government is in denial state on several points being released by these documents. It was within the documents statements that contradicted Canadian government information about the death of four Canadians killed. according to these documents they were killed by US forces and not "insurgents" as was formally announced. The Canuck Con government is busy stating that the US statements are not true and an oversight.

First this is not a war we are told at times. NATO forces are in Afghanistan to give support to the Kharzai government. Officially, that is Canada's position but the word "war" does slip out every once in awhile. There is a lot of cross misinformation.

Another point is that the Taliban are using heat seeking missiles and it was such a missile that shot down a helicopter killing a Canadian and several US forces. Apparently, this does not go along with the propaganda that the Taliban are a group of "terrorists" that are not sophisticated or something. Questions are unanswered as to who is providing the Taliban with such weapons?

With regard to Pakistan's agencies actually supporting the Taliban, some media commentators are pointing out that this is not really new information in Canada or the USA. A Canadian diplomat reported this in 2006 and this was reported then in Canadian media and the New York Times.

Back to "friendly fire", this happens in war, etc. and DD's rationalization. Somehow, that does not sit well with me and is more than just a little offensive!!! If Canadian troops had killed US troops in friendly fire(they may have) and this became generally publicly known after being lied about, I wonder how she would respond? How would I respond? I'm sorry that happened would be my response rather than some lame ass dismissal.

As far as Canadian military killing Afghan civilians, this is sometimes reported but probably no where near as much as it happens. Reports of Afghan families demanding payment for their dead have been reported. It is complicated but I am inclined to believe that governments of Canada, USA and Britain should be compensating Afghan families who have members killed by friendly fire. Proving it may be difficult though. Its easier to claim that they are Taliban, didn't stop when told to, etc. Rationalization is a bitch at times.

As far as emerging reports about these documents endangering Canadian, US, British and other NATO troops, I'm not sure about that. With so many documents and it is unknown how old the documents are, it seems like a knee jerk reaction to state that these documents are creating unsafe conditions. Time will tell. One friend told me yesterday that this has been reported by Wikileak more than a month ago and it is only now hitting the headlines on mainstream western media? I have to wonder if the fact that these documents existed rather than some of the details? Dunno?

[DuckiesDarling]

Back to "friendly fire", this happens in war, etc. and DD's rationalization. Somehow, that does not sit well with me and is more than just a little offensive!!! If Canadian troops had killed US troops in friendly fire(they may have) and this became generally publicly known after being lied about, I wonder how she would respond? How would I respond? I'm sorry that happened would be my response rather than some lame ass dismissal.




If history offends you, perhaps you should stop referring to it quite so often. History is full of things that we all wish we could change to make this a better world, but it ain't gonna happen just because we wish it. History is history.

[MarieDelta]

Ain't humans wonderful?

We seem to enjoy killing each other and destroying things. We've been doing it so long we've even perfected the language that surrounds it. Because what is one humans life worth? If they arent one of "ours", it seems the going price is $0.20...

[tenni]

If history offends you, perhaps you should stop referring to it quite so often. History is full of things that we all wish we could change to make this a better world, but it ain't gonna happen just because we wish it. History is history.


Why bless your heart...Dumpling
It is not history that is offensive....

[DuckiesDarling]

Then just ignore me, and bless your little heart.

[Long Duck Dong]

the truth is subject to two things..... ignorance and personal opinion.....
and people will believe whatever they want,......

as for friendly fire..... shit happens.... for a number of reasons....
friendly fire in a war zone, is known as FUUFs..... or fuck ups under fire... generally its where wires are crossed or information is mixed up in translation
there is also *friendly fire * and this is a deliberate action against allied troops.... and believe me.... there are a number of reasons why *accidents * happen....

hell there were a few times I really wanted to claim a *accident * happened during live round exercises myself cos some people take the meaning of * asshole * to whole new levels......

I am reminded of a story I read recently about the oil spill in the us.... and how people are signing up left right and center for * compensation * due to issues connected with the oil spill...... and as one person put it.... some of the ladies with manicures and soft hands are claiming loss of income and that they worked on the boats.......
well any person that has worked on a boat, knows that you do not have dish pan hands..... or nice nails.... unless you were *working * on the boats...lol..
so yeah.... lets compensate all the poor families that have lost loved ones during the fighting ... I am pretty sure that you will have 10,000 families having lost loved ones that were killed by friendly fire.... and the same *brother * comes from 19 different families etc etc

war is hell and tragic.... I make no bones about that.... but only fools and white flag wavers think that they know better than the soldiers in the war zone, about fighting in a war zone...... and when your enemy wears no uniform, its a lil hard to tell just who is who in a fire fight
also some people can not be bought by a fist full of dollars, as compensation for whom they have lost...... they want blood....

[tenni]

"Some Canadians turn a wilful blind eye to this country’s complicity in what Afghans do to each other. More are understandably focused on the still rising costs in lives and money of a war that generals admit can’t be won by arms alone and increasingly appears to be lost.

Even if these documents don’t change those perceptions, they may help this country see Afghanistan for what it is and what it’s doing to us."

The above is a quote from a newpaper opinion writer in today's Toronto Star.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

The only one I can think of was that a little girl in Seattle was celebrating her 9th birthday on the 4th of July, and was going to the local community
4th celebration for her bday party. The highlight of her day was being able to talk via webcam, to her Daddy and Uncle who were in Iraq in a hospital. Both had been injured when a fire bomb went off. Her uncle had been burned very badly, her Daddy was burned on his legs and right arm. It would be months before he had full use of his limbs. He told her happy birthday, and that he'd talk with her again soon...
The little girl and her family went to her bday party and began having a great time as only a 9 year old can: Lots of friends, the whole community having a great time. A bit into the party she noticed one of her favorite things, someone dressed up as a big Tiger, who was dancing like a white boy, making balloon animals, cavorting with the kids, and making everyone laugh with silly antics. This continued all day, and altho it wasnt hot here that day, I'm sure that Tiger suit was stifling hot...
They went thru all of the normal 4th of july goodies, water gun fights, rides on the carnival rides, BBQ, ect. When it came time for her to open her presents, the Tiger was there, handing out presents, miming happiness with her, and just being an all around joy. He danced with her and her little girlfriends and had them Howling in laughter all evening. Right before the fireworks He flopped down on the grass and she laughed. He handed her a bday card that read "With all of my love from so far away, much happiness and joy on your special day, Daddy and Uncle Tommy"

Her Mom handed her the laptop and even tho it was in the middle of the night there, her Uncle Tommy told her happy birthday and asked about her day. He talked to her then said, "Oh by the way Honey. Look behind you"
She turned to see the Tiger taking off that heavy head dress and saw her Daddy's sweaty, grinning, face! He had been there the whole time, and altho he was in a great deal of pain from his burns, and all of the motion, he was still there for her. He had been sent home the day before and he and the Mrs had set this up for his little girls day. :} He had talked to her from a hotel room so she wouldnt catch on. His brother Tommy would be sent home later in the week as his injuries were so severe that it was going to get him medically discharged from the Military, as well as the little girl's Daddy.
So you see, there a brighter side to war, just one story of something positive coming from a bad thing...:}
Teary eyed Cat.

[HappyHedonic]

"Truth is the first casualty of war"

I don't know who said that originally but it always ends up being true.

Peace.

[tenni]

"Truth is the first casualty of war"

I don't know who said that originally but it always ends up being true.

Peace.


Might this be a sign to always be on guard when your government makes statements about going to war? Doubt that they are telling you the truth from the very beginning when our leaders refer to other nations as "evil", "for our freedom" and such phrases.

To accept war as natural and inevitable is to be a fool or a blood thirsty war monger.

However, this thread is about over 90 000 documents and what they reveal. What are the consequences of revealing these "secret" documents?

When will they ever learn? is an old song line that has not come true yet.

[darkeyes]

The only one I can think of was that a little girl in Seattle was celebrating her 9th birthday on the 4th of July, and was going to the local community
4th celebration for her bday party. The highlight of her day was being able to talk via webcam, to her Daddy and Uncle who were in Iraq in a hospital. Both had been injured when a fire bomb went off. Her uncle had been burned very badly, her Daddy was burned on his legs and right arm. It would be months before he had full use of his limbs. He told her happy birthday, and that he'd talk with her again soon...
The little girl and her family went to her bday party and began having a great time as only a 9 year old can: Lots of friends, the whole community having a great time. A bit into the party she noticed one of her favorite things, someone dressed up as a big Tiger, who was dancing like a white boy, making balloon animals, cavorting with the kids, and making everyone laugh with silly antics. This continued all day, and altho it wasnt hot here that day, I'm sure that Tiger suit was stifling hot...
They went thru all of the normal 4th of july goodies, water gun fights, rides on the carnival rides, BBQ, ect. When it came time for her to open her presents, the Tiger was there, handing out presents, miming happiness with her, and just being an all around joy. He danced with her and her little girlfriends and had them Howling in laughter all evening. Right before the fireworks He flopped down on the grass and she laughed. He handed her a bday card that read "With all of my love from so far away, much happiness and joy on your special day, Daddy and Uncle Tommy"

Her Mom handed her the laptop and even tho it was in the middle of the night there, her Uncle Tommy told her happy birthday and asked about her day. He talked to her then said, "Oh by the way Honey. Look behind you"
She turned to see the Tiger taking off that heavy head dress and saw her Daddy's sweaty, grinning, face! He had been there the whole time, and altho he was in a great deal of pain from his burns, and all of the motion, he was still there for her. He had been sent home the day before and he and the Mrs had set this up for his little girls day. :} He had talked to her from a hotel room so she wouldnt catch on. His brother Tommy would be sent home later in the week as his injuries were so severe that it was going to get him medically discharged from the Military, as well as the little girl's Daddy.
So you see, there a brighter side to war, just one story of something positive coming from a bad thing...:}
Teary eyed Cat.

It is a very lovely story Cat.. a little girl's day being made by daddy suddenly appearing.. there are many such stories in war.. and all are heartwarming.. yet all are aimed at disguising the bloody truth of it...

..because there are even more immensely sad stories which the positives of little girls getting their daddies back are unable to gloss over.. the thousands of little girls and boys in Aghanistan who have been killed and maimed by both sides in a futile war, and the thousands in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Gaza, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Chad, Rwanda, Sudan, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and countless other conflicts. Of the countless thousands whose parents have been butchered by senseless warfare in all of these places and more... the thousands of young men and women of all nations who have lost their lives in combat or been incapacitated by their duty as they see it to cause or country.. thousands, no millions, whose children, if they have survived, will never see them smile again, except if they are lucky, in a photograph or a piece of old film..

Happy stories such as the one you related are intended to appease the conscience and cheer the home front and they do have a place when the news and history of any war is written. No one can endure the unremitting gloom of warfare, but these uplifting tales must never, ever overwrite and smother the true, harsh, viscious reality of what war involves.

[piercedbi]

I believe I should speak here,seeing as I am a member of the US military and I feel personally insulted. First off war is enavitable there I simply to many people with to many conflicting viewpoints in this world. We all believe were right and were not willing to let go of that. Why do you think we as bisexuals face so much bigotry and hatred, not because we are evil or because we are violating the cosmic law of some spooky an incompitent father figure its because people believe a certain way and they are not willing to be open minded. Second is that a warzone can never be completely safe and there is always be collateral damage to believe that there won't be is assanine. War is a violent and brutal thing and bad things happen. Get over it

[TaylorMade]

I believe I should speak here,seeing as I am a member of the US military and I feel personally insulted. First off war is enavitable there I simply to many people with to many conflicting viewpoints in this world. We all believe were right and were not willing to let go of that. Why do you think we as bisexuals face so much bigotry and hatred, not because we are evil or because we are violating the cosmic law of some spooky an incompitent father figure its because people believe a certain way and they are not willing to be open minded. Second is that a warzone can never be completely safe and there is always be collateral damage to believe that there won't be is assanine. War is a violent and brutal thing and bad things happen. Get over it

Pierced, I'm sorry. . . this is why these kind of threads rankle me.

There are service people on this board, and they already are under pressure to remain in the closet, with not a lot of support, and threads like this simply don't help.

Bi service people need our support.

*Taylor*

[tenni]

I'm sorry but you may not hide behind the claims that you are making.

Those of us who are civilian have a responsibility to make sure that we are not being lied to by our governments. We have a responsibility to make sure that those citizens who are in our armed services are not being manipulated, killed and use improperly.

We have a responsibility not to let our governments kill. We have a responsibility to stop our governments from wasting money on weapons and lives of those citizens in our military. We have a responsibility to stop the lies that are coming forward in these documents. The war machines need to be stopped. We need to demand the truth. If we have war criminals in our government, we have a responsibility to force them to be tried and dealt with. In Canada, there is a suspicion that our government has been deceitful and it continues to try to hide the truth. We have responsibility to support our troops by insuring that this stops.

[TaylorMade]

This is kind of the shit that pisses me off. This scattershot bullshit that some of ya'll seem to do. While talking down the war, you've insulted the everyday men and women that fight it, some of whom post on this very forum. Ain't nan ya'll of you apologized to that piercedbi in the open board yet. He probably hasn't fired a gun, or raised his hand against a soul personally.

Nice work, assholes.

Step back and start picking your words, think about who's going to read them. The generals aren't gonna read them... the politicians aren't going to read them. The soldiers are.

Nice work, assholes.

Yeah... give peace a chance... my fucking period bleeding cunt.


*Taylor*

[coyotedude]

There is no such thing as a "nice little" tale of war. War is an ugly, dirty, evil thing. It is a cancer upon the human body and spirit; it maims and corrupts everything it touches. War is humanity's ultimate failure.

Yet I do not blame the average soldier or sailor or airman or marine for war. I have respect for the people who put their lives on the line every day to keep the evil tentacles of war far away from the rest of us. We ask them to do horrible things to other human beings, scarring their own souls in the process. If you dare to look in the eyes of someone who has taken another life in battle, you will see a wounded human being, whose life is no less precious and fragile than the life that was taken.

People who believe everything they are fed by their governments are fools. Yet the sad fact is that the world remains a dangerous and unforgiving place. We can hope and pray and work for that day when war will be a sad relic of humanity's dark past, but that day will not come in any of our lifetimes.

Our governments can and should follow an enlightened policy of restraint and peace and justice. But simply wishing for a peaceful world will not make it so. No matter what we do - no matter what policies our governments follow - there are people in this world who will be led by their hatred and their greed to harm us and others.

Our task is to hold our governments accountable so that war is the last resort, not the first - so that the dogs of war are not unleashed unless the alternatives are worse. There are times when war becomes the lesser of all evils - think of Munich in 1938. Hitler made his gamble at Munich despite the fact that the German Wehrmacht was not truly ready for an onslaught from the West. Had the Western Powers held fast then, even to the point of war, much of the subsequent misery and death of World War II might well have been averted.

Almost every prayer I make includes a call for peace for the sake of the children. I pray that I am wrong about the human spirit today - that my lifetime will see the true end of war. But my head knows otherwise. And I am thankful for those who protect my family from our ultimate failure.

Peace

[darkeyes]

I believe I should speak here,seeing as I am a member of the US military and I feel personally insulted. First off war is enavitable there I simply to many people with to many conflicting viewpoints in this world. We all believe were right and were not willing to let go of that. Why do you think we as bisexuals face so much bigotry and hatred, not because we are evil or because we are violating the cosmic law of some spooky an incompitent father figure its because people believe a certain way and they are not willing to be open minded. Second is that a warzone can never be completely safe and there is always be collateral damage to believe that there won't be is assanine. War is a violent and brutal thing and bad things happen. Get over it

Why do you feel insulted Pierced? I doubt any of us mean any insult. What we have here is a search, as best we can, for truth.

We want to know why the miltaries of our countries do what they do, and its effects on the peoples of the countries we have invaded. We want to know that the miltary is doing the job properly, and taking every precaution that it is doing that job without harming needlessly, the civilian population it is supposedly there to free and protect. We want to know that our politicians are not the liars we suspect them to be, and that the armed forces are there for the purpose they claim, and are telling us the truth of what they do, and how they do it. We want to know that the likes of you are not being asked to do things which are in conflict with the laws of warfare, and international law. That politicians are not breaching international law by their actions. There are many reasons why such threads are invaluable to those of us who are not military and yes, as in my own case who loathe the concept of the military and its very existence.

There is no disrespect here for the ordnary service people of any country involved in this nasty little war. Only questions that we are being told truth, and when suspicion that we are not exists then it is our right and duty to try and find it. Little two bit forums like this have their place as do those of the wider media in our search. The net as a whole has its place, and the researchers and authors of books and articles on any war theirs. There is an argument that Wikileaks has gone too far and we will all have our own ideas about that, and I have no doubt that in your country there will be more outrage than in mine or almost any other which is involved in the conflict. There is much more cynicism about this war outside of the US than there is within it.

I admit here that as a pacifist I have my own agenda, the agenda of all pacifists.. the elimination of warfare across the planet. That it will not happen in my lifetime I have never hidden.. but believing what I do would I not be failing my own principles were I not to act in accord with them? This is why I argue as I do, just as you do and others who have a very different viewpoint from my own. I have those principles because I love this world we live in and all of its wonderful variety of life, and hate to see their needless destruction. My argument is not with you or any other single person who is in whichever service you happen to be in. My argument is with politicians and the miltary machine whiich sends you to do the job it does. Servicemen and women are on the whole brave, compassionate human beings who do thier job out of loyalty to country and also probably out of belief in the cause. Whether they should be so loyal and believe what they do is another matter but I respect them for their beliefs and their bravery.. but please, respect us pacifist and non pacifist alike who belief this war is wrong, and who would like to know we are being told truth..

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran, I love you, I really do, but in reading your response to Pierced all I can say is when did you consider yourself a citizen of the United States of America? Because really all this and other topics that have been posted in regards to wars on this board are all aimed at the US.


We want to know why the miltaries of our countries do what they do, and its effects on the peoples of the countries we have invaded. We want to know that the miltary is doing the job properly, and taking every precaution that it is doing that job without harming needlessly, the civilian population it is supposedly there to free and protect. We want to know that our politicians are not the liars we suspect them to be, and that the armed forces are there for the purpose they claim, and are telling us the truth of what they do, and how they do it. We want to know that the likes of you are not being asked to do things which are in conflict with the laws of warfare, and international law. That politicians are not breaching international law by their actions. There are many reasons why such threads are invaluable to those of us who are not military and yes, as in my own case who loathe the concept of the military and its very existence.

[darkeyes]

Fran, I love you, I really do, but in reading your response to Pierced all I can say is when did you consider yourself a citizen of the United States of America? Because really all this and other topics that have been posted in regards to wars on this board are all aimed at the US.

Darlin, darling, I am a citizen of the human race and where I see something I believe is wrong I say so. I have a degree of freedom of speech and expression(at least for now) and s long as I have that I will use whatever forum I can to express how I feel and try and get people to think, if not agree with me.

My country has been involved in a lot of those wars and certainly is in Afghanistan.. we are an ally of the US for better or worse, and what the US does often reflects on my country as it it does in all of its allies. That the US is involved in more wars than any other conutry, aand is the most powerful nation on earth, and seems to think it can do what it wills, when it wills for whatever reason makes it my business. It is war that I hate and war I argue against, and whoever wages it is my business. That the US is involved in so many one way or other is a happenstance, but just as the British found when they were top dog, the US is just going to have to put up with people sniping at them.. I seem to recall from my history in fact a little fledgling nation and its citizens doing just that until it grew up and began to fly... it then knocked its one time parent of her perch...

..and finally... experience has shown me in these pages that since most people are US citizens on site, even although it is not an American one, that unless there is a large US involvement or interest, Americans, probably for reasons going back to isolationist days, arent very interested in what doesnt involve them..

I'm afraid being top dog has its drawbacks Darling, darling.. and because of that people around the world will always be snapping at your heels if they feel you are doing something wrong. As is of course their right...

Friends tell friends the truth as they see it.. to do other makes me no friend..

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran,

It's one thing to say you oppose war and the miltary, it's another thing to refer to the military as terrorists. You have done that in several threads. Now confronted by a serviceman who was offended you now state you respect them.

As far as civilian casualites specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's a bit difficult for soldiers under fire to tell the difference when returning fire as the civilians and the terrorists dress alike. The terrorists aren't wearing uniforms that identify them as part of Al Queda, they are looking like normal citizens. The only difference is they have no problem strapping an explosive under a robe and going to "thank" the soldiers as they suicide bomb.

I'm serious when I say that most of what you and a few other anti military people post is targeted towards the US. It is offensive as a whole when if anything happened in your country such as an invasion, you'd be thankful for the military and praying that they were successful in your defense. To claim otherwise implies you'd simply accept the collar of slavery and never defend yourself not with words or deeds.

[R. Kestrel]

The thing about these logs (I read the excerpts in the Guardian on Monday) is that they show much more than the expected dangers of armed conflict. They show a military basically waging war on the Afghan people, strafing buses and bombing weddings as well as detaining suspects in prison camps without trial. They describe our secret death squads roaming Central Asia with a hit list and killing civilians indiscriminately. They show a defense industry raking it in by supplying the military with expensive but useless video-game weaponry and the illusion of invulnerability. And they show a Taliban that's a damn sight better equipped and intractable than anyone in the military command has let on, making the country a literal minefield with hidden explosive devices that are now killing thousands every year.

This is a sick, sad shame, folks. It ain't business as usual.

[darkeyes]

Fran,

It's one thing to say you oppose war and the miltary, it's another thing to refer to the military as terrorists. You have done that in several threads. Now confronted by a serviceman who was offended you now state you respect them.

As far as civilian casualites specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's a bit difficult for soldiers under fire to tell the difference when returning fire as the civilians and the terrorists dress alike. The terrorists aren't wearing uniforms that identify them as part of Al Queda, they are looking like normal citizens. The only difference is they have no problem strapping an explosive under a robe and going to "thank" the soldiers as they suicide bomb.

I'm serious when I say that most of what you and a few other anti military people post is targeted towards the US. It is offensive as a whole when if anything happened in your country such as an invasion, you'd be thankful for the military and praying that they were successful in your defense. To claim otherwise implies you'd simply accept the collar of slavery and never defend yourself not with words or deeds.Yes, I have addressed the military as a terrorist organistation every bit as much as what we think of as terrorist groups, nor have I altered my view.. the military does target civilian targets whether it is within or without its own borders.. even when civilians are caught accidentally in the midst of a stramash, the military in the end believes the end justifies the means.. simply because they wear uniforms and represent a flag does not of itself exempt the military of an accusation of terrorism.. it often uses such tactics and therefore has to take that accusation on the chin.. this does not necessarily make very military person a terrorist, but it does make them because of how the military operates and by being a aprt of it, complicit.. similarly every person who is a part of what we call a terrorist organisation or who supports them is not themselves a terrorist, but they are at the very least complicit.. we are all complicit, even civilians because we are not doing enough to prevent it..

I do not hold to the view that because a state pays the wages and clothes and arms people, that exempts them from complicity at the very least in the more odious acts of state and military, just as I do not hold to the view that because those who fight without uniforms and fight for a cause ununiformed and generally unpaid are necessarily people who deserve the condemnation that our societies often pour on them.. that usually depends upon whether they fight for us or against us.. no matter their political agenda.. I condemn the act of war however, wherever and why it is fought, whether chivalric in the extreme or the mishmash of brutality in which it has invariably been fought throughout the ages.. what a fucking waste of life and resources and all for the preservation of power of a few bastards around the world who don't give a shite about the ordinary soldier or civilian.. the cause of conflict is an excuse not a justification.. for justification their can never be..

Regarding accepting my defence by the miltary in the case of my country being invaded.. no I would not for a minute... as a pacifist how could I do other because I know that accepting such aid would involve yet another massive and tragic waste of life and the ruination of so many human beings.. not to say the environmental catastrophe that it would undoubtedly entail.. it does not mean accepting slavery or not acting in my defence for one minute for there are other ways of fighting against any authority which do not involve violence and certainly not war.. although most people seem to have a great deal of contempt for such ways even although they have proved effective in many, if not all circumstances.. I may be prepared to die for my beliefs. I am not prepared to kill for them or have others kill on my behalf.....

..and just let me say this.. those who fight in Afghanistan, whatever you think of the Taliban, are doing exactly what you are saying I should do in a sense.. un-uniformed, unpaid, getting weapons and money from where they can and fighting an invader in whatever way they are able.. and there are millions in Afghanistan who grateful for it.. not all, but enough to ensure that this war will continue for a long time to come.. they are fighting for what they believe against invaders from around the world, which have cultures they do not understand and as they see it, are attempting to impose their ways upon them.. including as they see it, in matters of faith.. the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Russians, Czecks and many other peoples did the same thing against the Germans in WW2.. other peoples against the Japanese... peoples have done it throughout history.. our view of the rights and wrongs of such people are coloured by how that history is written, and what was or is the relative position of our own country..

I have my own peculiar view of the world, and of warfare and how nations resolve their differences.. others have theirs and at this time I am in a very small minority. In whichever part of my life, cyber or reality, I am in any given moment in time, I discuss and raise the issues which I believe are most pertinent and argue as I best see fit with the people I believe are my audience.. in what is a predominantly US site in terms of membership if not ownership, those of us from outwith the United States would be failing oursleves and our own countries if we did not argue as we do to let the American people know that theirs is not the only view of the world, much as they would wish it otherwise.. just as as a socialist and a Scot, I argue my own country's issues in my real life within the UK and Europe or as a briton the UK issues within Europe or the wider world.. the war in Afghanistan is one in which we are involved and many Britons are dying and getting maimed in that sad land. How I argue here in these pages is not as I would argue necessarily in a meetng of any party or anti war organistaion to which I belonged or any other British forum.. but one thing is consistent.. my stance on this and any other war in accord with the convictions I hold dear..

[DuckiesDarling]

And my stance on support for our military has not changed and will not change as long I have a breath left in my body. I respect your views but I do not countenance calling servicemen and women terrorists...ever.

The entire leak was adding up all unfortunate and in most cases unavoidable accidental deaths of civilians since the war began. It was intended as shock value. I'm far from shocked, I frankly expected it to be a lot higher when the troops are not battling a uniformed army. They are battling a terrorist regime that hides among people, using them as human shields at times. They are the ones that take people who are devout and convince them their holy duty is to be suicide bombers. Did you ever stop to think one person shot was better than 20 soldiers killed?

There have been, as I stated before, civilian casualites in every war. It happens for a variety of reasons but not because some soldiers decided to shoot at civilians for fun.

You may not like the military but there is discipline. Unlike the mercenary troops and private security that is hired by wealthy Afghans. I wonder how many casualties were caused by them and yet the US armed forces takes the blame?

[tenni]

It has been a few days since these documents contents have been made public. I do not see that there is much in them that is changing the attitude of Canadians to what is going on in Afghanistan nor Canada. Other matters are taking the main headlines. Apathy and a fractured political mixture seems to insure little change. I believe that it is something like more than 60 % of Canadians do not want our military in Afghanistan and the majority numbers have been opposed to being there for several years if not five years. Canadian military continue to be killed. Generals and politicians have been admitting that there needs to be a negotiated peace.

Last night on the news it showed Canadian military meeting with the elders of a village. They were trying to get the elders to support their efforts. The elders stated that they opposed the Taliban but didn't want the foreigners to do things without involving them. An agreement was made where the elders would report any evidence of the Taliban but the agreement was only for a week. The elders insisted that they be informed more and involved in decisions as to what NATO is doing. Does this seem unreasonable? It does if you do not trust the Afghans in their own country.

"And my stance on support for our military has not changed and will not change as long I have a breath left in my body. I respect your views but I do not countenance calling servicemen and women terrorists...ever."

I think my stance on support for our Canadian military has more to do with insuring that they are not sent to places where there is no direct relationship to protecting my own country or are involved in a keeping world peace. I do not make statements about doing so as long as I have a breath left in my body. That seems like false patriotism of the worst kind. I question whether my country is acting like a terrorist state. I fear that my military has been doing things that violate international law. I do not blame my Canadian military but know that individuals seem to be screwing up. Politicians are lying. Which ones I can only assume are part of the present government regime but it may go back further.

I do not see these documents changing any attitude or support for my military nor do I see them having much political impact. In the back of my mind, I do wonder if such a release will really endanger the lives of family and Afghans who have supported NATO.

I also wonder why some US people seem to think that they are the ones that this is all about. It is about the US military documents being made public and it impacts many more than just the US. From reading some of the pro US posts it seems very self centred and ignoring that they are not the only country in Afghanisitan. We are there because of NATO. I don't think that I've read a US poster refer to "we" in connection to being part of NATO. We (NATO countries) are there because the US politics dragged us into their bloody mess. 911 happened because of errors made by the US government over many decades. I fear that my country's involvement in this mess will impact us for decades.

[R. Kestrel]

The entire leak was adding up all unfortunate and in most cases unavoidable accidental deaths of civilians since the war began.
This tells me you haven't even seen the logs. There's a lot more than just a list of civilian casualties, so maybe you should look into it. And I would ask how you know these casualties were "unavoidable," but it seems you don't approach this matter very objectively overall.

[DuckiesDarling]

Think however you want, R. Kestrel. I have read the reports and furthermore I have actually talked with some of the local soldiers coming home about the conditions there. The things they described are as I stated, they are not battling an army. There is no frontline. There are women wrapping bombs in blankets like a baby to approach groups of soldiers, there are soldiers returning fire into houses where a bullet passes through a terrorist and hits someone else not involved in the fighting.

I have never stated I support the war, I stated I respect our servicemen and women, learn the difference.

[R. Kestrel]

Think however you want, R. Kestrel. I have read the reports
Oh. Kay. So that's why you described them as a list of "unavoidable" civilian casualties, which they're not.

I'm going to take your advice and think what I want. And I think that you know exactly what I think, but I'm too polite to say it.

[tenni]

This tells me you haven't even seen the logs. There's a lot more than just a list of civilian casualties, so maybe you should look into it. And I would ask how you know these casualties were "unavoidable," but it seems you don't approach this matter very objectively overall.


Thank you for your observations R. Kestrel. I have not read the documents. I know no Canadian military personnel to ask. I do know that those who go to a place tend to support that action. Families of dead Canadian soldiers have stated that their son/daughter supported involvement in Afghanistan. There is a psychological reason why we tend to support something that we are involved in. It is easier to see yourself as worthy by doing so. To question involvement requires a bit more. Canadian media does raise questions at times about the military actions. It is difficult and mistakes are made but to just accept them as "war" is not wise.

[R. Kestrel]

Thank you for your observations R. Kestrel. I have not read the documents. I know no Canadian military personnel to ask. I do know that those who go to a place tend to support that action. Families of dead Canadian soldiers have stated that their son/daughter supported involvement in Afghanistan. There is a psychological reason why we tend to support something that we are involved in. It is easier to see yourself as worthy by doing so. To question involvement requires a bit more. Canadian media does raise questions at times about the military actions. It is difficult and mistakes are made but to just accept them as "war" is not wise.
Historically, characterizing criticism of a war as unpatriotic or disrespectful of troops has always been a popular tactic in America. Ever since Wilson sent troops overseas during WWI and then prosecuted dissenters under the Sedition Act, the phrase "support the troops" has been used to silence anti-war opinions and dismiss valid criticism of military engagement.

I personally bear no ill will toward the military personnel unfortunate enough to be stuck in the miserable quagmire of the war in Afghanistan. I realize they're just following the orders of their superiors and implementing the foreign policy of the US government. However, that doesn't mean I think US troops should be there, or that this war is anything more than a cynical land-grab. I submit that those responsible for our continued involvement there have no concern whatsoever for the well-being of the Afghan people or our own countrymen in uniform.

[Bluebiyou]

...when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself, and without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear. That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.

[R. Kestrel]

...when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself, and without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear. That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.:cutelaugh

Always good to meet another Monty Python fan.

[darkeyes]

Think however you want, R. Kestrel. I have read the reports and furthermore I have actually talked with some of the local soldiers coming home about the conditions there.



The logs or media reports? Ive been at it when I can for a couple of days and havent even scratched the surface of the logs... what I have read without doubt makes my hair stand on end..

I too have actually talked to a couple of our soldiers and a marine who are not long back from the Afghanistan.. there is no way the soldiers wish to go back because they believe the war unwinnable.. that may be an overstatement and pessimism caused by stress of losing comrades and coming under fire repeatedly and seeming in their view to be making little progress and even finding themselves abandoning positions held, I don't know.. both in any case have well and truly joined the anti war camp vis a vis Afghanistan because of what they have seen and what they have done. The marine is determined to go back even although his nerves are so plainly shot because he has a score to settle for friends lost.. now some may think that laudible, I'm afraid I do not.. the contempt he showed out of his pain, anger and bitterness for all Afghans on whichever side shows him to be totally unfit for the task.. and many military personnel will have just such feels cooking up within them whether they are at home or still in the country..

Almost every day now my country, as well as the US and Canada and the other nations is losing its soldiers, airmen and marines. Every day we see pictures of those brought back for burial and thepain and agony it causes for their loved ones, and the sadness in their communities.. it is emotive and it is sad bec ause it need not be and should never have been.. but these are as nothing compared to the vast numbers of Afghans who are losing their live either purposely or as hapless victims of "collateral damage".

Tacitus wrote that Calgacus, an ancient Pictish leader, said of ancient Rome before the battle of Mons Graupius.. "They made a desert and called it peace". Two thousand years on have we learned nothing?

[piercedbi]

I know the government lies to us,I've come to expect it.I agree war should be stopped, however since people cannot let each other live in peace that is unlikely to happen.Children are horrible casualities in war on both sides,and I am not trying to make excuses for my comrades on arms.All I'm saying that it happened and will happen until we as world find what great sickness it is that ales the human heart.I was offended because from my point of veiw you were attacking the entire military.The military does a lot of good for this world. We provide so much humanitarian aide and help defend smaller nations that its not funny.I am just saying dont down on the entire military.Remember that the news is sensationalized and that bad news sales.I bet they dont show you all the good the military does on the news now do they???

[darkeyes]

I know the government lies to us,I've come to expect it.I agree war should be stopped, however since people cannot let each other live in peace that is unlikely to happen.Children are horrible casualities in war on both sides,and I am not trying to make excuses for my comrades on arms.All I'm saying that it happened and will happen until we as world find what great sickness it is that ales the human heart.I was offended because from my point of veiw you were attacking the entire military.The military does a lot of good for this world. We provide so much humanitarian aide and help defend smaller nations that its not funny.I am just saying dont down on the entire military.Remember that the news is sensationalized and that bad news sales.I bet they dont show you all the good the military does on the news now do they???Funnily enough they do show the humanitarian side of what the military does.. from what US troops did for Haiti to little things like rescuing people from certain death at sea or in mountains through air sea rescue and our own army building bridges so that communities could be reunited after severe flooding. And that is all brilliant... but as such we dont need a military for that but an expert civilian force to do such things but thats another story.. in fact they do exist now iin various guises in many of the more developed nations... that isnt the primary job of the military as I have said a dozen times at leas in these forums...

You're right.. the world is sick.. very sick.. and no we wont stop war tomorrow or in our liftimes.. but we should strive for it. I don't disrespect the ordinary soldier.. not unless he or she has done something for which he or she should feel ashamed.. most are brave, honest and honourable people doing what they believe is right in the service of their country.. I do disrespect the military as an organisation, and the political bodies which control them because it uses the ordinary soldier in the name of patriotism and power and often uses them very badly and dishonestly. I try to get people, ordinary soldiers sailors and airmen included to see that but most think I'm crazy and that I'm beneath contempt.. so be it.. I can live with it, because I believe I am right... and my beliefs are equally as valid as any military person or politician or any other human being..

..and yes to some degree the press and media do sensationalise war.. I would argue not enough because so much goes unreported even although they have the facts to hand very often... if war was covered in all its gory hell, I don't think the war in Afghanistan would last too much longer... just as these logs purport to show...

[tenni]

...when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself, and without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear. That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.


There is truth about defending oneself but defend one's own viewpoint with monstrous weapons and vast amounts of money?

Is that reasonable?

Why is there a need to have so many outposts of US military and other such types of bases? There is no need.

You do not need to defend your viewpoint with aggression and blood of other nations as well as your own people's blood. In reality it is more than defending your viewpoint which may be done with words and non violent action. It is about control and dominance.

[DuckiesDarling]

The logs or media reports? Ive been at it when I can for a couple of days and havent even scratched the surface of the logs... what I have read without doubt makes my hair stand on end..

I too have actually talked to a couple of our soldiers and a marine who are not long back from the Afghanistan.. there is no way the soldiers wish to go back because they believe the war unwinnable.. that may be an overstatement and pessimism caused by stress of losing comrades and coming under fire repeatedly and seeming in their view to be making little progress and even finding themselves abandoning positions held, I don't know.. both in any case have well and truly joined the anti war camp vis a vis Afghanistan because of what they have seen and what they have done. The marine is determined to go back even although his nerves are so plainly shot because he has a score to settle for friends lost.. now some may think that laudible, I'm afraid I do not.. the contempt he showed out of his pain, anger and bitterness for all Afghans on whichever side shows him to be totally unfit for the task.. and many military personnel will have just such feels cooking up within them whether they are at home or still in the country..

Almost every day now my country, as well as the US and Canada and the other nations is losing its soldiers, airmen and marines. Every day we see pictures of those brought back for burial and thepain and agony it causes for their loved ones, and the sadness in their communities.. it is emotive and it is sad bec ause it need not be and should never have been.. but these are as nothing compared to the vast numbers of Afghans who are losing their live either purposely or as hapless victims of "collateral damage".

Tacitus wrote that Calgacus, an ancient Pictish leader, said of ancient Rome before the battle of Mons Graupius.. "They made a desert and called it peace". Two thousand years on have we learned nothing?

Fran, the entire 75mb and change file was downloaded and unzipped on my pc. You might forget that I am currently unemployed, so I've had all the time in the world to read since it was released.

There are a lot of "incidents" that are marked as suspicious that are surveillance. Not unusual in a war.

Do not mistake me, I am not for this war, I only support our troops and I know what I've been told by people who have been there and are going back to do their duty. I have never stated I thought this was winnable, I just want it ended in such a way that they do not come over here and wage war in our streets.

I want it ended so in a few years I don't have to face my sons being drafted to fight in a war of attrition that will have no winners at all.

But I'm also realistic enough that while reading the logs to know that I do not have any military experience and truthfully couldn't say if, at the point in time things happened, they could not have been handled differently. Are some of things mentioned heartbreaking? Yes, some of the things shocking? Yes. Did I expect anything less? No. As one soldier bluntly put it to me, "It ain't a fucking tea party over there"

But anyone who thinks they can better advise how to fight this war please contact General David Petraeus at the Pentagon Washington DC 22202 and please let him know your extensive military history and your qualifications as an adviser... Oh wait..hardly anyone posting in this thread has any military experience whatsoever.

[tenni]

DD
I am unclear as to how you are supporting your troops?

From what you write, I read a person who is supporting her government's actions in Afghanistan and deceptions.

How are you helping get your troops out of Afghanistan?

How are you getting your troops out of the rest of the world and back safely within your own territory?

[darkeyes]

But anyone who thinks they can better advise how to fight this war please contact General David Petraeus at the Pentagon Washington DC 22202 and please let him know your extensive military history and your qualifications as an adviser... Oh wait..hardly anyone posting in this thread has any military experience whatsoever.I need military experience to want war ended? I don't need that to know its horrible, messy, viscious and evil.. I'm not advising anyone how to run a war.. only get the hell out of where they don't belong.. I need no experience or qualifications for that..

[coyotedude]

It would be good to remind ourselves that this war in Afghanistan started as a result of an attack on US soil, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. While the Taliban regime was not specifically responsible for the attack, the Taliban were responsible for sponsoring, harboring, and protecting those who planned and launched the attack. The same people who launched this attack were also preparing to launch other attacks on US and allied citizens. The notion that the Afghan war was caused solely by US imperialist interests simply isn't supported by the facts.

That being said, the US has bungled the war and reconstruction effort in Afghanistan since nearly the beginning of the conflict. In my view, the US should either have ended its involvement directly after the initial Taliban defeat or committed itself wholeheartedly to reconstruction and security. Instead, Afghanistan was essentially left to dangle in limbo while the Bush administration embarked on its misadventure in Iraq (which this American would classify as a truly imperialist enterprise).

And the results? The number of Afghan dead now far outnumbers our losses from 9/11, while the Taliban are on the verge of inflicting a humiliating defeat on the vastly superior US military machine. (And yes, I am aware that NATO shares the military burden in Afghanistan. But for better or worse, it is the US that bears the lion's share of ownership in the current conflict.)

Mind you, I am well aware that embarking on an ambitious reconstruction effort immediately after the Taliban defeat would have been fraught with peril. Afghanistan has a long history of inflicting great pain on those who would dare invade and occupy its territory, and I fear that we are watching history repeat itself once again.

We can debate the last 8 years of the war until we're blue in the face, but the relevant question today is what do we do about it all. Do we pull out our forces and leave Afghanistan to the wrath of a newly revitalized Taliban regime? Or do we continue to slog ahead with the war, knowing that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing that hasn't worked yet?

There are no easy answers here.

[tenni]

"The notion that the Afghan war was caused solely by US imperialist interests simply isn't supported by the facts."

No, but 911 was primarily a cumulative result of more than 50 years of US interference in other sovereign countries.

911 led to a justification sanctioned by the UN for the US & NATO to invade in order to capture Osama Bin Laden.

The invasion by yet another foreign countries in to Afghanistan has been going on for more than forty years of war and occupation. It is just a continuation for the Afghans.

[coyotedude]

Certainly the US has made foreign policy mistakes since WWII. And the US has made other decisions that I would not classify as mistakes that nonetheless have made some people very unhappy.

But the notion that the US is primarily responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and groups such as al-Qaeda is simply not supported by an objective reading of 20th century history. There are many factors and forces at play, from the establishment and promotion of the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia to the failure of pan-Arabism to solve the problems of ordinary people in much of the Arab world.

The US has not always helped its cause on the Arab street, to be sure. But the idea that the US is primarily responsible for the tragedy of 9/11 is absurd. Even though most of them were Americans, the people who were killed didn't deserve their fate - any more than any other victim of terrorist acts over the last 60 years or more.

[tenni]

Coyotedude
You seem like a very nice and intelligent fellow. You may be correct but I get the sense that you are too narrow in your examination as to US actions. The actions go beyond just in the middle east. There is an attitude in the US governments over time as to how it sees its role in the world. I'm no historian but it may not take one to dig too deep. If you examine how Hawaii and Puerto Ricco came to be part of your empire, it is there. As someone has stated many countries that find themselves in top dog position suffer from attacks such as 911 but perhaps none as shocking and obvious. The issues go beyond 911.

Do you see your country changing its approach on how to co exist with the rest of us in this world since 911? I don't but I'm no one and now part of the twisting and turning of events as a citizen of a country that has joined your country. It makes no sense to me that we are there and especially since the US did not capture Bin Ladin but spun and spun to make itself look "good".


We do need to return to the specific topic of these documents and how they are being dealt with. Their significance may be in what is not being done as much as what is being done.

[tenni]

I just watched a report that included the following:
a/ the US Robert Gates has made a statement that the release of these documents has caused the death of innocent people whose names were released.
b/ investigations are being explored to see if /how charges may be made against the Wikileaks owner
c/ a representative of wikileaks made the following observations
i/ the purpose in releasing the documents and the video was to raise awareness and examination of possible war crimes
ii/ the US has been focusing on spin about the documents and charges
iii/ other NATO nations need to examine these documents to examine possible war crimes
iv/ Germany is presently examining the documents to see if it indicates war crimes
v/ Russia warned NATO that any involvement in Afghanistan would be futile

I know that Opposition Canadian Parliamentarians suspect and there is some unclear evidence that the Canadian Conservative government may be guilty of some war crimes. The government has been doing everything that it can to prevent documents from becoming public. The questions seem to swirl around turning over captives to the Aghans and whether the captives become victims of abuse. So, Coyotedude, it is not just your government that may have blood on its hands and next to be attacked.

The question remains as to what NATO is going to do about being in Afghanistan? I know that Canada is leaving in July, 2011 but questions are not answered as to whether Canadians will remain in some non military capacity. I sense that Britain will leave. What other NATO country is leaving?

[coyotedude]

Tenni, I appreciate your kind words. But the irony is that the very things that I have been writing in these posts would get me branded as "unpatriotic" by many in my own country.

What I try to do is view the world with a more balanced and nuanced view, taking into account my own cultural biases. I am well aware that the US has a checkered past when it comes to its foreign policy. Yet the fact is that the US has also made positive contributions to the world as well, in the fields of science, technology, medicine, engineering, literature, the arts, and more.

I know American doctors who travel abroad to provide free health care to those who could never dream of affording it. I know Americans who travel to impoverished reaches of the world to install clean water systems for schools and orphanages. I know Americans who donate their own time and money to help feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless in far away places.

As a nation, we are a paradox. Yet is that not true of every nation on this earth? We are human beings, as flawed as any who have ever walked this earth. Yet we also know love and compassion.

I have traveled to many places on this earth: to Canada, to Mexico, to Europe, to China. Each of these places has its own flaws and its own challenges. I have also met people from many other places: India, Vietnam, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Ukraine, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, El Salvador, Ghana, Turkey... Many of them have been wonderful people, but I have yet to meet a perfect one.

There is no perfect nation on this earth; certainly I don't pretend that my own nation is perfect. Yet we are not evil, either. As so often happens, the truth is not black and white, but a murky shade of gray.

This may be slightly off topic, but I believe it to be a valuable discussion nonetheless.

[void()]

"Another point is that the Taliban are using heat seeking missiles and it was such a missile that shot down a helicopter killing a Canadian and several US forces. Apparently, this does not go along with the propaganda that the Taliban are a group of "terrorists" that are not sophisticated or something. Questions are unanswered as to who is providing the Taliban with such weapons?"

To whit, The United States more than likely is supplying them. Bin Laden was a creation of C.I.A training. One of the tactics involving an automobile loaded with explosive and guided toward a building, classic US guerrilla warefare. Think Beruit, WTC and many other cases where the 'evil terrorists' have used it. Further the notion of 'cells' fits right into the standard 'speed unit' of the Rangers.

They use three person teams, one to do the deed, one as backup, one as over-watch or control. All three are cross trained out the ass. One can be communications / medic / sniper / ordnance and so on. So, the 'cell' mentality fits. Hit a bigger snag, call in a four cells and hammer it out, swarm. And yeah, C.I.A recruits from Rangers, SEALS and SEALS are Rangers as prerequisite now, they even train together. Know a few or more of both, they are good 'brothers and sisters'.

"911 led to a justification sanctioned by the UN for the US & NATO to invade in order to capture Osama Bin Laden."

You are quite snowed for sure. There has yet to be iron clad proof made fully available to the WHOLE WORLD, in the light of plain day, saying expressly Bin Laden had a thing to do with 911. Bush Jr, promised such proof. But it never came through. Yet he still shoved a war on. And there was no deceleration of war made by Congress. See, POTUS may call for it, but Congress needs to declare it legally and technically. We got 'checks and balances' in our Constitution, and that's a really huge one which got shoved aside in the 'shock and awe' of running up a war.

Yes Bin Laden he thought whoever did it deserved thanks. Doesn't mean he had a hand in it. Doesn't mean he didn't. No proof either way.

There's a lot about 911 which still makes sense like JFK, or Roswell. It doesn't at all. One thing I know from working in welding briefly, those girders in that building should have never melted/buckled/warped or otherwise been damaged. Jet fuel burns quick and clean, so much so it does not enough heat to damage such girders, no substance to it, just flash. White phosphor on the other hand ... well .. *ahem* at any given I'm sure we could all speculate until the cows come home.

In short tenni, I disagree and that's all I care to say. Have your own views, got mine.

"Justification?" Void borrows from Fran's profound vocabulary. "Codswallop and bullocks, go have a scone and tea!"

[tenni]

Coyotedude

"Yet the fact is that the US has also made positive contributions to the world as well, in the fields of science, technology, medicine, engineering, literature, the arts, and more."

I agree with you. However, do these accomplishments make the dastardly deeds of your government then acceptable? I see them as two very different matters.

As a global dominant culture, there is a certain amount of admiration and distain to be expected but something has gone wrong. All the accomplishments have not overshadowed the dastardly deeds. It isn't jealousy or envy that causes terrorism. I'd be willing to bet that it is oppression and a feeling of not being in control of your own destiny. Similar reasons that US mythology gives for the creation of your own country. Violence begets violence? Why is Wikileak releasing these documents? In part, they state to stop the injustices and possible war crimes that they believe will not be brought to light due to the dominance of NATO nations.

btw
This concern about being a patriot or not a patriot is a little over the top too doncha think? It seems to be used to get your citizens to conform to the government's intentions? I could write so much more but then we know that I'm declared "anti-American" even though I say that I'm an American just not a USAmerican...;)

[Hephaestion]

It may be argued that democracy is the legitimization of mob rule. Sway the mob and a government can get away with anything.

Wikileak does us all a service in allowing us all to see what governments especially are doing in the background while telling the voting public (to whom they are accountable) a different story.

The TV series 'Yes Minister' was a marvelous expose of UK government behaviour.

Governments in collusion require a global expose
.

[TaylorMade]

It may be argued that democracy is the legitimization of mob rule. Sway the mob and a government can get away with anything.

Wikileak does us all a service in allowing us all to see what governments especially are doing in the background while telling the voting public (to whom they are accountable) a different story.

The TV series 'Yes Minister' was a marvelous expose of UK government behaviour.

Governments in collusion require a global expose
.

But he has outed Afgan civilians who are aiding the US. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html) And he doesn't give a shit:


“States have national security concerns, we do not have national security concerns.” Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_wikileaks_gates_mullen_072910w/)

That makes him NO BETTER THAN THE GOVERNMENTS HE SEEKS TO CONFRONT! Worse, because he pretends to be better. (much like some people here) Assange is a hypocrite who took advantage of a soldiers principles...and in the end, it may not change anything after all. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/politics/washingtonpost/main6716730.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)As far as I'm concerned... Assange can take a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut into a field of rusty dildoes, because his shit is probably gonna get more people killed than would have been had he decided not to get cute.

*Taylor*

[DuckiesDarling]

The problem is, Taylor, people like Assange and all his supporters do not care that they put lives at risk. They just want their fifteen minutes of fame. Someday they will be confronted by the families of those they indirectly killed, what will be said then?

Consequences...there are consequences for every action and Assange will find out one day just what the consequences are for him. Australia won't protect him when it's soldiers are getting killed but Assange doesn't give a rat's ass. He got his name out in the world and I will not be surprised if in a few years he is found dead somewhere.

[darkeyes]

I have difficulties with reading the logs.. and it may be that it will cost further lives as a direct consequence of its release into the wider world.. the Taliban have certainly said so and any named in its pages must be somewhat concerned to say the least. Yet compared to the numbers who are killed every day in this dirty little war that wll be child's play. So it can be argued that its release is for the greater good. But I have a natural distaste for playing of a few for the benefit of the many when we are talking a bout peoples lives. Which is of course in part why I am a pacifist in the first place.

What it does tell us about this nasty little war is that we are being lied to by governments about many things. Since all contained in the diary is old news however shocking, I doubt it will make Governments tell us any more truth than we have hitherto been getting. That the war is being handled differently (they say) makes the logs irrelevant (they tell us), but just how true that is we don't know and may never know for sure. Whether release affects the outcome of the war in time it remains too early to say, we can but hope that it contributes to a more speedy end. So far there is no sign of that but it seems there is more horror felt outisde than inside the US of what it tells us. It may be that other NATO contributers will begin to back off and withdraw sooner but as yet we can't tell. Britain has already said it will be out militarily by 2015. Canada by 2011. In Britains case, thats 5 years away, and a great deal can happen in 5 years. A great deal can happen in a year indeed.

As best we can tell, for all the immense military superiority in technology of Nato in general, and the US in poarticular, the Taliban are making progress overall. They are gathering not bleeding support. They are much better armed than we have been led to believe and that must give the citizens of all countries involved much food for thought. That must be causing a lot of dismay in the dark corridors of power in Nato capitals. History tells us that Afghanistan has repelled invasion after invasion and even the Soviet Union, with gloves off couldnt win a war there, how much chance has Nato of doing so with its more restricted (we are told) an humane (there is no such things) way of fighting a war.

What the diary tells us is that the Nato forces have blundered into a war and have lied about how dirty they are fighting. War can never be clean by its very nature. It hardly tells us at any point they are winning it for all the pronouncements we keep getting from politicians. The more I read its content and the more I read of this war, the less I believe it can be won. My suspicion is that its publication by Wikileaks will not make any of it more transparent, but that the conduct of the war will become more secretive and it will, as Nato struggles to overcome a very tough enemy, become ever more nasty and be fought with even greater brutality. Such is the politics of desperation.

I believe we are a long way from the final phase of the war, because I think that Nato in general, and the US in particular will stubbornly fight it as long as they can in a vain hope of turning the corner because the memory of Vietnam remains a huge bleeding ulcer in its memory and its psyche.

..and between Taliban and Nato, what we find is Afghan civilians dying and gettin maimed in ever greater numbers, and a country being torn to shreds in the name of religion on the one hand, and military vanity on the other.

[Long Duck Dong]

since there are such a anti war sentiment..... can we look at what happened when there was no war........... no * bad * us / nato ......

just what was going on ???? and why were people being tortured and killed ?? in their own country... oh thats right.... cos there was nobody to stop it.....

war is dirty, nasty and leads to unneeded deaths..... unfortunately.... so since the us / nato etc are wrong... I quess we should have left the people to their fate..... oh wait... thats the other thing we protest about, not leaving people to their fate, and to act without violence like we are doing to north korea.... oh wait.... the north koreans are suffering chronically cos of trade embargoes against north korea........ shit.... we can not win with war, we can not win with trade embargoes, we can not win with talking and protests......and we can not get the white flag waving pacifists to go over there and sort things out...... so yeah... I guess the military will have to do it.......
oh wait, we can't cos thats wrong too........

sighs..... I know.... lets all sit in a forum and complain.... that will fix it.... and keep us safe from getting our hands dirty...... while stating the rest of the world is wrong for what we are not doing ourselves.....and that is stopping the inhuman treatment and bloodshed in countries that are warring... and not warring.......

[darkeyes]

Which is where u and I differ Duckie.. I dont just sit on my arse and rattle away on my keyboard. I am actively involved in several anti war groups and amnesty international. I do believe that trade and economic embargos work.. the racist governments of Rhodesia for instance by one and South Africa by another were eventually brought to their knees by just such.. and the Soviet Bloc in the end was defeated in a relatively peaceful economic war..it is all long and slow and painful, but much preferable to agonies of the more violent alternative.

Yes people were dying, yet just how many more are dying because of conflict in that sad country? How much economic and environmental damage is being inflicted on Afganistan? When there is a large scale modern conflagration, there is always a human, an economic and an envirnomental cost. It will not be until after the war ends that the latter will be properly understood but it will be there for all to see..

Of course we hate tyranny, but one man's tyranny is a anothers paradise.. and yes I think the Taliban regime was nasty and if ever it gets power back it will again be nasty. But have we learned nothing? The taliban were the west's chosen instrument to get shot of a nasty regime, and now Karzai is the wests chosen to replace the Taliban.. and he and his are hardly much to write home about.. corrupt, nasty, intolerant just like that which went before.. he will take and then what? When the west withdraws as it will. When he kills and tortures and oppresses then what? When he shows his teeth to his people? The signs arent good that he is dedicated to the democratic ideal.. it is useful to him but we have had warnings of just what he and his cronies will be like when left to their own devices..

For change to work it has to be done from within.. it cannot be enforced from without unless it has the wholehearted support of the people.. the signs are not good that it has that.. and I fear for how it will all end, and once again I say that it will be the Afghan people who will suffer whatever the result...

We cannot go to war against every shitty bastard of a regime however much people would like to. When we have invariably over the last 60 years it has been against relatively weak and backward ones.. and with at very best mixed success. There are bigger and much tougher shitty regimes than the Taliban and Afghanistan (and some we actually support and help keep in power and arm... won't it be fun when they become the big bad wolf?)... and thankfully, wisely the toerags who run our countries know it, and will avoid warring with them like grim death, for then, we will soon find out.. no one wins..

[Long Duck Dong]

SA was brought to its knees, yeah.... but how many people were maimed and killed and raped while the talking and negotiations took place........

we can argue the merits of war v's peace time talks and what is more beneficial..... yet in both cases, we are not the ones dieing, being raped, tortured, maimed, imprisoned for life etc....... btw... thats the same thing that happens in our own countries as well...... and our own laws are not stopping it.... we are just punishing those that do it after the facts.....

meanwhile in the countries like north korea and other countries, including afghanistan etc.... we watched while it was going on.... and commented about it and remarked about it ..... then went apeshit when something was done about it.... cos it was not the * PC * way......

its a bit like the starving kids in 3rd world countries ..... how many years ?? 50 ? 60 ? have the kids been starving and dieing in their 10,000's and world vision and all them have been feeding the kids and giving them clear water and a education etc etc........

the simple fact is that people are dying in their 10's of 1000's not by war or warfare, but in peaceful countries.... and in fact its countries that are peaceful ( I am including germanies death count of the jews in germany ) that have the highest death counts last century ( 1900-1999 ).... not due to war.... but due to the fact that we like to sit around and talk about how good things can be.........

[Hephaestion]

But he has outed Afgan civilians who are aiding the US. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html) And he doesn't give a shit:

Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_wikileaks_gates_mullen_072910w/)

That makes him NO BETTER THAN THE GOVERNMENTS HE SEEKS TO CONFRONT! Worse, because he pretends to be better. (much like some people here) Assange is a hypocrite who took advantage of a soldiers principles...and in the end, it may not change anything after all. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/politics/washingtonpost/main6716730.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)As far as I'm concerned... Assange can take a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut into a field of rusty dildoes, because his shit is probably gonna get more people killed than would have been had he decided not to get cute.

*Taylor*


It is almost certain that the Afghans already know who is doing what and with who. They would have to be a totally disorganised rabble to be ignorant. They are proving to be anything but disorganised.

Right now it is Afghan civilians who are being killed in this war of moral supremacy. Acceptable collateral damage? Reminder it is not Wikileak's shit that is being aired. It is that of our coalition.


.

[darkeyes]

SA was brought to its knees, yeah.... but how many people were maimed and killed and raped while the talking and negotiations took place........

we can argue the merits of war v's peace time talks and what is more beneficial..... yet in both cases, we are not the ones dieing, being raped, tortured, maimed, imprisoned for life etc....... btw... thats the same thing that happens in our own countries as well...... and our own laws are not stopping it.... we are just punishing those that do it after the facts.....

meanwhile in the countries like north korea and other countries, including afghanistan etc.... we watched while it was going on.... and commented about it and remarked about it ..... then went apeshit when something was done about it.... cos it was not the * PC * way......

its a bit like the starving kids in 3rd world countries ..... how many years ?? 50 ? 60 ? have the kids been starving and dieing in their 10,000's and world vision and all them have been feeding the kids and giving them clear water and a education etc etc........

the simple fact is that people are dying in their 10's of 1000's not by war or warfare, but in peaceful countries.... and in fact its countries that are peaceful ( I am including germanies death count of the jews in germany ) that have the highest death counts last century ( 1900-1999 ).... not due to war.... but due to the fact that we like to sit around and talk about how good things can be.........

..and what u propose is we add to that vastly in those places we believe we have a right to march in to and impose our will and our ways upon them? Had South Africa ended up with a war to overthrow the regime of apartheid the death toll would have been immensely greater and the destruction to the country would have been catastrophic.. thats the way of war..having a fascist police force and an army suppress a people will always cause many deaths. Having them shoot and fight a war of survival would be ever so much greater in its destruction and its death toll, and so much more difficult in rebuilding a shattered nation and a decimated economy.

We are poles apart duckie.. if u truly believe that we have the right to invade and war on nations of which we disapprove, then what u do is to give those nations that same right. Then we are truly in the world of dog eats dog.. we in the west see things in a certain way.. other culture see things differently. We have no more right to invade and war on other countries than they have to war on and invade us simply because we disapprove of the regime however brutal it may be. There are other ways to skin a cat. Your world would be a far more unstable and dangerous world than ever mine would be.

We sit poles apart Duckie..

[tenni]

As far as the US Gates' comment about this exposing Afghans to certain death is concerned, I think that we need to ask the US and its supporters what they are doing about the soldiers who so coldly killed innocent Afghans in the video that Wikileaks released? It may not be argued both ways. The death of those innocent Afghans and thousands who are killed by NATO accidentally are worth less than any who may be killed by the Taliban for supporting NATO.

As citizens of NATO countries, we may only hold our own governments and military to account for what they do. If they are lying and deceiving us, then what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue to accept their lies under the guise "Its war. "What do you expect?" and only those civilians killed by the Taliban are to be counted.

No, the argument that the release of these documents is not a one way street.

[darkeyes]

As far as the US Gates' comment about this exposing Afghans to certain death is concerned, I think that we need to ask the US and its supporters what they are doing about the soldiers who so coldly killed innocent Afghans in the video that Wikileaks released? It may not be argued both ways. The death of those innocent Afghans and thousands who are killed by NATO accidentally are worth less than any who may be killed by the Taliban for supporting NATO.

As citizens of NATO countries, we may only hold our own governments and military to account for what they do. If they are lying and deceiving us, then what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue to accept their lies under the guise "Its war. "What do you expect?" and only those civilians killed by the Taliban are to be counted.

No, the argument that the release of these documents is not a one way street.

There is an interesting conundrum here Tenni is there not? That the taliban, the former government of Afghanistan, ousted by foriegn invasion feel that those named are traitors and so should be dealt with.. I have heard some on here say that same thing of those Americans they believe to be traitors. I don't happen to agree with dealing with anyone such as they wish, for in certain circumstances my beliefs see no contradiction in betraying my country, although I would not call it betrayal. But I know state and citizenry would.

[tenni]

There is an interesting conundrum here Tenni is there not? That the taliban, the former government of Afghanistan, ousted by foriegn invasion feel that those named are traitors and so should be dealt with.. I have heard some on here say that same thing of those Americans they believe to be traitors. I don't happen to agree with dealing with anyone such as they wish, for in certain circumstances my beliefs see no contradiction in betraying my country, although I would not call it betrayal. But I know state and citizenry would.

Yes Darkeyes It is an interesting condumdrum. Since our governments are lying to us, we need to always try to be vigilant about what they are saying to us. Gates is using the "poor victim" argument in a one way situation argument. The only inner turmoil that keeps popping into my head is how the Taliban will do this. Somehow, a beheading ,which I've never seen ..no thanks... seems more brutal than the images of the innocent Afghans trying to get away from the shootings by helicopter machine gun?. What does make the killing of innocent Afghans from a helicopter more unacceptable is what these US soldiers are saying as they kill the innocents. :(

Add to that reports of drone killings where someone is sitting safely in their own country and pushing a button to shoot/kill innocents based upon what the television camera is showing. All the impersonalized murders of possible innocents is done without any concern by our side. Western modern warfare seems to sanitize and try to protect our soldiers. Do as much as possible from afar because we are willing to spend more money on fancy ways of killing. The rich fighting the less rich seem to seek out ways to overpower "cleanly".

[void()]

"sighs..... I know.... lets all sit in a forum and complain.... that will fix it.... and keep us safe from getting our hands dirty...... while stating the rest of the world is wrong for what we are not doing ourselves.....and that is stopping the inhuman treatment and bloodshed in countries that are warring... and not warring......."

Some people.

Excuse me for having an opinion and expressing it. Others here are allowed such. I shan't any further. Thanks. Not all of us are as privileged to be able to do. Some of us have obligations negating what we can do. All we may is express an opinion. But I now shan't. So go ahead and do or say what you will. Again thanks. You've shown me exactly who not to trust or call friend.

I'm out of the forum, chat. Sorry, won't tolerate any longer. If you need or want to talk with me, check yahoo, ask Cat or elian. It's no longer worth visiting here. And LDD, yes, I know you too have an opinion and can express it. I'm tired of war, period. Tired of friends becoming enemies, brothers killing mothers, sisters killing brothers and so on. And it's been brought here to the forum and destroyed it for me.

I'll not remain and post if even those I consider friends turn to enemies. That's not right by any means. So I'm out.

[TaylorMade]

It is almost certain that the Afghans already know who is doing what and with who. They would have to be a totally disorganised rabble to be ignorant. They are proving to be anything but disorganised.

Right now it is Afghan civilians who are being killed in this war of moral supremacy. Acceptable collateral damage? Reminder it is not Wikileak's shit that is being aired. It is that of our coalition.

.

So, let's let them die because it's the COALITIONS fault...and they would have died anyway. That's just as blood thirsty and callused as the perception of the powers you stand in judgement of! What. Fucking. Gall.

Why is Wiki doing it? We know what started this whole conflict. . .Wikileaks act of leaking secrets (and some secrets are secrets for a REASON) is dirty laundry in and of itself. . .the only difference is their cause is purer in your eyes? FUCK THAT.

And Wiki leaks motivation to do is is what. . .to end the war? Chances are, that won't happen. And anyone with half a brain probably knew that. The fact that they have almost no motive or concern actually makes them WORSE in my eyes.

They're hypocritical assholes who don't give a shit about anyone but their fucking cause.

*Taylor*

[tenni]

Taylor
Why are you so much more outraged at Wikileaks rather than the governments (ours) that are lying to us? Why is it acceptable for you that US military shot innocents from a helicopter with such glee? No outrage there? Why?

What about the drone killings of innocent Afghans by a military person somewhere thousands of km away in the US deciding whether to shoot or not? No outrage for that?

[TaylorMade]

Taylor
Why are you so much more outraged at Wikileaks rather than the governments (ours) that are lying to us? Why is it acceptable for you that US military shot innocents from a helicopter with such glee? No outrage there? Why?

What about the drone killings of innocent Afghans by a military person somewhere thousands of km away in the US deciding whether to shoot or not? No outrage for that?

Because Wikileaks' aim was to be opposed to it, to stop it. . .but yet they don't give a shit who gets killed...doesn't that outrage you? They are getting civilians killed as a response to someone else getting civilians killed.

I don't know who told people governments are supposed to be good. . .but as much as I understood that the original point of the Afgan conflict was to root out the Taliban, and in a place such as that, civilians WOULD get killed.

Government isn't good, but the alternative is much worse.


*Taylor*

[Hephaestion]

Taylor

"....They're hypocritical assholes who don't give a shit about anyone but their fucking cause......"

Although the comment is a bit strong, that's right. The coalition leaders are hypocritical assholes who don't give a shit about anyone but their fucking cause. The faith that you'd get there in the end was strong. Well done!

.

[DuckiesDarling]

Heph, why are you twisting Taylor's words? You know very well she made that comment in regards to Assange and his backers.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread supporting this war, but some of us are rightfully appalled at Assange and his leak of documents that are costing civilian and military lives.

Some of you do not follow what you preach, if all human lives are precious why consider some "collateral damage"? Or is the only human life worth saving one that fits your guidelines.

That's what you appear to be saying, it's fine for soldiers to die and for the civilians who help the soldiers to die, but don't let any of those poor terrorist fall under the rifle of an American returning fire.

Hypocritical isn't it? :2cents:

[darkeyes]

Because Wikileaks' aim was to be opposed to it, to stop it. . .but yet they don't give a shit who gets killed...doesn't that outrage you? They are getting civilians killed as a response to someone else getting civilians killed.

I don't know who told people governments are supposed to be good. . .but as much as I understood that the original point of the Afgan conflict was to root out the Taliban, and in a place such as that, civilians WOULD get killed.

Government isn't good, but the alternative is much worse.


*Taylor*

Believe me I have real personal conflict about this. It could have been done better, for instace by removing reference to names, but that will not always be effective in preserving life.. certain details may identify or at least cast suspicion on some, and yet on balance I believe if nothing else it will reinforce our suspicion of governments especially in time of war.. even more so I hope that it will be the catalyst to a reawakening of the people who are supposed to be the real power of the land.. the citizens themselves.. and maybe we shall see the power of the people force government to end this craziness.. it may not be, but I believe there are people working right now to that end.. in the next few weeks I shall be doing precisely that in my own city.. a small contribution to a larger campaign of trying to achieve a peace and an end to this stupid war..

The US had much warning that this as coming and they had a good idea what was going to be leaked.. in the time leading up to the leak, they, together with their allies and the Afghan government should have been running round like crazy trying to get into protective custody or provide as much protection for those Afghans as they could.. they, like any occupying forcce have a duty of care to their informants and others who have no been exposed to danger. If need be to provide safe havens in their own backyard to people who have risked their lives to aid them in their war effort.

Yes this will be a huge undertaking, but a necessary one and one which the Nato powers have a moral obligation to provide. Just as the police would in trying to shield the identity of their grasses and others who have helped them especially in the most serious criminal cases...

They will be unable to defend or protect them all against the Taliban I have no doubt, but it is their duty to those people and their families that they make every effort to protect and save as many lives as they can.

Such is the messiness of war.. nothing is easy and nothing is straightforward.. whether wikileaks and its owners are hypocritical I dont know.. maybe.. but its done now and I think it is a service which in the longer term people may appreciate more.. yet it may have the opposite effect as governments and militaries clamp down on information and will make it so much easier for anyone to get to the truth.. time will tell.. I hope it will have been an excerise which will bring more good than ill.. but I do have concerns that it will have quite the opposite effect..

[tenni]

"Yes this will be a huge undertaking, but a necessary one and one which the Nato powers have a moral obligation to provide. Just as the police would in trying to shield the identity of their grasses and others who have helped them especially in the most serious criminal cases..."


Darkeyes
I agree that such a checking and seeing a moral obligation to protect these Afghans might have been "nice". However, it is the US documents and only the US might see the documents ahead of time. Even the US would be guessing which documents.

A little kink in your position and the concern of those who believe that Wiki is wrong to publish these documents is that it has already been shown in Iraq that the US cared shit nothing for those Iraqis who acted as translators when they and their families were in need of protection. There were reports of Iraqis who had to flee Iraq for Egypt etc. or be killed. They were refugees and even in Egypt their lives were in danger. They turned to the US to gain entrance to the US. The last report that I heard was that almost no Iraqi whose life was threatened after assisting the US was given aslyum in the US!

I agree that the releasing of names of Afghans who helped NATO is disturbing. Today, there was a commentary on the CBCnewsworld comparing this disclosure to the Pentagon Papers a generation or so ago. The Pentagon Papers were turned over to the New York Times (I think) and the newspaper made a decision as what would be released. In this case, the whistle blower has skipped over traditional newspapers and turned to the internet. Wiki has done no censoring it seems. I can see why but this has left a loop hole for the US Gates to attack to camoflauge the other issues. Apparently, many, many more hits have happened than could ever be imagined with the Pentagon Papers in the older style.

I think that Wikileaks should be challenged but if all that happens is that the attention is turned towards disgust with Wiki, the manipulators have won. Why is it that the most opposed to Wikileaks seems to come from the USA? ..or am I wrong. Those of us outside of the US sees the delimna and issue but are not side tracked to ignore the guilt of our country's government. I do think that most Canucks though don't give a damn about this though.

[Hephaestion]

Heph, why are you twisting Taylor's words? You know very well she made that comment in regards to Assange and his backers.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread supporting this war, but some of us are rightfully appalled at Assange and his leak of documents that are costing civilian and military lives.

Some of you do not follow what you preach, if all human lives are precious why consider some "collateral damage"? Or is the only human life worth saving one that fits your guidelines.

That's what you appear to be saying, it's fine for soldiers to die and for the civilians who help the soldiers to die, but don't let any of those poor terrorist fall under the rifle of an American returning fire.

Hypocritical isn't it? :2cents:


The words Taylor used were as applicable to 'our' side as they were to the 'other' so I borrowed them to emphasize that.

Any hypochrisy lies in the concept that coalition fire only ever scores a legitimate target. However, when the largely indigenous people of the area (hence the emphasis on the term 'insurgents') fire back, that is 'terrorism'.

Outlines of countries can be highly artifical. They were drawn in yesteryear to suit and took little notice of the nature of the people concerned.

There is also the terminology of 'terrorist'. Our side are 'terrorists' from the opposition's perspective. That concept is reinforced when innocents are shot up 'in mistake' - remotely. 'Hearts and minds' rings hollow in the background

We have managed to get ourselves into another mess girded with misinformation. It is this which is costing lives unnecessarily. Even if we were to win militarily, would the solution that we impose endure naturally? The odds are unlikely so.

Wikileak is nothing more than a counteraction to the misinformation that we the electorate are continuously fed.


.

[darkeyes]

"Yes this will be a huge undertaking, but a necessary one and one which the Nato powers have a moral obligation to provide. Just as the police would in trying to shield the identity of their grasses and others who have helped them especially in the most serious criminal cases..."


Darkeyes
I agree that such a checking and seeing a moral obligation to protect these Afghans might have been "nice". However, it is the US documents and only the US might see the documents ahead of time. Even the US would be guessing which documents.

A little kink in your position and the concern of those who believe that Wiki is wrong to publish these documents is that it has already been shown in Iraq that the US cared shit nothing for those Iraqis who acted as translators when they and their families were in need of protection. There were reports of Iraqis who had to flee Iraq for Egypt etc. or be killed. They were refugees and even in Egypt their lives were in danger. They turned to the US to gain entrance to the US. The last report that I heard was that almost no Iraqi whose life was threatened after assisting the US was given aslyum in the US!

I agree that the releasing of names of Afghans who helped NATO is disturbing. Today, there was a commentary on the CBCnewsworld comparing this disclosure to the Pentagon Papers a generation or so ago. The Pentagon Papers were turned over to the New York Times (I think) and the newspaper made a decision as what would be released. In this case, the whistle blower has skipped over traditional newspapers and turned to the internet. Wiki has done no censoring it seems. I can see why but this has left a loop hole for the US Gates to attack to camoflauge the other issues. Apparently, many, many more hits have happened than could ever be imagined with the Pentagon Papers in the older style.

I think that Wikileaks should be challenged but if all that happens is that the attention is turned towards disgust with Wiki, the manipulators have won. Why is it that the most opposed to Wikileaks seems to come from the USA? ..or am I wrong. Those of us outside of the US sees the delimna and issue but are not side tracked to ignore the guilt of our country's government. I do think that most Canucks though don't give a damn about this though.

I agree I doubt the US, the Brits or anyone else care too much about those who have helped them.. and so I am not optimistic about such a scenario as I outlined taking place.. maybe a few of the more important who remain of use to them but they will soon be dropped in it too I fear. I hope I'm wrong but I do fear you're position is the more on the ball..

I do think most of the opposition to wikileaks will be from the US at least from ordinary citizens.. other Nato govts will be somewhat hot under the collar and will show solidarity with the US, but most Europeans do believe I think that releasing the logs was the right thing for to do. Even allowing for my concerns about the possible human cost by doing so, I am still sure that it was. No such decision can be taken without involving risks and wikileans publication is not different. That does not mean however that as one who is a pacifist, and treasures human life above almost all things that I do not have serious pangs of conscience for what the consequences may be for a lot of people.

[R. Kestrel]

Some of you do not follow what you preach, if all human lives are precious why consider some "collateral damage"? Or is the only human life worth saving one that fits your guidelines.

That's what you appear to be saying, it's fine for soldiers to die and for the civilians who help the soldiers to die, but don't let any of those poor terrorist fall under the rifle of an American returning fire.

Hypocritical isn't it? :2cents:
You seem to have problems comprehending what people are actually saying here. But it must be hard to see the monitor when you're wearing a tear-soaked US flag as a blindfold.

[Long Duck Dong]

..and what u propose is we add to that vastly in those places we believe we have a right to march in to and impose our will and our ways upon them? Had South Africa ended up with a war to overthrow the regime of apartheid the death toll would have been immensely greater and the destruction to the country would have been catastrophic.. thats the way of war..having a fascist police force and an army suppress a people will always cause many deaths. Having them shoot and fight a war of survival would be ever so much greater in its destruction and its death toll, and so much more difficult in rebuilding a shattered nation and a decimated economy.

We are poles apart duckie.. if u truly believe that we have the right to invade and war on nations of which we disapprove, then what u do is to give those nations that same right. Then we are truly in the world of dog eats dog.. we in the west see things in a certain way.. other culture see things differently. We have no more right to invade and war on other countries than they have to war on and invade us simply because we disapprove of the regime however brutal it may be. There are other ways to skin a cat. Your world would be a far more unstable and dangerous world than ever mine would be.

We sit poles apart Duckie..

actually I do not support war and warfare, and I do not support peaceful protest as viable solutions.... I see a place for both of them in the world

it is on the same level as the police force.... there are times that you can talk a person into surrendering.... then there are times that you have no chance but to shoot somebody.....

as for the world being a unstable and dangerous place...... well history will show that a large part of the world, in fact the majority was never peacefully settled.... it was invaded or conquered or * discovered * by a small number of races...... if they have not done that..... the world would be a lot more diverse and interesting..... and a lot of us would not live where we do now....... we may not even exist.....

so its not me that is poles apart with anybody..... I am seeing the valid nature of both sides, the pro and anti war people..... and I am walking the middle line.....as I can see the merits of both sides......

[TaylorMade]

The words Taylor used were as applicable to 'our' side as they were to the 'other' so I borrowed them to emphasize that.

Any hypochrisy lies in the concept that coalition fire only ever scores a legitimate target. However, when the largely indigenous people of the area (hence the emphasis on the term 'insurgents') fire back, that is 'terrorism'.

Outlines of countries can be highly artifical. They were drawn in yesteryear to suit and took little notice of the nature of the people concerned.

There is also the terminology of 'terrorist'. Our side are 'terrorists' from the opposition's perspective. That concept is reinforced when innocents are shot up 'in mistake' - remotely. 'Hearts and minds' rings hollow in the background

We have managed to get ourselves into another mess girded with misinformation. It is this which is costing lives unnecessarily. Even if we were to win militarily, would the solution that we impose endure naturally? The odds are unlikely so.

Wikileak is nothing more than a counteraction to the misinformation that we the electorate are continuously fed.


.


I'll thank you to wipe off the words that you pull out your ass before you put them in my mouth.

I'm going to put a question forth: Quis custodet ispos custodes? If you want Wikileaks as your investigator, shouldn't you hold them to the same standards that our governments have failed to hold? If you don't, I'd rather fucking have my government.

So, is the death of civilians via the Taliban preferable? Your misdirection back to , "But our governments..." seems to be a resounding yes. I'm all for truth, but if we are getting it at the same cost of blood that you rail at our governments, then it's not noble, it's more of the same under a different name. Because if leaking secrets is noble, someone better pardon Scooter Libby.

*Taylor*

[DuckiesDarling]

You seem to have problems comprehending what people are actually saying here. But it must be hard to see the monitor when you're wearing a tear-soaked US flag as a blindfold.

I have no problems at all seeing the people who prefer that people die to prove their point while all the while decrying other deaths due to war as inhumane. At least Fran gets it. All deaths are wrong and the ones that would not have happened except for the release of this information are even more wrong.

And as for tear-soaked US flag, that is so insulting. Maybe you should realize it's not tears, it's blood. The blood of our civilians lost in 9/11, the blood of our soldiers who are risking their lives in the name of freedom, the blood of everyone who has lost the most precious thing they had to give so that someone else could survive. So take your preachy attitude and join Tenni on ignore. Have a nice day.

[Long Duck Dong]

[I]

A little kink in your position and the concern of those who believe that Wiki is wrong to publish these documents is that it has already been shown in Iraq that the US cared shit nothing for those Iraqis who acted as translators when they and their families were in need of protection. There were reports of Iraqis who had to flee Iraq for Egypt etc. or be killed. They were refugees and even in Egypt their lives were in danger. They turned to the US to gain entrance to the US. The last report that I heard was that almost no Iraqi whose life was threatened after assisting the US was given aslyum in the US!


I do not see canada stepping up to the plate either.......

even in peacetime there is refugees that flee countries for other countries, its generally called political asylum..... however currently, its not revealed where people are going as to state that countries like the us and the uk and nz are housing iraqs, is just going stir up more issues in those countries....and you really do not want to have pro afghanistan sympathizers in your own country, going after suspected us allied iraqs ....

misdirection and concealment of the truth, sometimes, is the safer option as it can save lives too......
unless you think the witness protection program is wrong too.....

but like I said,... if the us is not looking after them..... then please point me to where canada is ......

I already know that we have a number of them in nz, far away from afghanistan ....so ahh... can we say that people are getting looked after

[darkeyes]

I'll thank you to wipe off the words that you pull out your ass before you put them in my mouth.

I'm going to put a question forth: Quis custodet ispos custodes? If you want Wikileaks as your investigator, shouldn't you hold them to the same standards that our governments have failed to hold? If you don't, I'd rather fucking have my government.

So, is the death of civilians via the Taliban preferable? Your misdirection back to , "But our governments..." seems to be a resounding yes. I'm all for truth, but if we are getting it at the same cost of blood that you rail at our governments, then it's not noble, it's more of the same under a different name. Because if leaking secrets is noble, someone better pardon Scooter Libby.

*Taylor*

Leaking secrets it is easily argued, at least as noble as the keeping of them.. and very often much more so...:)

[darkeyes]

I have no problems at all seeing the people who prefer that people die to prove their point while all the while decrying other deaths due to war as inhumane. At least Fran gets it. All deaths are wrong and the ones that would not have happened except for the release of this information are even more wrong.

And as for tear-soaked US flag, that is so insulting. Maybe you should realize it's not tears, it's blood. The blood of our civilians lost in 9/11, the blood of our soldiers who are risking their lives in the name of freedom, the blood of everyone who has lost the most precious thing they had to give so that someone else could survive. So take your preachy attitude and join Tenni on ignore. Have a nice day.

There's that word again.. Darling, darling, I do wish Americans wouldn't throw that word about so freely.. for this war isn't about freedom at all.. at least not freedom as I understand it.. and it never has been. What its about is the destruction of an idea of which the United States disapproves (as indeed do I) and the installation and defence of a government sympathetic to it principally and the west generally. It certainly isn't about giving freedom to the Afghan people.. if it comes along fine, but thats not the objective. But with Karzai as the man.. I doubt that's going to happen..

[darkeyes]

So, is the death of civilians via the Taliban preferable? Your misdirection back to , "But our governments..." seems to be a resounding yes.
*Taylor*

I do wish sometimes you would put your brain into gear, Taylor.. Heph hasn't said any such thing anywhere I have read.. you do have such a peculiar way of reading and understanding what people say..

[Hephaestion]

I'll thank you to wipe off the words that you pull out your ass before you put them in my mouth.

I'm going to put a question forth: Quis custodet ispos custodes? If you want Wikileaks as your investigator, shouldn't you hold them to the same standards that our governments have failed to hold? If you don't, I'd rather fucking have my government.

So, is the death of civilians via the Taliban preferable? Your misdirection back to , "But our governments..." seems to be a resounding yes. I'm all for truth, but if we are getting it at the same cost of blood that you rail at our governments, then it's not noble, it's more of the same under a different name. Because if leaking secrets is noble, someone better pardon Scooter Libby.

*Taylor*

1) They were your words so you should have found them palatable.

2) In this case WikiLeak observes, not guards, the activities of the coalition on our behalf. We guard our politiicans assuming that we are kept informed.

3) If you see Scooter Libby as falling into the same category of rightful liberation of information then you go for it. It's your country to fight for.

4) No one is denying you your government. All that has happened has been an expose on what all of our leaders have been doing. Egg on face time.

5) Death of anybody in their own country by someone else not so is a tragedy irrespective of the colours of the flag.

Enjoy.

[Hephaestion]

01 Aug 2010 - the withdrawal of the Netherlands from the coalition forces has been announced.

The Netherlands have been credited with a better record of activities than the USA and UK. Germany is showing signs of wanting to follow the Netherlands.

[Long Duck Dong]

In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day an acquaintance ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about Diogenes?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied, "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

'Triple filter?" asked the acquaintance.

"That's right," Socrates continued, "Before you talk to me about Diogenes let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

"No," the man said, "Actually I just heard about it."

"All right," said Socrates, "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about Diogenes something good?"

"No, on the contrary..."

"So," Socrates continued, "You want to tell me something about Diogenes that may be bad, even though you're not certain it's true?"

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued, "You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter, the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about Diogenes going to be useful to me?"

"No, not really."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "If what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me or anyone at all?"

The man was bewildered and ashamed.

This is an example of why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.


















It also explains why Socrates never found out that Diogenes was shagging his wife.

[darkeyes]

Ta Duckie very instructive.. brill lesson on wy we shudn walk 'round wiv our eyes shut 2 the shite goin on 'round us...

[darkeyes]

01 Aug 2010 - the withdrawal of the Netherlands from the coalition forces has been announced.

The Netherlands have been credited with a better record of activities than the USA and UK. Germany is showing signs of wanting to follow the Netherlands.

Knew about this for a while, Heph...as soon as the Government fell a while back it was inevitable..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10829837

Thing about the Dutch is that they were for moren just blowin the hell outa their charges....

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran, you have your version of things, I have mine, and I'll thank you to not tell me not to talk about one of the tenets of Americanism. It's not thrown around freely, every use is paid for in someone else's blood.

[darkeyes]

Fran, you have your version of things, I have mine, and I'll thank you to not tell me not to talk about one of the tenets of Americanism. It's not thrown around freely, every use is paid for in someone else's blood.

I havent told u not to talk about anything.. I just don't agree with your interpretation...or America's... and yes.. it is indeed invariably paid for in some elses blood.. u believe it is fine with me.. just allow me the the right to take issue, just as I do u with me about anything u like..

[Long Duck Dong]

I havent told u not to talk about anything.. I just don't agree with your interpretation...or America's... and yes.. it is indeed invariably paid for in some elses blood.. u believe it is fine with me.. just allow me the the right to take issue, just as I do u with me about anything u like..

ok.... what is freedom ???

I understand that we all have differing understandings of freedom and being free, but what is freedom and does it really exist ?

[tenni]

Fran, you have your version of things, I have mine, and I'll thank you to not tell me not to talk about one of the tenets of Americanism. It's not thrown around freely, every use is paid for in someone else's blood.

LOL You are so brainwashed. If you need to kill to have freedom then you are not free at all. Are you not a slave to violence?

[Long Duck Dong]

LOL You are so brainwashed. If you need to kill to have freedom then you are not free at all. Are you not a slave to violence?

tell that to any person that has had to use lethal force, by choice or not by choice, in order to protect themselves, their family, their town, their country

yes you can be a slave to violence, but would you perfer to do nothing and become a slave to somebody else.. ????

it is easy to make your statement tenni, but you have not faced the business end of a gun and had to make a choice..... many soldiers and civilians have....... and far many more have not lived to talk about it

if your country was invaded by a aggressive army, would you stand up against them.... or sit down and wait for them to come to you

[darkeyes]

tell that to any person that has had to use lethal force, by choice or not by choice, in order to protect themselves, their family, their town, their country

yes you can be a slave to violence, but would you perfer to do nothing and become a slave to somebody else.. ????

it is easy to make your statement tenni, but you have not faced the business end of a gun and had to make a choice..... many soldiers and civilians have....... and far many more have not lived to talk about it

if your country was invaded by a aggressive army, would you stand up against them.... or sit down and wait for them to come to you

If my country was invaded by an aggressive army? Would I stand up to it? Maybe.. much depends on what is expected of me, and more importantly the citizens of my country. Any resistance by me during an invasion or its succesful aftermath would certainly not involve me killing any of them, and if I somehow did so, I doubt I could live with myself afterward.

There are other ways to stop an aggressor than violence.. historically there are nations who have evicted an invader by campaigns of civil disobedience, or at the very least an occupier, but what else is an occupying force but an invader?

Being a pacifist is not easy, especially one who does not believe in violence even in defence of ones self. Indeed in the occasions I have been inolved in violence I have refused to fight back in the sense that I have not tried to overcome my attackers, authority or personally by violent means.. I believe as human beings we should be better than that. I have resisted but never tried to harm.. at least not since I was 10 years old. I try to live up to what I believe because I believe I am better than that now. Even in such circumstances I do have a gob, and that has invariably helped me out of many a tight corner.. not always but I am still around.

You and others can poo poo it all Duckie.. I don't mind. I do accept it will be a long long long time before we reach a world of pacifism.. we may never, but I dream of it and believe the day will come when people are free of war and settle their differences by peaceful means.. until that day, I live as I live and try to be an example as to how human beings can act in dangerous circumstances..

.. just one other point on this subject.. it does sadly involve violence.. our countries have invaded a soveriegn nation and replaced its regime with one which our governments much prefer to do business with.. forget the rights and wrongs of the Taliban and whether it was a nasty pasty regime or not.. Afghans by the thousand are doing just what you say we should do in the event of an invasion.. even more are providing logistical and moral support for them...yet our governments and media call them insurgents, terrorists, extremists.. and what do they do? Much the same against an invader that the peoples of Europe did against the Nazi's in WW2, the peoples of the far east did against the Japanese, the Jews did against the British in Palestine, and yet they were not terrorists.. I fail to see the difference.. what they do is, as they see it, fight for their country's freedom in whatever way they can with whatever resources they can and supplied from wherever they can get the weaponry.. I happen to believe how they fight is appalling, but for different reasons from most.. whether invader or freedom fighter, both inflict terror to achieve their aim.. one death in a war is too many, one injury.. whether to soldier, freedon fighter or civilian.. the firing of one bullet.. what a fucking waste..

[Long Duck Dong]

well I read what you wrote..... and I was hoping that you would have answered my question about freedom.......

I can not help but reread your comments..... if your country was invaded by a aggressor .... you can not say how you would react...or how you would stand up to them........

there is a time and place for talking and reasoning..... it doesn't mean the people that you are talking to, are going to listen....as karzai is finding out with the taliban, who are still refusing to enter into peace talks and bring a end to a war that has already gone on too long

and with things like 9/11 how do you reason and talk with people that will fly plane loads of people into buildings....?????

all I can say to that, is give your local vets and military personnel a big hug....... its cos of them, that you may never have to find out how you would react....... cos they are the ones that will die, to protect your right not to fight...... and they will do that, as some people will not come to the table with peace talks, they will come with ak 47's

[R. Kestrel]

I have no problems at all seeing the people who prefer that people die to prove their point while all the while decrying other deaths due to war as inhumane. At least Fran gets it. All deaths are wrong and the ones that would not have happened except for the release of this information are even more wrong.

And as for tear-soaked US flag, that is so insulting. Maybe you should realize it's not tears, it's blood. The blood of our civilians lost in 9/11, the blood of our soldiers who are risking their lives in the name of freedom, the blood of everyone who has lost the most precious thing they had to give so that someone else could survive. So take your preachy attitude and join Tenni on ignore. Have a nice day.
http://www.n6iap.com/image/WTC-Eagle.jpg

[TaylorMade]

1) They were your words so you should have found them palatable.

2) In this case WikiLeak observes, not guards, the activities of the coalition on our behalf. We guard our politiicans assuming that we are kept informed.

3) If you see Scooter Libby as falling into the same category of rightful liberation of information then you go for it. It's your country to fight for.

4) No one is denying you your government. All that has happened has been an expose on what all of our leaders have been doing. Egg on face time.

5) Death of anybody in their own country by someone else not so is a tragedy irrespective of the colours of the flag.

Enjoy.

There were my words, twisted into a meaning they didn't intend. . .taken, and shit out in a form I CLEARLY not intend.

By leaking out intellegence, they are more than observing , they are ACTING. On what? Supposed moral (by whose morals, Lord alone knows!) principle. Their actions, whether they like it or not, is meant to be an opposition, a gambit to end the conflict. But these actions create an equivalent result, leaving their position as observers and advancers of a better path of action questionable at best.

And exposing civilians to repercussions for doing what they thought was right. This is more than an egg on the face. This is further bloodshed by the side that wants to stop it.

So..death by the Taliban who in many cases ARE their own countrymen. . .we're cool with that, I guess. (notice I didn't use your own words. ;) )

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

well I read what you wrote..... and I was hoping that you would have answered my question about freedom.......


U want me 2 reply 2 that? Didn c it till jus now an only cos ya mentioned it.. not rite now hun.. life has got in way..an don miss gud barbie's for ne 1...;)

[darkeyes]

So..death by the Taliban who in many cases ARE their own countrymen. . .we're cool with that, I guess. (notice I didn't use your own words. ;) )

*Taylor*

Nope we're not cool with that.. no more than we are cool with the even greater numbers of Afghan's killed by Nato either by accident or design? Nor are we cool on combatants being killed on either side..

[tenni]

"if your country was invaded by a aggressive army, would you stand up against them.... or sit down and wait for them to come to you"

We are subtly invaded every day and every week by US Imperialism, American Exceptionalism and US multi-national capitalists in so many subtle ways. Our airwaves have been full of US propaganda for decades and decades. We are the mouse that sleeps next to the Elephant on one side and Mother Russia on the other. We are physically bigger than the elephant but few in numbers. We usually prefer the Elephant but you need to be so careful as the elephant plays rather dirty and you know what happens if an elephant rolls over on you. They are our brothers and sisters but you know how older siblings can be such bullies...:bigrin:

The last time that the US physically invaded Upper Canada, they were defeated and sent home as failures in their attempt to expand their empire here. They have succeeded in subtle ways economically and culturally ever since. Still, we remain uniquely sovereign as a bilingual country that has the freedom of choice for same sex marriage that the US does not. Life is far from perfect though. We are as free as Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France or the USA.(so wtf do they talk about freedom so much for..the US is not so special) We use to be more for peace. We have become more bloody since 2002. I speak here and there to our brothers and sisters who do not understand their dark side of their nation. If they physically invaded us again, I may become a freedom fighter that you may be sure of.

AFGHAN DEATHS
Today on CBC newworld, there was a report about a protest in Kabul over the slaughter of innocent civilians. Images of Afghan children who had been killed were carried. An organization I believe called "Afghan Watchdog" reported the following:
a/ 60% of the civilian casualties were found to be caused by the Taliban
(that means 40% of the civilian deaths are caused by NATO)
b/ the total number of deaths of civilians this year is way up

A Canadian military person stated that the Afghans must now decide which direction that they want their country to go. Kharzai or the Taliban.

[tenni]

Robert Fulford connected several "secrecy" events of the past few weeks and the dismantling of secrecy to come up with the following statements. (two were in Canada and two in the USA of which the Wikileak documents and a Washington Post revelation of secrecy in the US government unravelling with more than 854 000 now having top secret clearance in the US government)

" We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the promiscuous secrecy that’s become a basic tool of government. In my view, that can’t come too soon.
Over-used, as it is in the United States and Canada (let alone more autocratic nations), secrecy becomes oppressively undemocratic. It hides important facts from the public, making it hard for us to judge government decisions. It encourages paranoia. It makes security agencies dumber than necessary by shielding them from open discussion; that’s one reason why, in the 1980s, the CIA badly misunderstood the Soviet economy."

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/robert-fulford-the-end-of-secrecy/#ixzz0vPYyjrmj

[Long Duck Dong]

"if your country was invaded by a aggressive army, would you stand up against them.... or sit down and wait for them to come to you"

We are subtly invaded every day and every week by US Imperialism, American Exceptionalism and US multi-national capitalists in so many subtle ways. Our airwaves have been full of US propaganda for decades and decades. We are the mouse that sleeps next to the Elephant on one side and Mother Russia on the other. We are physically bigger than the elephant but few in numbers. We usually prefer the Elephant but you need to be so careful as the elephant plays rather dirty and you know what happens if an elephant rolls over on you. They are our brothers and sisters but you know how older siblings can be such bullies...:bigrin:

The last time that the US physically invaded Upper Canada, they were defeated and sent home as failures in their attempt to expand their empire here. They have succeeded in subtle ways economically and culturally ever since. Still, we remain uniquely sovereign as a bilingual country that has the freedom of choice for same sex marriage that the US does not. Life is far from perfect though. We are as free as Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France or the USA.(so wtf do they talk about freedom so much for..the US is not so special) We use to be more for peace. We have become more bloody since 2002. I speak here and there to our brothers and sisters who do not understand their dark side of their nation. If they physically invaded us again, I may become a freedom fighter that you may be sure of.


canada is under no obligation to ally with the us or buy their goods or import and export to the us....... and the same applies to any other country.....
but I kinda get the feeling that you do not speak for canada, tenni and that the canadian government is intelligent enuf to realise that canada can not stand alone...... and survive..... as you can not cut off canadian citizens from technology and consumerables that canada can not provide......

you can sit there and slam the hell out of the us as much as you want..... but based on what I can see.... the us and other countries have contributed much in the way of inventions, technology, medicines etc etc....... and what has canada given to the world ????

[Hephaestion]

There were my words, twisted into a meaning they didn't intend. . .taken, and shit out in a form I CLEARLY not intend.

By leaking out intellegence, they are more than observing , they are ACTING. On what? Supposed moral (by whose morals, Lord alone knows!) principle. Their actions, whether they like it or not, is meant to be an opposition, a gambit to end the conflict. But these actions create an equivalent result, leaving their position as observers and advancers of a better path of action questionable at best.

And exposing civilians to repercussions for doing what they thought was right. This is more than an egg on the face. This is further bloodshed by the side that wants to stop it.

So..death by the Taliban who in many cases ARE their own countrymen. . .we're cool with that, I guess. (notice I didn't use your own words. ;) )

*Taylor*

Your words were your words. They were ambivalent and useful so I thank you for them.

Doesn't matter what grounds WikiLeak were acting on. They gave us the domestic voters the information we were starved of. Information essential to a democracy which we are told that we live in.

So often this site carries the concept that if there is collateral damage on the other side, it is acceptable. When its our turn to carry the risk (not actuallity) there is a whine that the other side has an advantage.

Incidentally, there is generosity extended here by interpreting your '...bloodshed BY the side that wants to stop it....' (an unfortunate truism) as meaning '....bloodshed but ON the side of the side that claims to want to stop it....'. The exta words are a gift to render greater accuracy.

Thank you for accepting that the Taliban are the Afghans' own countrymen. That is they are not the misdecribed 'insurgents'. This is technically a civil war, preciptated by us and made worse by us.

The Afghans are doing what they think is right. It just does not agree with what we think is right. The advantage they have morally is that it is their country. This is something that we exploited when the Russians were there.

[darkeyes]

canada is under no obligation to ally with the us or buy their goods or import and export to the us....... and the same applies to any other country.....
but I kinda get the feeling that you do not speak for canada, tenni and that the canadian government is intelligent enuf to realise that canada can not stand alone...... and survive..... as you can not cut off canadian citizens from technology and consumerables that canada can not provide......

you can sit there and slam the hell out of the us as much as you want..... but based on what I can see.... the us and other countries have contributed much in the way of inventions, technology, medicines etc etc....... and what has canada given to the world ????

Marie Delta accused you of being dismississive in another thread Duckie, and I have accused you of being contemptuous.. this post is both...

http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Canadian.htm

Try again, darling.

[Long Duck Dong]

Marie Delta accused you of being dismississive in another thread Duckie, and I have accused you of being contemptuous.. this post is both...

http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Canadian.htm

Try again, darling.

who invented the telephone ????? and where did they come from..... and where was it made and patented ???

cos unless my history and knowledge is wrong..... bell was not canadian, but scottish, the phone was patented in the us, not canada....
# Telephone Invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876

and its listed as a canadian invention ?????

jesus christ fran..... did you read that site first ??????

I have no issues with being wrong but when you try to prove me wrong, using facts that are incorrect.... you make a fool of yourself.....

as for the dismissive remark... that was marie getting worked up cos I looked at a issue from all points, not just one point of view and I refused to just look at things from one persons point of view only

[darkeyes]

who invented the telephone ????? and where did they come from..... and where was it made and patented ???

cos unless my history and knowledge is wrong..... bell was not canadian, but scottish, the phone was patented in the us, not canada....
# Telephone Invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876

and its listed as a canadian invention ?????

jesus christ fran..... did you read that site first ??????

when you prove me wrong, I am wrong..... but when you try to prove me wrong, using facts that are incorrect.... you make a fool of yourself.....

I am the first to admit that Alec Bell was Scottish.. although several American friends I have used to think otherwise...there is an argument about whether he actually did invent the telephone but history tells us that he was.. he certainly won a court case about it.. and whether he did invent it first or not he was certainly a great inventor.. but why he is there I dont know.. but it doesn't alter the fact that Canadians have made many inventions which have helped shape our world as it is today.. my point still stands... if even only half that list is accurate..

I too refuse to look at things from one point of view... but my conclusions tend to be hugely different from not just you, but many people's.. thats why I cant get as worked up as many do about things like Iran supplying the Taliban with weapons to fight a foriegn invader when the US and others supplied the Taliban and other warlords not that long ago in the greater scheme of things...to do just that to fight another foriegn invader. It may well be my country involved in this war, but that doesnt mean my country or anyone elses can babble hypocrisy and double standards.. or the fact that many Afghans actually have the temerity to actually fight them in the first place... I just wish people would look at this war from all sides.. sadly Im afraid most of us look at it simply from their own...

[Long Duck Dong]

I am the first to admit that Alec Bell was Scottish.. although several American friends I have used to think otherwise...there is an argument about whether he actually did invent the telephone but history tells us that he was.. he certainly won a court case about it.. and whether he did invent it first or not he was certainly a great inventor.. but why he is there I dont know.. but it doesn't alter the fact that Canadians have made many inventions which have helped shape our world as it is today.. my point still stands... if even only half that list is accurate..

I too refuse to look at things from one point of view... but my conclusions tend to be hugely different from not just you, but many people's.. thats why I cant get as worked up as many do about things like Iran supplying the Taliban with weapons to fight a foreign invader when the US and others supplied the Taliban and other warlords not that long ago in the greater scheme of things...to do just that to fight another invader. It may well be my country involved in this war, but that doesnt mean my country or anyone elses can babble hypocrisy and double standards.. I just wish people would look at this war from all sides.. sadly Im afraid most of us look at it simply from their own...

I have looked at it from all sides and acknowledged the rights and wrongs on both sides..... hell nz is boasting about the peace keeping forces in timor and other countries including afghanistan...... but if its peacekeeping, why are there NZ SAS soldiers in afghanistan.... they are not peace keepers unless you are looking at keeping the peace as shooting the taliban ...lol

unlike tenni, I do not blame the us for everything..... as the us is a country...and its the govt that makes the choices, not the us people....
its like the uk, the govt made the choice to get involved, not the uk people....

so my point to tenni, was if the us is so bad..... then what has canada done for the world that is so great..... and I am willing to ignore the conscription crisis of ww1 and ww2 when countries like the us, uk, australia, nz etc committed troops to stop wars and mass murder and canada voted both times to stop sending troops or getting involved.....

if that makes me contemptuous or dismissive.... cool...... cos i really can not give a rats ass...... personally I think with the iraq issue etc.... the us was really given no option, they were attacked on their own turf and multi nationals were killed for no reason other than terrorists wanted to make a point.....

I put it to you fran, if it was kate and the kids killed by a suicide bomber in their home town.... you would not be happy..... but what can you do...
somebody needs to stop it happening again..... and again....

for better or worse, the us has acted with other countries with a war on terror..... a war to keep you and kate and others safe in your home town, by taking the war out of your country and back to where its coming from.....
and I dutifully acknowledge that the civilians are not safe in a war zone...... and that deaths will happen...... but they were happening anyway..... we generally never heard about it apart from the occasional reports....

it reminds me of nelson mandela.... how many other people were locked up and tortured with him..... yet we only heard about nelson mandela constantly...

there are two crimes in the world according to people, one is doing something and the other is doing nothing...... either way, the us was going to be wrong for any action..... but at least this way, there is a chance, however slim, that they may bring a end to terrorist attacks and suicide bombings for many many people

besides, if the us did not exist, tenni would have to start blaming the uk for everything and telling them they are brainwashed into believing all the propoganda..... and we all know that tenni is not brainwashed.... people that live in their own lil worlds never are.......

[darkeyes]

I think u are a little disengenuous using the argument of Canada voting to stop sending troops to fight ww2. It is in fact something of which I know nothing whatever, but do know that in both wars Canada expended huge resources of people, money and equipment in fighting both. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians died and were maimed in that war, both miltary and civilian. Without Canada as a support and lifeline it is questionable whether Britain could have survived the war. Its navy and merchant marine alone made huge sacrifices in support of my country in that conflict... as it did in the war of 1914-18.

I don;t know how I would react should something as you outline as a hypothesis happen to my family in reality. Grief makes us do many things which are out of character, and if and until it happened I can only say I don not know for sure.. but I hope I can do as I have done oft before during many lesser crises where those I love have been hurt in some way.. express anger but not go out to extract vengeance or to demeand others go get it for me. My father lost a good friend in an IRA bombing in Manchester.. I would hope to follow his example and blame those responsible but not to go out of my way and allow it to blight my good sense and principles.. therefore I would hope that I am able to continue with the beliefs I hold now while grieving for the 3 people I love most in the world. That I would continue with practicing what I preach, in an effort to help the wider world understand why my family lost their lives and the futility of it..

The US was not attacked by Iraq... nor was it attacked by Afghanistan.. Afghanistan was attacked for sheltering or allegedly sheltering those who it believed were responsible... Iraq was in fact an implacable foe of Al qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.. and so am at a loss to understand why Iraq was linked in the first place, but it was handy for the US and Britain to create and craft a linkage which allowed them an excuse to attack Iraq.. not to forget of course the so called WMD argument.. another spurious load of bollocks as time and events have proven.

Tenni can answer for himself why he feels and argues as he does and invariably does very well in my humble opinion.. and he has some justice on his side.. the US and its western allies are not the great bringers of freedom and democracy we believe them to be, but great spreaders of their own peculiar brand of them whether other nations want them or not. Most is to do with economics and cowing the world to their will.. it is nothing whatever to do with allowing and providing peoples of other lands with other cultures, liberty.

The US, its politicians and many of its more jingoistic citizens bandy about the word "freedom" very freely. By doing so with almost every breath and by continually interfering in other nations they demean the word.. because what those who use it with so much frequency means is that they believe in whatever they say freedom means and have no tolerance whatever of anyone who demurs. This they believe gives them the God given right to go wherever they want whenver they want and impose whatever they want on anyone with whom they have an issue. Freedom is many things.. it is however, not the sole possession of one people and one culture, and is much too important ever to be so. The Unites States is not free as believes.. it is anything but.. it is hamstrung and held prisoner by its own arrogance and its own belief that it is better than anyone else.

[tenni]

I wondered if someone would argue that my view is untrue when it comes to sleeping next to the elephant.

The term "sleeping next to the elephant" comes from one of our greatest PM. Pierre Elliot Trudeau coined that term about the Canada/ US relations. Trudeau also repatriated our constitution along with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite some USAmericans rants about freedom, The Charter far surpasses the US Bill of Rights when it comes to freedom and protecting freedoms of minorities such as GLBT. Nothing is perfect though.

Of course, the man who knows very little about Canada/US relations and finds it difficult to focus on the topic, would argue. Living so far away and being so versed in Canadianism and American Exceptionalism that he would know better than people who have lived this way since 1776. Trust me when I write that this relationship is discussed frequently in Canada's media but rarely in the US media. I am a Canadian cultural worker and know of what I write as far as the US culture dominating my own culture and silencing our Canadian cultural voices down if it can by trick or cheat.

That is neither here nor there as this thread is about secrecy and releasing documents connected to Afghanistan and NATO countries. It is not about inventors. I think that Fulford's idea about the end of some forms of government agencies excessive secrecy keeping is something that deserves more attention. It seems a bit idealistic but it might strengthen our "freedoms" if we, citizens, might guarantee that our governments may not hide what is facts from us as well as the governments have been able to.

Another point that I have heard argued is that this Afghan situation may be the end of NATO. If NATO could not "win" in Afghanistan, and the defence of the North Atlantic is no longer needed, why a NATO? Should the treaty be ended so that it may not be abused as it may have been by the US? I get the impression that the US seems to claim that it is really their troops in control in Afghanistan and the rest of the NATO countries had better obey the US. That basically is what has happened. The US has used NATO to make it look good to the world. As US posters infer, the US really had all the military strength that it needed to take care of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. It could have and did invade Afghanistan without NATO. NATO was brought in to get the UN to agree. The UN supported the US request because NATO was to be involved.

Rarely do we read US posters acknowledging the role of the UN and NATO in Afghanistan. It doesn't match their self perception and their media rarely reports that there is a significance to NATO being in Afghanistan. The US tried in Iraq but failed to get the same "coalition". NATO countries knew that the US was abusing the treaty to add Iraq into its claim for help(well Britain bought the story so...). The US was attacked and so it might use NATO but has it really not abused the interpretation of being "attacked" to expect other NATO countries to go to another country, Afghanistan? Who is really failing in Afghanistan? Is it NATO countries? Is it the US? Both, I would guess?

[TaylorMade]

Your words were your words. They were ambivalent and useful so I thank you for them.

Doesn't matter what grounds WikiLeak were acting on. They gave us the domestic voters the information we were starved of. Information essential to a democracy which we are told that we live in.

So often this site carries the concept that if there is collateral damage on the other side, it is acceptable. When its our turn to carry the risk (not actuallity) there is a whine that the other side has an advantage.

Incidentally, there is generosity extended here by interpreting your '...bloodshed BY the side that wants to stop it....' (an unfortunate truism) as meaning '....bloodshed but ON the side of the side that claims to want to stop it....'. The exta words are a gift to render greater accuracy.

Thank you for accepting that the Taliban are the Afghans' own countrymen. That is they are not the misdecribed 'insurgents'. This is technically a civil war, preciptated by us and made worse by us.

The Afghans are doing what they think is right. It just does not agree with what we think is right. The advantage they have morally is that it is their country. This is something that we exploited when the Russians were there.

Wikileaks claims to want to stop it as well... how come you're giving them a pass to allow for the Taliban to kill civilians. If we're going to play this relativists game at our governments expense... to ignore Wikileaks part of it and dress it up as some noble bullshit means we are accepting the rule of hackers, whose whims may turn against us one day and you'll accept it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Because it seems what you're ultimately saying is that bloodshed is cool as long as it is by the right people...Then fuck you very much, you bleeding cunt relativist hypocrite.

In the end, everyone is, "Switch out black dog for monkey", as my grandmother says. Stop pretending that Wiki is serving a higher purpose when the end result will be the same. There will still be blood in the streets. There will still be a war. But now the people that help prevent the war being fought in New York, Aukland, Toronto,and London will no longer be willing to help us. The informants that prevent things like the Times Square Incident will keep the intelligence to themselves for fear of being killed. Human intelligence, the thing we lacked before 9/11, the thing that was being built up to prevent such things from happening again, is now in shambles.

But, it was done by the RIGHT people for the RIGHT reasons, so it's cool.


*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Wikileaks claims to want to stop it as well... how come you're giving them a pass to allow for the Taliban to kill civilians. If we're going to play this relativists game at our governments expense... to ignore Wikileaks part of it and dress it up as some noble bullshit means we are accepting the rule of hackers, whose whims may turn against us one day and you'll accept it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Because it seems what you're ultimately saying is that bloodshed is cool as long as it is by the right people...Then fuck you very much, you bleeding cunt relativist hypocrite.

In the end, everyone is, "Switch out black dog for monkey", as my grandmother says. Stop pretending that Wiki is serving a higher purpose when the end result will be the same. There will still be blood in the streets. There will still be a war. But now the people that help prevent the war being fought in New York, Aukland, Toronto,and London will no longer be willing to help us. The informants that prevent things like the Times Square Incident will keep the intelligence to themselves for fear of being killed. Human intelligence, the thing we lacked before 9/11, the thing that was being built up to prevent such things from happening again, is now in shambles.

But, it was done by the RIGHT people for the RIGHT reasons, so it's cool.


*Taylor*

Interesting rant.. do like the french by the way.. powerful stuff if unnecessary..

..and when will people like you realise in a conflict there are two sides, and both will do reprehensible things.. what Heph is pointing out isn't that its ok for the Taliban to slaughter Afghan's but that in the west we tell people that they are doing so (which I dont disbelieve for a minute) and hide our own sides crimes by sanitising the truth to keep people on side. What he is saying that they believe they are defending their culture and their country in the best way possible in the only way they can. What he is saying is that their are two sides to every story and we should not be at war without knowing the truth of why we are at war. What he is saying is that he isn't buying into the Nato/US AND British argument that it is a war of defence.. what he is saying he isn't buying into the argument that the war was necessary at all... what he is saying is that those Afghans who fight against the invader have more right on their side than ever Nato have.

Afghanistan is a war of aggression by a hugely superior power technologically and militarily against a much weaker foe.. and no matter how reprehensible a regime, or the defenders of a country are, ordinary people will flock in droves to their banner in what they see as defence of their country, religion, culture and way of life. Much as the citizens of every country tend to do.. the only war of defence that exists in Afghanistan is the war of those Afghans opposed to the invasion who are fighting Nato forces..

None of what heph says is hypocrisy.. it is merely a recognition that we have been lied to and that its about time we were told the turth..had that happened in the first place then there would have been no need of any wikileaks and we could have better understood this war.. but had we done so it is unlikely that the US would have had any allies at all in the conflict..and maybe not even within its own borders..except for those who are war mongers and couldnt give a shite about a far away land and a people of which we knew nothing except for what state and media tell us.

[tenni]

TaylorMade

There is a statement by the US Secretary of Defence Gates that Wikileaks will cause the death of innocent Afghans who have supported the US (not NATO as I do not believe that any Afghan who was helping Canada, Britain etc. was mentioned in the US leaked documents but I may be wrong).

This is an accusation but without any proof. Gates gave no names of any Afghan who had been executed by the Taliban since the Wikileaks were revealed. Some information in these documents have not matched what NATO governments have stated. Who is guilty? How do we know that Gates is not lying to cover up the US situation? He has provided no proof.

What proof exists is the following:
a/ Twenty percent more innocent Afghans (many children) civilian have been killed in July than in June of this year
b/ the death of Afghan civilians is way up compared to 2009 but unspecified yet
b/ Afghan Watchdog reports that after analyzing the death of Afghan civilians that forty percent were killed by NATO forces.

We know of no Afghan civilian killed by having their name in the US documents. We know that a large contingent of new NATO troops have come from the USA. It may be assumed that some of these Afghan deaths were done by US troops.

What are you going to do about that? Instead of ranting and being manipulated by your Secretary of Defence what do you think about those increased KNOWN deaths of Afghan civilians? Dimiss them as collateral damage?

You and I can probably do nothing about the leaks or the Afghans killed by NATO troops. However, your point about information coming forward in the future may be more reluctant to disclose may be a point. What can be done to assure any informant that their names will not be in any document? Surely, that is a fairly simple aspect to deal with. It may have been sloppy recording to record any real name of an Afghan in the leaked documents. I agree that Wikileak should have been more cautious and coded any Afghan name. I would like to hear Wikileaks rationale but do not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as far as such leaks having value for transparency in our governments. Do you not believe that you were lied to by your government about Iraq? Do not overlook that little lie that cost so many lives.

[tenni]

"I think u are a little disengenuous using the argument of Canada voting to stop sending troops to fight ww2. It is in fact something of which I know nothing whatever, but do know that in both wars Canada expended huge resources of people, money and equipment in fighting both. "

Darkeyes
I did check on the accusation from the quacker from NZ. Once again, he takes a little bit of information and twists it to his own purpose to sidetrack a thread.

During WW1, there was resistance for conscription in the French province of Quebec. In fact, there were riots in the streets of Montreal. All other provinces voted for conscription but it was the federal government who made the decision that impacted all Canucks including the Quebecois who were conscripted, fought and died for Canada in WW1 & WW2. Now, the quacker from down under may be ignorant of the following when he made such accusations. During WW1, Canada was a country with strong connections to Britain and not officially bilingual at all. The French felt like second class citizens. Quebecois resented the connection to Britain and that went way back to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham when the British defeated the French in 1756 as part of the Seven Year War. The "English" Anglais (Canadians) held all of the power positions in Quebec both legislatively and business. The rest was controlled by allegiance to whatever the Catholic Church said as the Roman Catholic Quebecois obeyed the Church for quite sometime. The Church upper officials would be Anglos more than not.

The French settlers from France were permitted to stay as they had been there more than one hundred years and Britain had learned from its mistakes in New Brunswick with the Acadians who some were forced out to the French territory of Louisanna (now known as Cajuns).

Under the British North American Act, the Quebecois state that there was a serious difference between the English and French versions of the act that was signed. Lower Canada, Quebec today, was guaranteed "national" status equal to English Canada(Upper Canada-Ontario) and joined with the British colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Quebecois expected equal votes compared to the other three and any future English provinces. Since the French version was burned and there was no copy this has led to some very interesting perceptions since 1867. The long standing issues have nearly ended Canada but we continue peacefully without bloodshed (basically)

Still, Canada has grown and more provinces created. Quebec has claimed that it is to be given equal votes compared to all the other provinces. During WW1, not only this distrust but apparently a grievance that there was no separate section for francophones in the military nor was there a francophone General led to a resistance to be conscripted for WW1 even though the Canadian national parliament voted to conscript. This resentment continued at the beginning of WW2. Canada and not the province of Quebec spoke federally and so LDD is quite incorrect with his accusations. His claim may be the equivalent of one of New Zealand's regional councils voting against sending troops anywhere to represent and fight for NZ. A voice would be heard but not the voice of the federal government. It would be less significant than if Scotland voted against sending troops to Afghanistan although the Quebecois would deny that and so lets say equal to Scotland voting against sending troops to Afghanistan? There are French speaking Canadian troop sections in Afghanistan although their leaders are bilingual. Fran, you may like their English with a French accent? lol You must be bilingual to go to the upper levels of Canadian federal government or military positions now whether your first language is French or English.

Now, the little history lesson is over for the man who likes to argue (other than me...lol)
Totally, off topic and side track by the ignorant...in the truest meaning of the word.

[Hephaestion]

Wikileaks claims to want to stop it as well... how come you're giving them a pass to allow for the Taliban to kill civilians. If we're going to play this relativists game at our governments expense... to ignore Wikileaks part of it and dress it up as some noble bullshit means we are accepting the rule of hackers, whose whims may turn against us one day and you'll accept it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Because it seems what you're ultimately saying is that bloodshed is cool as long as it is by the right people...Then fuck you very much, you bleeding cunt relativist hypocrite.

In the end, everyone is, "Switch out black dog for monkey", as my grandmother says. Stop pretending that Wiki is serving a higher purpose when the end result will be the same. There will still be blood in the streets. There will still be a war. But now the people that help prevent the war being fought in New York, Aukland, Toronto,and London will no longer be willing to help us. The informants that prevent things like the Times Square Incident will keep the intelligence to themselves for fear of being killed. Human intelligence, the thing we lacked before 9/11, the thing that was being built up to prevent such things from happening again, is now in shambles.

But, it was done by the RIGHT people for the RIGHT reasons, so it's cool.


*Taylor*


1) The intelligence services in all countries are not short of information. It is the ability to use it correctly and with morality that tends to be lacking.

2) I do not know what the phraseology invoking 'black dogs' and 'monkeys' means and I am equally unfamiliar with the Times Square incident that you mention. No - don't bother to explain.

3) as for wars in the streets of our major cities, that is already happening, totally independantly of the official war mongering elsewhere.

4) The assumption made here is that your last sentence is cynical comment to cap the general self indulgent whining that is going on.

5) Your language is appalling and unbefitting a lady

6) Your command of English is dreadfull as is your ability to communicate.

.




.

[darkeyes]

1) The intelligence services in all countries are not short of information. It is the ability to use it correctly and with morality that tends to be lacking.

2) I do not know what the phraseology invoking 'black dogs' and 'monkeys' means and I am equally unfamiliar with the Times Square incident that you mention. No - don't bother to explain.

3) as for wars in the streets of our major cities, that is already happening, totally independantly of the official war mongering elsewhere.

4) The assumption made here is that your last sentence is cynical comment to cap the general self indulgent whining that is going on.

5) Your language is appalling and unbefitting a lady

6) Your command of English is dreadfull as is your ability to communicate.

.




.

Ouch!

[Long Duck Dong]

"I think u are a little disengenuous using the argument of Canada voting to stop sending troops to fight ww2. It is in fact something of which I know nothing whatever, but do know that in both wars Canada expended huge resources of people, money and equipment in fighting both. "

Darkeyes
I did check on the accusation from the quacker from NZ. Once again, he takes a little bit of information and twists it to his own purpose to sidetrack a thread.

During WW1, there was resistance for conscription in the French province of Quebec. In fact, there were riots in the streets of Montreal. All other provinces voted for conscription but it was the federal government who made the decision that impacted all Canucks including the Quebecois who were conscripted, fought and died for Canada in WW1 & WW2. Now, the quacker from down under may be ignorant of the following when he made such accusations. During WW1, Canada was a country with strong connections to Britain and not officially bilingual at all. The French felt like second class citizens. Quebecois resented the connection to Britain and that went way back to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham when the British defeated the French in 1756 as part of the Seven Year War. The "English" Anglais (Canadians) held all of the power positions in Quebec both legislatively and business. The rest was controlled by allegiance to whatever the Catholic Church said as the Roman Catholic Quebecois obeyed the Church for quite sometime. The Church upper officials would be Anglos more than not.

The French settlers from France were permitted to stay as they had been there more than one hundred years and Britain had learned from its mistakes in New Brunswick with the Acadians who some were forced out to the French territory of Louisanna (now known as Cajuns).

Under the British North American Act, the Quebecois state that there was a serious difference between the English and French versions of the act that was signed. Lower Canada, Quebec today, was guaranteed "national" status equal to English Canada(Upper Canada-Ontario) and joined with the British colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Quebecois expected equal votes compared to the other three and any future English provinces. Since the French version was burned and there was no copy this has led to some very interesting perceptions since 1867. The long standing issues have nearly ended Canada but we continue peacefully without bloodshed (basically)

Still, Canada has grown and more provinces created. Quebec has claimed that it is to be given equal votes compared to all the other provinces. During WW1, not only this distrust but apparently a grievance that there was no separate section for francophones in the military nor was there a francophone General led to a resistance to be conscripted for WW1 even though the Canadian national parliament voted to conscript. This resentment continued at the beginning of WW2. Canada and not the province of Quebec spoke federally and so LDD is quite incorrect with his accusations. His claim may be the equivalent of one of New Zealand's regional councils voting against sending troops anywhere to represent and fight for NZ. A voice would be heard but not the voice of the federal government. It would be less significant than if Scotland voted against sending troops to Afghanistan although the Quebecois would deny that and so lets say equal to Scotland voting against sending troops to Afghanistan? There are French speaking Canadian troop sections in Afghanistan although their leaders are bilingual. Fran, you may like their English with a French accent? lol You must be bilingual to go to the upper levels of Canadian federal government or military positions now whether your first language is French or English.

Now, the little history lesson is over for the man who likes to argue (other than me...lol)
Totally, off topic and side track by the ignorant...in the truest meaning of the word.

all I can say tenni.... is ROFLMAO..... this ignorant quacker has served my country, so when I talk about wars and militaries, I can speak from experience.....

and incorrect about my accusations ??? no.... I was merely pointing out a aspect of canadian history....not wild accusations about how the us is * taking over the world *

[TaylorMade]

1) The intelligence services in all countries are not short of information. It is the ability to use it correctly and with morality that tends to be lacking.

2) I do not know what the phraseology invoking 'black dogs' and 'monkeys' means and I am equally unfamiliar with the Times Square incident that you mention. No - don't bother to explain.

3) as for wars in the streets of our major cities, that is already happening, totally independantly of the official war mongering elsewhere.

4) The assumption made here is that your last sentence is cynical comment to cap the general self indulgent whining that is going on.

5) Your language is appalling and unbefitting a lady

6) Your command of English is dreadfull as is your ability to communicate.

.




.

And you think Wikileaks can do any better? With their lack of concern over civilians equivalent to the perception of you have of the worlds governments, you lose any moral ground in claiming they are doing good!

And no sexist condescension (Act like a lady? What is this, Victorian England? Should I make sure that I don't go in public w/o my stays either?) or rhetorical waltz can hide that. The fact that you went through five points previous saying that you don't CARE to find out what I mean before saying I can't communicate shows a contradiction that I have communicated all too well. The justification of Wikileaks actions in the face that they will be producing the same end product as the organizations they seek to tear down is a empty and hypocritical moral exercise, and to ignore that is showing you don't seek truth in the middle of this mess, only to tear down what you don't like.

And if you want it any clearer, I'll make it into a flow chart with felt characters and sock puppets.

I'm gonna collect my pearls from this pig trough. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_Before_Swine)

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

all I can say tenni.... is ROFLMAO..... this ignorant quacker has served my country, so when I talk about wars and militaries, I can speak from experience.....

and incorrect about my accusations ??? no.... I was merely pointing out a aspect of canadian history....not wild accusations about how the us is * taking over the world *

I think what Tenni has been saying is that you are wrong about your claim that Canada voted twice (assuming u mean the federal Parliament) not to send any men, money and materials to the world war (whichever one you are talking about). Can you elaborate? Because unless you can, Duckie darling, a wild accusation is exactly what you have made in respect of Canada..

[Long Duck Dong]

sure, fran...
and let me clarify something here.... I do not judge people by their country, I judge countries by the govts that make the rules and laws in their country........ so my remarks about canada and canadians do no apply to every person in canada....and nor am I judging canadian people by the govts rules and laws, but I am judging the canadian people by their own actions in this case...... both the france and the english canadians, tho, as seperate groups in canada

I should have not said * voted * as it gave the impression it was a democratic vote by the people.....it should have been clearer in context, such as * chose *..... so the voting part was misleading.... but yes, the two issues with canada did involve * fixed * voting...


in 1917, the govt enabled people not in canada to vote, and denied voting to people that would clearly oppose the govts agenda, that were in canada
that was what originally got my attention..... a govt that clearly abused its own powers in a * free and fair * country and something that tenni has never mentioned in the forums when he is on a us bashing tirade and talking about how canada respects its own


Conscription_Crisis_of_1917 (http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917)
in world war 1, the canadian govt relied on serving military personnel for support with the conscription crisis of 1917.... but On January 1, 1918, the Unionist government began to enforce the Military Service Act. The Act caused 404,385 men to be liable for military service from which 385,510 sought exemption

To solidify support for conscription in the 1917 election, Borden extended the vote through Military Voters Act to overseas soldiers, who were in favour of conscription to replace their depleted forces (women serving as nurses were also given the right to vote). For Borden, these votes had another advantage, as they could be distributed in any riding, regardless of the soldier's regular place of residence. With Wartime Elections Act, women who had close male relatives serving overseas were also granted the right to vote in this election, as they appeared to be more patriotic and more worthy of a public voice. On the other hand, conscientious objectors and recent immigrants from "enemy countries" were denied the right to vote.


in 1944.. again it was henri Henri Bourassa that led the anti conscription vote...


Conscription_Crisis_of_1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944)

In April 1942 a plebiscite was held, which asked the population not to support immediate conscription, but rather to allow the government to take back its promise made during the 1940 election. King's famous remark on the issue, "not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary," reflected the ambiguous nature of the plebiscite. Unsurprisingly, the plebiscite was supported by most English Canadians as well as the banned Communist Party of Canada which established Tim Buck "Yes" Committees to campaign for a yes vote. Across Canada, 63% of voters were in favour of conscription with English Canadians voting 83% in favour. The proposal received hardly any support from French Canadians, especially in Quebec, where anti-conscription groups (including one led by Henri Bourassa, the most vocal opponent of conscription in 1917) encouraged 72.9% of voters to oppose the plebiscite

Few conscripts saw combat in Europe: only 2463 men reached units on the front lines. Out of these, 79 lost their lives

[Long Duck Dong]

ok, I am not patriotic, I am scottish born and live in new zealand and I have served in the nz army.....

I swear allegiance to no queen and no country,... my loyalty is to my fellow man and woman and in war time, that is what I will fight for and to protect

regardless of what country I am in, if war breaks out, I will take up arms to protect those around me that can not or will not fight......

so before anybody makes any statements about me being brainwashed or believing any propaganda or taking sides..... do not bother..... I do not care about the us or afghanistan or the man in the moon..... and I understand all sides of war and fighting......

so I am neither pro or anti the us or any other country..... to me they are people fighting a war..... it is up to everybody else to argue who is right and who is wrong.....

as for me, I just want my friends home again, in one piece, not in a body bag..... and with that, i think I stand with everybody

[Hephaestion]

And you think Wikileaks can do any better? With their lack of concern over civilians equivalent to the perception of you have of the worlds governments, you lose any moral ground in claiming they are doing good!

And no sexist condescension (Act like a lady? What is this, Victorian England? Should I make sure that I don't go in public w/o my stays either?) or rhetorical waltz can hide that. The fact that you went through five points previous saying that you don't CARE to find out what I mean before saying I can't communicate shows a contradiction that I have communicated all too well. The justification of Wikileaks actions in the face that they will be producing the same end product as the organizations they seek to tear down is a empty and hypocritical moral exercise, and to ignore that is showing you don't seek truth in the middle of this mess, only to tear down what you don't like.

And if you want it any clearer, I'll make it into a flow chart with felt characters and sock puppets.

I'm gonna collect my pearls from this pig trough. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_Before_Swine)

*Taylor*


The situation remains the same. WikiLeak is merely keeping the voting public informed, nothing more. They have much support in this and no amount of tantrum or drumming of feet will change this.

If you wish to communicate then use language and construct that is common with your interlocutors i.e. refain from using opaque esoteric terminology. Kindly refrain from using foul language regardless.

That you 'ain't no lady' is patently obvious. Perhaps you could try to act as the normal human being that you may be rather than the illiterate trolllop you are portraying.

That is all.
.

[DuckiesDarling]

Heph, I'm actually surprised at you. You sit there and call someone down for their language by telling them they aren't a lady and are acting like an illiterate trollop.

Sorry one is just as bad as the other in my eyes, the rules state no personal flames and no matter how much you pretty it up that's still a flame.

[Hephaestion]

On the BBC news this morning 04 Aug 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

in an attempt to 'build bridges' between communities

"..........New York landmarks commission refuses to preserve historic building ........A plan to build a mosque and a Muslim community centre within two blocks of Ground Zero cleared a major hurdle today amid an intensifying groundswell of opposition from rightwing pundits and politicians........"

One imagines that this is almost enough to bring tears to the eyes of an eagle.

NB - In Sth Kensington London, for 30+yrs the Ismaili Centre, made of the finest materials, sits quietly amongst the plethora of Embassies and cultural icons of the UK (Imperial Coll of London Univ, Nat Hist & Geol Mus, Science Mus, V&A Mus, Roy Coll Arts, Roy Coll Music, Roy Geog Soc, the Albert Hall, + others.... ). The fact that the initial assemblage a.k.a. 'Albertopolis' was the much opposed brain child of a Kraut shall be glossed over.

.

.

[darkeyes]

Heph, I'm actually surprised at you. You sit there and call someone down for their language by telling them they aren't a lady and are acting like an illiterate trollop.

Sorry one is just as bad as the other in my eyes, the rules state no personal flames and no matter how much you pretty it up that's still a flame.

Is it personal flaming? Sounds like good advice to me.. me granpa was and me mum is always tellin me that when I resorted to cursing an swearing, I've lost the argument.. me dad mostly agrees cept say that sometimes a good swearie in midst of a barney can be used as emphasising a point and strength of feeling but is ALWAYS unladylike yet sometimes a necessary evil... which Taylor's outbursts are I leave to others to judge, Darling darling.

[Hephaestion]

Heph, I'm actually surprised at you. You sit there and call someone down for their language by telling them they aren't a lady and are acting like an illiterate trollop.

Sorry one is just as bad as the other in my eyes, the rules state no personal flames and no matter how much you pretty it up that's still a flame.

Ok DD - I am suitably admonished. (My mummy always said that I would get into trouble for religiously telling the truth; she said that there was a word called diplomacy).

However, in my favour should count the fact that I did not return the "....Then fuck you very much, you bleeding cunt relativist hypocrite...." as an adapted comment.

Choice, eh?

[DuckiesDarling]

True, Heph, but as I said one is as bad as the other in my eyes.

I'm just amused that no one can debate in this thread rationally without throwing out personal attacks and comments about intelligence or being brainwashed.

I maintain my stance, the activities reported in the leak are wartime things, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that many prove the involvement of the US and NATO allies in trying to help the people in the Middle East set up their own government free of Al Queda and the Taliban and didn't just go in their and blow it all to hell and head back home. Instead they get flamed for their attempts to help a country rebuild. We remember that a nation is made up of individuals and not every single person in that country flew a plane into the World Trade Center, nor does every single person in that country strap on explosives and become suicide bombers.

I want the war ended, I want our soldiers home, but in talking to people who risk their lives to go back. Some who don't HAVE to go back in the case of a police trainer with a 300k bounty on her head but she goes back anyway because they need her help. She literally said the mood of a lot of troops over there is we have to end it there, or it will follow us back to the States and it will be the same nationwide.

I can not imagine an America where a child walking down a street can't find a dollar and pick it up without having an IED explode in their face. That to me is unacceptable.

And yes they can pretty much turn anything into an IED, it's why call it improvised explosive device. A poster on a wall, a dollar on the street, it doesn't matter it can be used.

Yes, I find it pretty ironic that the arms the Taliban are using were most probably supplied by the US back when the Taliban was fighting the Soviets, but it doesn't change the fact the Afghan people asked for help in removing Al Queda from their country.

What is also amusing to me is the posters stating NATO is trying to force Western democracy on a Middle Eastern nation and that they have no right to do so. Yet in other threads it's perfectly fine to state that the Western World should interfere and stop stoning and other honor killings. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

[darkeyes]

True, Heph, but as I said one is as bad as the other in my eyes.

I'm just amused that no one can debate in this thread rationally without throwing out personal attacks and comments about intelligence or being brainwashed.

I maintain my stance, the activities reported in the leak are wartime things, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that many prove the involvement of the US and NATO allies in trying to help the people in the Middle East set up their own government free of Al Queda and the Taliban and didn't just go in their and blow it all to hell and head back home. Instead they get flamed for their attempts to help a country rebuild. We remember that a nation is made up of individuals and not every single person in that country flew a plane into the World Trade Center, nor does every single person in that country strap on explosives and become suicide bombers.

I want the war ended, I want our soldiers home, but in talking to people who risk their lives to go back. Some who don't HAVE to go back in the case of a police trainer with a 300k bounty on her head but she goes back anyway because they need her help. She literally said the mood of a lot of troops over there is we have to end it there, or it will follow us back to the States and it will be the same nationwide.

I can not imagine an America where a child walking down a street can't find a dollar and pick it up without having an IED explode in their face. That to me is unacceptable.

And yes they can pretty much turn anything into an IED, it's why call it improvised explosive device. A poster on a wall, a dollar on the street, it doesn't matter it can be used.

Yes, I find it pretty ironic that the arms the Taliban are using were most probably supplied by the US back when the Taliban was fighting the Soviets, but it doesn't change the fact the Afghan people asked for help in removing Al Queda from their country.

What is also amusing to me is the posters stating NATO is trying to force Western democracy on a Middle Eastern nation and that they have no right to do so. Yet in other threads it's perfectly fine to state that the Western World should interfere and stop stoning and other honor killings. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

I have never said that the west or anyone else should invade and destory other culture to stop what happens in that culture.. you can't pin that in on me Darling, darling.. and I don't recall too many others doing so either.. I have always argued that there are other ways of persuading other countries with different cultures from continuing with the more odious aspects of their way of life..or death.. some on the pro American side have come damn close though..

..and let me correct one misconception you seem to have.. the people of Afghanistan at no point requested that the US or Nato invade their country to get shot of Al Qaeda.. and they certainly never asked them to invade to replace the Taliban government. That was purely Bush and his admininstrations doing. I don't like many of the things my government does, and many aspects of my society.. but I'm buggered if I am going to ask a foreign country to invade the UK simply to sort it.. and I doubt many other Britons would so so either.. ok we are a much more technologically advanced and wealthy country, and less primitive (arguably) than is Afghanistan and our government is much less (I hope) viscious and vindictive, but the principle stands..

[DuckiesDarling]

Funny, Fran, the person you so detest in Afghanistan is the one who was a former supporter of the Taliban who formed resistance of the people to the Taliban and Al Qaeda because of what they were doing to their own people. On the behalf of the Afghanistan people he represented, Karzai requested assistance in removing Al Qaeda from his beloved country.



When the Taliban emerged in the mid 1990s, Karzai, like many other Afghans, supported them, because he saw them as a force that could finally end the violence and corruption in his country. However, he later broke with them and refused to serve as their ambassador to the United Nations, telling friends he felt that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was wrongly using them.[21] Karzai stated that "there were many wonderful people in the Taliban."[22]

Karzai lived in exile in Quetta, Pakistan, where he worked to reinstate former Afghan King Zahir Shah. On the morning of 14 July 1999, Karzai's father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, was gunned down as he was coming home from a mosque in the city of Quetta. Reports suggest that the Taliban carried out the assassination.[21] Hamid Karzai worked closely with Ahmad Shah Massoud in 2001 to help gather support for the anti-Taliban movement. In an interview in February 2005, Karzai criticised the role the United States played in empowering the Taliban to take control in Afghanistan.[citation needed]

As the U.S. military was preparing for a confrontation with the Taliban in September 2001, Karzai began urging NATO nations to purge his country of Al-Qaeda. "These Arabs, together with their foreign supporters and the Taliban, destroyed miles and miles of homes and orchards and vineyards," he told BBC, "They have killed Afghans. They have trained their guns on Afghan lives... We want them out."[21]

[darkeyes]

..an interesting aside, apart from the fact that our lovely shiny new plummy PM slagged of Pakistan for bein pro Taliban (in effect) and giving them help and sustenance with intelligence etc, is that Pakistan's Pres is on a lil visit here right now.. and has said contrary to what it is telling the world, Nato is losing the war.. now that may be a reaction to Cameron being an idiot, and it may be a reaction to how many in Obama's administration refer to Pakistan and it may be a reaction to a million and one other things... but it also may well be the truth..

...now isn't that interesting?

[darkeyes]

Funny, Fran, the person you so detest in Afghanistan is the one who was a former supporter of the Taliban who formed resistance of the people to the Taliban and Al Queda because of what they were doing to their own people. On the behalf of the Afghanistan people he represented, Karzai requested assistance in removing Al Queda from his beloved country.

He and a few cronies can hardly be referred to as "the people" now can he? That's a bit like Nick Griffin and his BNP asking the US to come in and remove the Cameron and Clegg roadshow. Yes I detest him, and after Nato leaves I think the west won't think too much of him either.. I don't think it thinks too much of him now as it happens..

[DuckiesDarling]

He and a few cronies can hardly be referred to as "the people" now can he? That's a bit like Nick Griffin and his BNP asking the US to come in and remove the Cameron and Clegg roadshow. Yes I detest him, and after Nato leaves I think the west won't think too much of him either.. I don't think it thinks too much of him now as it happens..

Like it or not he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan and as such represesents their interests. What happens in the future certainly remains to be seen, what will not happen is another 9/11.

[Long Duck Dong]

He and a few cronies can hardly be referred to as "the people" now can he? That's a bit like Nick Griffin and his BNP asking the US to come in and remove the Cameron and Clegg roadshow. Yes I detest him, and after Nato leaves I think the west won't think too much of him either.. I don't think it thinks too much of him now as it happens..

strange how america is blamed for the war then....as a country... and not G bush... as by your statement, one man doesn't speak for the country... yet I constantly see how america is wrong for this war....not bush or karzai

yes americans wanted justice for 9 / 11 but I doubt they wanted a war that can not be win...... I do not think anybody wants the war to continue.... but many want a end to the endless deaths in war and peacetime......

we will never have that, unless we find a way to remove the aggressive and violent nature of people, from the human race..... and we will never do that as long as people believe its their right to fight to for what they believe in
even pacifist protest is built on the view that the right to fight for rights, should allow people to march forth in a show of strength ..... yet even with in the ranks of protestors, are those that believe that peaceful protest needs violence

[tenni]

"She literally said the mood of a lot of troops over there is we have to end it there, or it will follow us back to the States and it will be the same nationwide.

The above statement is an example of "self fullfilling prophecy". This type of near paranoia has been used to justify US Expansionism for decades.

I can not imagine an America where a child walking down a street can't find a dollar and pick it up without having an IED explode in their face. That to me is unacceptable.

This is an example of fear mongering. It is a manipulative attempt to justify the US military industry

And yes they can pretty much turn anything into an IED, it's why call it improvised explosive device. A poster on a wall, a dollar on the street, it doesn't matter it can be used."

The use of the word "they" has been used to justify fear mongering. It is the old "they" used to control the US citizens by creating fear of the unknown such as those pesky "communist".

Like it or not he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan and as such represesents their interests. What happens in the future certainly remains to be seen, what will not happen is another 9/11.

Yes, lets just ignore the fact that the international observers who were there to report on the legitimacy of the Afghan election pointed out corruption in the ballot box counting. Let's pretend that Karzai is the "legitimately elected" president. His opponent withdrew before the second round of balloting (no candidate won the first round clearly enough even with corruption of the ballot boxes being so evident to the international observers). It was not obvious that he withdrew because he saw that there was no way that he might win due to the corruption of ballots. Since, the false election of Karzai, he has proceeded to change the election procedure and place people in key positions so as to guarantee that he will be able to control future elections. We are permitting our military persons to die to support a corrupt and illegally elected president in Afghanistan. There may not be an exact replica of 9/11 but there may be some other event of catastrophic nature due to our basic foolishness in believing lies and manipulation that "we" are the good guys and all that we do is not to support a military industry and Expansionism of an "empire"...but we will not call it an empire. It is "spreading" democracy.

[darkeyes]

strange how america is blamed for the war then....as a country... and not G bush... as by your statement, one man doesn't speak for the country... yet I constantly see how america is wrong for this war....not bush or karzai

yes americans wanted justice for 9 / 11 but I doubt they wanted a war that can not be win...... I do not think anybody wants the war to continue.... but many want a end to the endless deaths in war and peacetime......

we will never have that, unless we find a way to remove the aggressive and violent nature of people, from the human race..... and we will never do that as long as people believe its their right to fight to for what they believe in
even pacifist protest is built on the view that the right to fight for rights, should allow people to march forth in a show of strength ..... yet even with in the ranks of protestors, are those that believe that peaceful protest needs violence

.. and you can't pin that on me either Duckie...I have always been consistent on that one too... I have always pinned responsibility fairly and squarely on the Governments.. if u care to read back you will find that to be the case.. a Government is not the people of a nation but in the name of the people, governments do things which they should not.. great and small things.. not simply wars.. democratic Government's in part reflect the mood of the people at one moment in time, but being a democratic government it only reflects part of the mood of a part of the people.. as soon as that moment is done, then it ceases to be reflective of that mood, and begins the process of losing any real democratic validity.. in time it has none and the people in their wisdom take on another mood, and replace that Government with one which again, in part reflects the prevailing mood of another moment in time... de facto, a government while in power is the state.. the state is the nation.. that is why we refer to a nation by name when criticising what its politicans and military does in its name..

yes there are those who within the ranks of thsoe who believe in peaceful protest also believe in returning violence with violence.. there are also those who have no intention of allowing a protest to pass peacefully who infiltraate and try to create a violent confrontation.. I am not such, but do accept your supposition, but for the most part in my experience, it is not the protestor who begins the cycle of violence on demonstrations but those who are there to police them..

.. I agree that the US should have justice for 11/9. But I doubt many would agree they are getting it by the actions of the US since the day the US decided to fire cruise missiles into Afghanistan...

[Long Duck Dong]

"She literally said the mood of a lot of troops over there is we have to end it there, or it will follow us back to the States and it will be the same nationwide.

The above statement is an example of "self fullfilling prophecy". This type of near paranoia has been used to justify US Expansionism for decades.

I can not imagine an America where a child walking down a street can't find a dollar and pick it up without having an IED explode in their face. That to me is unacceptable.

This is an example of fear mongering. It is a manipulative attempt to justify the US military industry

And yes they can pretty much turn anything into an IED, it's why call it improvised explosive device. A poster on a wall, a dollar on the street, it doesn't matter it can be used."

The use of the word "they" has been used to justify fear mongering. It is the old "they" used to control the US citizens by creating fear of the unknown such as those pesky "communist".

so the failed bombing in times square is what ?????? what about the attacks in the uk ??? if they are not attacks on countries..... what are they ??? disgruntled international pizza guys having bad days ????

9 / 11 was not fed express airline services having a bad hair day, tenni.... it was issues oversea returning back to the us.... or have you forgotten how you have posted about the us funding armed conflict in the middle east and now it came home to haunt them in one hell of a way......

but the things you talk about as fear mongering etc, are already happening in countries tenni, and its not by terrorists..... its by the countries own people.... or maybe you miss reading news articles about pro life anti aboritionists that kill doctors and bomb clinic

or maybe you missed the news report about the military guy that shot and killed people on a military base in the us.....

or just maybe you missed the fact that this is planet earth........ cos you sure as hell missed the post where DD told you she had you on ignore

[Long Duck Dong]

.. and you can't pin that on me either Duckie...I have always been consistent on that one too... I have always pinned responsibility fairly and squarely on the Governments.. if u care to read back you will find that to be the case.. a Government is not the people of a nation but in the name of the people, governments do things which they should not.. great and small things.. not simply wars.. democratic Government's in part reflect the mood of the people at one moment in time, but being a democratic government it only reflects part of the mood of a part of the people.. as soon as that moment is done, then it ceases to be reflective of that mood, and begins the process of losing any real democratic validity.. in time it has none and the people in their wisdom take on another mood, and replace that Government with one which again, in part reflects the prevailing mood of another moment in time... de facto, a government while in power is the state.. the state is the nation.. that is why we refer to a nation by name when criticising what its politicans and military does in its name..

yes there are those who within the ranks of thsoe who believe in peaceful protest also believe in returning violence with violence.. there are also those who have no intention of allowing a protest to pass peacefully who infiltraate and try to create a violent confrontation.. I am not such, but do accept your supposition, but for the most part in my experience, it is not the protestor who begins the cycle of violence on demonstrations but those who are there to police them..

.. I agree that the US should have justice for 11/9. But I doubt many would agree they are getting it by the actions of the US since the day the US decided to fire cruise missiles into Afghanistan...

not pinning anything on anybody.... unless I state who I am pinning it on and why.....

and I do not blame the governments for a lot of things completely.... the people elect the governments and often they will elect a government that they will see to take action..... for better or worse........ so its a dual aspect....
if bush did not take action, the us people would have elected somebody that would.....
now they elected somebody to hopefully do the reverse....

and in your experience,..... its the people policing the protestors.......
but I have never heard of the police throwing stones and rocks and tipping over cars, breaking windows, trashing businesses, cos of a protest march....
I have seen evidence of harsh and swift police action against protest marchs and protest groups.... and in most cases, not all, but most cases, the protestors had started to riot... so yes in MOST cases, the police action was excessive but justified.....as sitting down for tea and scones didn't work.... and that was proven with the protest turning into a riot by some of the protestors...not all of them

[darkeyes]

Like it or not he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan and as such represesents their interests. What happens in the future certainly remains to be seen, what will not happen is another 9/11.
Yes he is the duly elected President of Afghanistan, but the circumstances of his election can hardly be of the kind which instill us with confidence..I do hope I get egg on my face over Karzai.. but bent as I believe him to be, and unpleasant, and little if at all better than that which went before, I do know I will never support a war or invasion to replace him..

...and can you say with absolute certainty that there will never be another 11/9? I wish I shared your confidence.. the Taliban fight on, and may well win in the end, and Al Qaeda and other such groups which are anti America still roam free and still create much suffering.. I do wish I shared your confidence, but I am afraid I cannot..

[DuckiesDarling]

Yes he is the duly elected President of Afghanistan, but the circumstances of his election can hardly be of the kind which instill us with confidence..I do hope I get egg on my face over Karzai.. but bent as I believe him to be, and unpleasant, and little if at all better than that which went before, I do know I will never support a war or invasion to replace him..

...and can you say with absolute certainty that there will never be another 11/9? I wish I shared your confidence.. the Taliban fight on, and may well win in the end, and Al Qaeda and other such groups which are anti America still roam free and still create much suffering.. I do wish I shared your confidence, but I am afraid I cannot..

Then it's a good thing you don't live here. Since 9/11 we have had several attempts at more terrorists actions but I can honestly say that there will never again be a time when America is as caught by surprise as we were on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, that means that American citizens give up some of our rights to make our country safer. To find the real American sprit just watch the film United 93. You'll see that on learning what was going on they chose to take the plane down rather than be used as a terrorist weapon. So yes as an American I can state, Never Again.

[darkeyes]

People elect government's certainly Duckie.. but very often they don't get that which they thought they elected.. Governments act often in accord with what they believe themselves mandated by popular vote to do so.. and so yes, people bear responsibility for that which they have elected... but from the moment that Government takes power.. it is solely responsible for the consequences of its decisions and in time will be held to account by the people..

I think we will simply have to agree to differ on protesting.. which is fine.. I have no doubt the powers that be would quite gladly agree with you, pat you on the head and thank you for your support.. my case is argued by personal observation and experience of demonstrations in the UK and in Europe.. what happens elsewhere I cannot say, except that I would be surprised if it was much different. I do not argue that sometimes demonstrators do NOT begin the violence I have seen it and they do.. sometimes they are so intimidated that they react and do throw the first brick.. sometimes there are those who are there simply to throw bricks... but I do argue that it less common than you suppose.

[tenni]

The question remains that if you have no opposition running against you for the second round, how can you be duly elected after it is proven that the ballots were tampered with during the first round? Karzai was acclaimed president. To write otherwise, is to support and spread manipulative propaganda that makes the people believe that what they are doing is justified and fighting for "freedom" etc. BS.

This is similar to the old Soviet Union where there was frequently only one name on the ballot to vote for. Voting was required and you would have 98% voting for the various one candidate per position on the ballots. They were also "duly elected" like Karzai. No, NATO countries are supporting a less than democratic government in Afghanistan and it is foolish to believe otherwise.

USAmericans may say and believe "never again". I hope that it is true. I do not see a sufficient change in how the US deals with the other sovereign countries to make that a possibility though. As a start, close the hundreds of US military installations throughout the world and then maybe never again. Stop the CIA from interferring in other sovereign countries' politics. Stop supporting Israel with military weapons. Stop invading other sovereign countries unless they have directly invaded your continental territory. Give up your psuedo colonies such as Wake Island and Puerto Rico.

[Long Duck Dong]

they are supporting a less them democratic government ???

ok tenni, what would you suggest they do......
force the country to hold democratic elections???? so you can bash nato for forcing their views on other countries

or

allow the country to hold their elections their way??? so you can bash nato for not interferring in the elections

oh shit, tenni, canada is part of nato, and that means.... omg canada is supporting less than democractic elections as well, cos they are part of nato..... so ready with the * just cos they are part of it, doesn't mean they support it * comeback

or are you * brainwashed * into believing that canada doesn't support that type of thing.....in the same way that the americans are * brainwashed * into believing the us govt propaganda

[darkeyes]

Then it's a good thing you don't live here. Since 9/11 we have had several attempts at more terrorists actions but I can honestly say that there will never again be a time when America is as caught by surprise as we were on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, that means that American citizens give up some of our rights to make our country safer. To find the real American sprit just watch the film United 93. You'll see that on learning what was going on they chose to take the plane down rather than be used as a terrorist weapon. So yes as an American I can state, Never Again.

...and that is incredibly complacent folly, Darling darling, and I am sure your government won't share that complacency.. I hope not, for if it does, it is the more likely that it will be given the shock of its life at God knows what human cost.. I doubt any further atrocities such as occurred on 11/9 will occur in the same way, but it is all too possible that some other kind of appalling tragedy will occur.. Al Qaeda still roams free, as do many other groups which feel they owe both your country and mine a debt which they will be all too determined to repay with interest if they can..

No state apparatus for all its wonderful organisation and technology is perfect, least of all the security services.. so I would rethink your statement and consider it a little more..

Once, a ship load of British soldiers stood to attention on the deck of a sinking ship, HMS Birkenhead, and allowed the women and children aboard to be evacuated and so was born the saying "women and children first" and the protocol which bore its name. There are umpteen such disasters where military men have not observed this protocol, and even more where it has been every man for himself.. I think what your countrymen and women did on 11/9 was a most wonderful act of bravery and sacrifice to avoid an even greater catastrophe, but there can never be any guarantee of repeat.. fear, false hope and preservation of self all too often get in the way..

[darkeyes]

they are supporting a less them democratic government ???

ok tenni, what would you suggest they do......
force the country to hold democratic elections???? so you can bash nato for forcing their views on other countries

or

allow the country to hold their elections their way??? so you can bash nato for not interferring in the elections

oh shit, tenni, canada is part of nato, and that means.... omg canada is supporting less than democractic elections as well, cos they are part of nato..... so ready with the * just cos they are part of it, doesn't mean they support it * comeback

or are you * brainwashed * into believing that canada doesn't support that type of thing.....in the same way that the americans are * brainwashed * into believing the us govt propaganda

As I recall Tenni is often critical of his government for just such as you seem to be criticising him for being brainwashed over.. and many peoples of many countries accept their governments propaganda at face value and do not ask qquestions of them.. but thankfully many, including millions upon millions of Americans are much less easily "brainwashed"...

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran, to put it bluntly, I say it will never happen because what 9//11 taught us is shoot first ask questions later, if we care to.

Any plane entering US airspace that does not have a proper flight plan filed or if there is any hint of hijacking. No matter the nationality of passengers runs the risk of meeting a F16 head on. That's just what we were brought to, a point where blowing up a plane with 200 plus passengers is better than letting it hit a building where 2000 will die. That's why I say NEVER AGAIN. I don't really care if you approve of that attitude or what, thank the terrorist for teaching America that.

[darkeyes]

Fran, to put it bluntly, I say it will never happen because what 9//11 taught us is shoot first ask questions later, if we care to.

I think you miss the point.. no terrorist or any other enemy is likely to use precisely the same method in any future attack should it ever happen .. it will be a surprise.. and it will be shocking.. and lives will be lost and ruined.. and what's more to the point, shooting first and asking questions later is more likely to ensure that that is exactly what you will get... militaries the world over use such tactics and it has never stooped their countries from being bombed or terrorised.. do you really believe it will stop the US from being so?

[DuckiesDarling]

I think you miss my point, Fran. It doesn't matter how they come at us, it will be met with extreme prejudice and woe betide the nation that sends them. Again...thank the terrorists for teaching us to do so.

[Long Duck Dong]

As I recall Tenni is often critical of his government for just such as you seem to be criticising him for being brainwashed over.. and many peoples of many countries accept their governments propaganda at face value and do not ask qquestions of them.. but thankfully many, including millions upon millions of Americans are much less easily "brainwashed"...

I am not accusing tenni of being brainwashed, thats tennis catch phrase for patriotic americans that support their government.....
what I was pointing out is that tenni was slamming the usa...( surprise surprise ).... but talking about nato supporting a less then democratic government..... so I pointed out that canada is part of nato.... therefore just as responsible for the issues as the us.....
thats not propaganda.... thats bloody fact..... plain and simple..... now I did not say that canada supports the less than democratic government.... merely that as nato they are responsible for nato actions as are the rest of nato......yet I can not help but notice the difference between the nato bashing and the us bashing

many people think that places like wikileaks etc, reveal the truth..... ahh ok.... believe that.... cos its just another version of the * truth *..... in the same way that press releases are versions of the truth.... in the same way, what you believe is a version of the truth.....

the only people that know what is going on in afghanistan... are the people facing the bullets, they are living the nightmare as it unfolds in front of them.... on both sides......

having had military service experience, I know far better than to trust press releases, cos its very rare they tell the truth, but only aspects of it..... I trust the people that have come back from afghanistan, as they talk uncensored and in private...... and they speak the truth......

so you and tenni can go believe what press releases you want..... I perfer to believe the simple truth...... and its not what I read

[tenni]

Canadian "Senator Colin Kenny, former longtime chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defence, has a reputation for taking security matters seriously. So when he wades in this morning with an op-ed piece headlined “Yes, let’s ‘cut and run,’ ” many in Ottawa will take notice. Kenny bluntly calls the military mission in Kandahar a failure and urges, “We should get out of Afghanistan at the earliest opportunity…” He judges the Taliban far more potent than it was a couple of years ago. He assesses the new U.S. counter-insurgency strategy doomed, since it would “require many times the number of foreign and Afghan troops than anyone could hope to muster, and much more time than NATO countries are willing to devote to Afghanistan.” Even with more troops, counter-insurgency missions rely on “competent and committed local government”—an asset you won’t find in Kabul. It’s time, says the senator, to cut our losses."
(from the McLeans Magazine website this morning but probably is from yesterday)

As far as propaganda and the Karzai election is concerned, how would I hold this opinion? Where would I get information to state that the Afghan election was basically a fraud? This has been openly discussed in Canadian media. There is increasing propaganda coming from the Canadian government but not Parliament nor the Senate(yet). It is at times successful well that and I am increasingly surprised at how many "stupid" gullible Canucks there are. However, the majority of Canucks are not hood winked. The Con government is increasingly making stupid statements over census taking, need for more prisons recently. The weak lack of unity of the Opposition is why the neocons are in power. The neo con government is attempting to shut down information. The recent G20 police state actions were disturbing. It is getting a bit scary here. However, the Canucks have been aware of what Senator Kenny is more specifically stating. A majority of Canadians have been opposed to remaining in Afghanistan for at least five years. For five years, Canucks have known that we should not be there and increasingly discuss that it is a lost cause.

Afghanistan is a lost cause. The US failed in its initial rationale for invading. They did not capture Bin Laden and as far as I know not one senior Al Qaeda person has been convicted after being captured in Afghanistan. It was a lost cause the minute that the US went to Iraq and removed troops from Afghanistan. Or maybe, it was a lost cause before the US invaded Afghanistan. Why would the US and NATO be more successful than the Soviets and other invaders?

[Hephaestion]

True, Heph, but as I said one is as bad as the other in my eyes.

I'm just amused that no one can debate in this thread rationally without throwing out personal attacks and comments about intelligence or being brainwashed.

I maintain my stance, the activities reported in the leak are wartime things, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that many prove the involvement of the US and NATO allies in trying to help the people in the Middle East set up their own government free of Al Queda and the Taliban and didn't just go in their and blow it all to hell and head back home. Instead they get flamed for their attempts to help a country rebuild. We remember that a nation is made up of individuals and not every single person in that country flew a plane into the World Trade Center, nor does every single person in that country strap on explosives and become suicide bombers.

I want the war ended, I want our soldiers home, but in talking to people who risk their lives to go back. Some who don't HAVE to go back in the case of a police trainer with a 300k bounty on her head but she goes back anyway because they need her help. She literally said the mood of a lot of troops over there is we have to end it there, or it will follow us back to the States and it will be the same nationwide.

I can not imagine an America where a child walking down a street can't find a dollar and pick it up without having an IED explode in their face. That to me is unacceptable.

And yes they can pretty much turn anything into an IED, it's why call it improvised explosive device. A poster on a wall, a dollar on the street, it doesn't matter it can be used.

Yes, I find it pretty ironic that the arms the Taliban are using were most probably supplied by the US back when the Taliban was fighting the Soviets, but it doesn't change the fact the Afghan people asked for help in removing Al Queda from their country.

What is also amusing to me is the posters stating NATO is trying to force Western democracy on a Middle Eastern nation and that they have no right to do so. Yet in other threads it's perfectly fine to state that the Western World should interfere and stop stoning and other honor killings. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?


The currency of literal exchange is not in my favour then? I would have thought at least 10 'trollops' to the 'cunt' and 100 'trollops' for the 'bleeding cunt'.

Personal attacks? Brainwashed? Rebuilding countries? (NB "rebuilding") Follow USAmericans back to their country and booby trap shiny dollars for children to find? Are Al Quaeda the same as the Taliban in which case why do they have different names, or are they simply lumped together because they have turbans?

Apart from the USA supplying the arms to begin with and destroying things so that they need rebuilding, how do you get the rest of the nonsense from the actions of a web site that merely informs the voters? The opposition already know our sins. It us voters at home who are intentionally kept in the dark.

Incidentally, western Democracy and stone throwing are neither concomitant nor mutually exclusive.

[DuckiesDarling]

No your website doesn't inform the voters... it merely exposes soldiers and civilians alike to attack.

As for Taliban and Al Qaeda being the same because they are in turbans? Do not make me laugh, that is a ridiculous question from someone with intelligence.

I speak from the experience of talking to soldiers and trainers who have been there and are going back. I speak from the experience of listening to what people say that have the real knowledge and the heartbreak behind it when they realize that a bomb blast in a house with terrorists also had children in it. I speak from the experience of having a brain not blinded with preconceptions and opinions regarding a people I do not know. I speak from the knowledge that Justin Assange is just a terrorist of a different sort.

[Hephaestion]

Fran, to put it bluntly, I say it will never happen because what 9//11 taught us is shoot first ask questions later, if we care to........

The USArmy is credited with always shooting first and asking questions later long before 911. Always, the excuse is the 'fog of war'.

I worked with many old soldiers who seemed to tell the same story "Avoid the Yanks because they were trigger happy" as epitomised by the commandos in WWII who would rather go through enemy lines to get back to their units rather than cross those of the Americans. Same story in Korea, same story in VietNam (not Brit soldiers). Nowadays it has a more cuddly names - 'Friendly fire' and 'collateral damage'.

.

[Hephaestion]

No your website doesn't inform the voters... it merely exposes soldiers and civilians alike to attack.

As for Taliban and Al Qaeda being the same because they are in turbans? Do not make me laugh, that is a ridiculous question from someone with intelligence.

I speak from the experience of talking to soldiers and trainers who have been there and are going back. I speak from the experience of listening to what people say that have the real knowledge and the heartbreak behind it when they realize that a bomb blast in a house with terrorists also had children in it. I speak from the experience of having a brain not blinded with preconceptions and opinions regarding a people I do not know. I speak from the knowledge that Justin Assange is just a terrorist of a different sort.

Not my website.

[tenni]

"9//11 taught us is shoot first ask questions later,"

No The US has a long standing reputation for having its military do this long before 9/11. That is why Canadian soldiers joke about the US soldiers for acting this way. The average US soldier knows nothing about how to interact with the civilians in Afghanistan. They do not know how to talk with the elders. Canadian military in Kandahar have been trying to teach the US military how to do this recently. The US soldier is simply never trained to do other than shoot first.

[DuckiesDarling]

The USArmy is credited with always shooting first and asking questions later long before 911. Always, the excuse is the 'fog of war'.

I worked with many old soldiers who seemed to tell the same story "Avoid the Yanks because they were trigger happy" as epitomised by the commandos in WWII who would rather go through enemy lines to get back to their units rather than cross those of the Americans. Same story in Korea, same story in VietNam (not Brit soldiers). Nowadays it has a more cuddly names - 'Friendly fire' and 'collateral damage'.

.

By the same token I have heard stories coming out of Vietnam where the only pilots who were pretty much guaranteed even in the worst LZs to attempt to land to get troops out were the Americans.

Good and bad in every war, Heph, that's why they call it war. At least America is doing something and not sitting at home wringing our hands and getting our knickers in a knot cause someone might look at us crosseyed. We leave that to our neighbors to the north.

[darkeyes]

I think you miss my point, Fran. It doesn't matter how they come at us, it will be met with extreme prejudice and woe betide the nation that sends them. Again...thank the terrorists for teaching us to do so.

The nation that sends them? Or the nations from which they come? For there is a difference and I am unsure that the US knows the difference at times..... and so it goes on.. war for bombings, bombings for war.. a cycle which is so difficult to end and creates such misery, destruction and loss of life.. and yet it can be done.. has been done.. sadly, so far neither the US government or the groups which fight them in their way have not yet inflicted enough suffering on enough people to decide the time is right to talk.. the spiral of terror can be broken.. it needs will and determination on both sides.. apart from 9/11 the US has gotten off remarkably lightly when it comes to terror.. I hope that continues.. but I doubt it can.. and honestly, believe me when I say I hope it can.. but I won't hold my breath...

[darkeyes]

The USArmy is credited with always shooting first and asking questions later long before 911. Always, the excuse is the 'fog of war'.

I worked with many old soldiers who seemed to tell the same story "Avoid the Yanks because they were trigger happy" as epitomised by the commandos in WWII who would rather go through enemy lines to get back to their units rather than cross those of the Americans. Same story in Korea, same story in VietNam (not Brit soldiers). Nowadays it has a more cuddly names - 'Friendly fire' and 'collateral damage'.

.*resists the temptation to repeat 'er grampa's story of American's, ducks and ducking*

[Hephaestion]

Isn't prejudice pre judging a situation - irrespective of the reality?

.