Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

Recommended Videos

Oh-Wiseone

New member
Jun 9, 2008
62
0
0
It is very ironic and we have to learn that we cannot simply leave a country destroyed because it breeds terrorism. After the Soviet-Afghanistan War, which was in the 80s not 70s, the country was destroyed and we left it to rot, those horrible conditions combined to form terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Taliban was formed by Islamic students who used the chaos in the control to impose an Islamic Dictatorship.
So what you are proposing to do, leave the country to itself, is one of the very reasons why the country fell apart and created people like Bin Laden. That is why we must stay in the country until its stable enough to not fall apart into chaos and warlordism.
Take a look at the history of Afghanistan from the late 70s to present day.
 

Larenxis

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,648
0
0
In response to 'why 911 happened' I'd like to refer to this BBC article about US military presence in Saudi Arabia.
"Technically US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991. But our correspondent says the US troops have become a potent symbol of Washington's role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country's subservience to America. Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden. It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies."
 

werepossum

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,103
0
0
Larenxis said:
In response to 'why 911 happened' I'd like to refer to this BBC article about US military presence in Saudi Arabia.
"Technically US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991. But our correspondent says the US troops have become a potent symbol of Washington's role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country's subservience to America. Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden. It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies."
So the United States is not allowed to do anything to which "many Saudis" or "many Islamists" might object, otherwise slitting the throats of women and flying planeloads of innocent people into buildings is justified. Pray tell me, is the United States obligated to kill the Jews ourselves or is it sufficient for us to just arm the Islamic forces so that they can kill them? Where exactly does our obligation to these people end?

And why is it acceptable to obey the wishes of the Saudis who see the American presence in Saudi Arabia as "proof of the country's subservience to America" but not the wishes of the Saudis who fear their country will soon be the third sovereign nation Saddam Hussein invades. Your world view seems to start and end with "America is evil. America is so evil that there's no room for any other evil in the world. Any action that seems evil is actually good if taken against America." So Afghanistan attacking America is justified by America troops being in a third country, while America is not justified in invading Afghanistan just because they attacked us. As an American, please excuse me if I discard your world view as dangerous drivel.

Please, please spend some time over a period of months browsing these and other web sites and see what these people say in their own words, their leaders' speeches and editorials. You'll need some patience, as sometimes the English translations are turned off and the pages themselves go down frequently, but eventually you'll come to understand what the Islamists intend for themselves and the world.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm
http://www.irna.ir/?LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP
http://www.paknews.com/
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html
http://www.islamistwatch.org/
 

CrazySlyHawk

New member
Feb 28, 2008
56
0
0
This war has stretched on for around 7 years now and is an absolute joke. Canadians have proved their worth countless times before, but they should not bother in such a flop.

Everyday I hear how more British soldiers have died thousands of miles from home and next to no concessions on the Al-Qaeda side. A very real tragedy.
 

Rolling Thunder

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,265
0
0
Okay, I have neglected to provide evidence (Though if it were a CIA plot, there would be very little beyond rumour and speculation anyway). Here is some (and please forgive the incredibilty of this source- twas the best of a bad bunch):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

Sucks, dosen't it.

Oh well.

Werepossum, I sense a degree of fear in your posting. Please remember that most muslims are good-natured people who really don't care about the west. They just want to be left alone. And if they are just left alone, they'll rebuild and get on with their lives. History has demonstrated time and again that the USA lacks the finesse to conduct itself as an international policeman, and since it does so anyway, it brings a great deal of enger and hate towards it, and a great deal of support to Al-Quaeda and their foul ilk. Violnece breedeth violence.

Besides, I thought that whole point was that America was supposed to hold the moral high ground?
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
Fondant said:
Okay, I have neglected to provide evidence (Though if it were a CIA plot, there would be very little beyond rumour and speculation anyway). Here is some (and please forgive the incredibilty of this source- twas the best of a bad bunch):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

Sucks, dosen't it.
ummmmm had to point this out but you did say "best of a bad bunch"

if you had to sift thru a bunch of bad articles, wouldn't logic point that it's a not true? especially considering the mountain of evidence pointing the other way
 

werepossum

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,103
0
0
Fondant said:
Werepossum, I sense a degree of fear in your posting. Please remember that most muslims are good-natured people who really don't care about the west. They just want to be left alone. And if they are just left alone, they'll rebuild and get on with their lives. History has demonstrated time and again that the USA lacks the finesse to conduct itself as an international policeman, and since it does so anyway, it brings a great deal of enger and hate towards it, and a great deal of support to Al-Quaeda and their foul ilk. Violnece breedeth violence.

Besides, I thought that whole point was that America was supposed to hold the moral high ground?
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=5#pakistan2008

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=IN

http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019

Read some of these articles and compare the Pew poles (through 2006) with the poles cited by Terrorfreetomorrow. We are winning back Muslims worldwide. When terrorists murder Americans in America, Muslims feel a vague sympathy but don't particularly condemn the terrorists, fellow Muslims. When terrorists murder fellow Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq, that's a big no-no within Islam. Muslims begin to turn away from al-Qa'ida. Also, success in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to a greater, not lesser, desire for democracy among Muslim people. And that can only be a good thing. I believe most Muslims are more interested in personal prosperity than in destroying the USA; a democracy under the rule of law would allow this majority to suppress the dangerous minority who prefer destroying the USA (and Christianity, and Judaism) to life itself.

For myself I don't rate how America is viewed overseas nearly as important as whether countries feel free to openly support terrorists devoted to killing Americans. The average Muslim may be a pretty good guy, but if his country is ruled by an oppressive theocracy supporting terrorists it does neither he nor I any good.
 

Larenxis

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,648
0
0
In response to werepossom's response to me posting a BBC article:
Woah, calm down there buddy! I'm not saying 911 was justified, I'm not saying anything could justify such an act, I'm just saying what someone else said was a major cause. I don't know how you felt 'my world view' was communicated through this point. I'm not going to retaliate to your claims, 'cause I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you.

EDIT: I do agree that theocracy is not a good way to run a country. One could argue that the US is being run by a theocracy though. The elections that got President Bush into office have had many proven flaws, according to the polls he does not represent the majority, and he thinks God tells him what to do. I'm not arguing that point, but someone could, no?
 

Saskwach

New member
Nov 4, 2007
2,321
0
0
Larenxis said:
In response to werepossom's response to me posting a BBC article:
Woah, calm down there buddy! I'm not saying 911 was justified, I'm not saying anything could justify such an act, I'm just saying what someone else said was a major cause. I don't know how you felt 'my world view' was communicated through this point. I'm not going to retaliate to your claims, 'cause I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you.

EDIT: I do agree that theocracy is not a good way to run a country. One could argue that the US is being run by a theocracy though. The elections that got President Bush into office have had many proven flaws, according to the polls he does not represent the majority, and he thinks God tells him what to do. I'm not arguing that point, but someone could, no?
I think WP's main point was that even if such a thing were a real justification for 9/11 then it's a weak justification so not worth considering. More to the point, WP was asking whether "they hurt our feelings" is even something that anyone should credit as a US mistake. The loony fundamentalists who had anything to do with 9/11 hold so many other views that are total shadows of American, or even Western, beliefs, that infidel forces' proximity to Islamic holy places would be just scratching the surface.
Re: the someone-could-say tangent. Sure, someone could say it, but do you believe it? If you do, then say you do. If you don't then don't even mention it. Don't make a remark then wash your hands of it. It's a dishonest tactic; like hitting someone from behind then running away. One could argue that the US is a theocracy, but one would be wrong.
 

Oh-Wiseone

New member
Jun 9, 2008
62
0
0
Fondant said:
Okay, I have neglected to provide evidence (Though if it were a CIA plot, there would be very little beyond rumour and speculation anyway). Here is some (and please forgive the incredibilty of this source- twas the best of a bad bunch):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

Sucks, dosen't it.

Oh well.
So part of the evidence you bring up to support your claim is that there is no evidence? Thats pretty much what your saying when you said "there would be very little beyond rumour and speculation." Sorry but lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. AND doesn't it seem a little odd that the CIA would botch up this takeover so badly, but then do such an excellent job in covering up? Thats quite a difference in "job performance" so to speak.

Anyway Canada is doing a fantastic job in Afghanistan, it has given much more than larger European nations who outright refuse to be placed in combat.
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
Oh-Wiseone said:
AND doesn't it seem a little odd that the CIA would botch up this takeover so badly, but then do such an excellent job in covering up? Thats quite a difference in "job performance" so to speak.
yeah they could be like CSIS and botch a job and not cover it up and then you never hear from them again. that frankly worries me more with an intelligence agency
 

werepossum

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,103
0
0
Saskwach said:
Larenxis said:
In response to werepossom's response to me posting a BBC article:
Woah, calm down there buddy! I'm not saying 911 was justified, I'm not saying anything could justify such an act, I'm just saying what someone else said was a major cause. I don't know how you felt 'my world view' was communicated through this point. I'm not going to retaliate to your claims, 'cause I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you.

EDIT: I do agree that theocracy is not a good way to run a country. One could argue that the US is being run by a theocracy though. The elections that got President Bush into office have had many proven flaws, according to the polls he does not represent the majority, and he thinks God tells him what to do. I'm not arguing that point, but someone could, no?
I think WP's main point was that even if such a thing were a real justification for 9/11 then it's a weak justification so not worth considering. More to the point, WP was asking whether "they hurt our feelings" is even something that anyone should credit as a US mistake. The loony fundamentalists who had anything to do with 9/11 hold so many other views that are total shadows of American, or even Western, beliefs, that infidel forces' proximity to Islamic holy places would be just scratching the surface.
Re: the someone-could-say tangent. Sure, someone could say it, but do you believe it? If you do, then say you do. If you don't then don't even mention it. Don't make a remark then wash your hands of it. It's a dishonest tactic; like hitting someone from behind then running away. One could argue that the US is a theocracy, but one would be wrong.
Thanks, that was exactly my point. Larenxis, I don't want to attack you, but the Howard Dean approach - putting forth an outrageous argument but refusing to defend it - literally makes steam come out of my ears. We get the same from the other side of the aisle, that al-Qa'ida hates us because we accept homosexuals, grant women the right to self-determination, accept "sinful" displays of skin, etc. It's true that al-Qa'ida hates us for all those reasons and more, but please don't put forth another's ideas of justification unless you actual believe in and prepared to defend those ideas, or very clearly state that you do not believe in those ideas.

In the end I don't really care why they hate us; I care what they do. I would no more agree to abandoning Saudi Arabia to the Islamists (at least as long as the Saudi government wants us there, I wouldn't force our protection on anyone) or Israel to Hezbollah than I would agree to forcing American women into head scarfs, modest clothing, and arranged marriages.

Our way of life is our own to choose, as Saudi Arabia's is theirs to choose and Afghanistan's way of life was theirs to choose until they began sending terrorists to kill us. Please note that although we have toppled the governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq, we leave both countries' citizens to choose their own form of government and the amount of personal freedom they prefer. Although we urged both toward Western-style, Judao-Christian rights for women in particular, both countries chose for themselves the constitution and laws under which they will live. And that's a good thing.

And again, I apologize if I came on too strong or made rash assumptions.
 

Larenxis

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,648
0
0
Thank you for apologizing, I appreciate it. If I used emoticons, I would be using a smiley faced one right now. And now back to our bitter dispute.

I would never, ever say this:
werepossum said:
In the end I don't really care why they hate us; I care what they do.
I really care why people do the things they do. In my experience, it is only through understanding that any progress can be made. I also have a lot of faith in human kind. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas made my day today, and I really hope it's sustained. I mean, they've signed a truce, and Hamas, (the people who have "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." in their charter) are dedicated to it. I love it.

In response to Sakwatch: I disagree. I don't think I should have to invest myself into every theory or idea that I observe or contemplate.

And to everyone in general: This discussion has rubbed off on me. I'm growing more understanding that Canada may not being doing things perfectly, but we're probably doing the best we can. Which is a little depressing, but not quite as frustrating. I do wish there was more information easily available (and reliable) though, but thank you everyone for taking part.
 

werepossum

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,103
0
0
Larenxis said:
I'm growing more understanding that Canada may not being doing things perfectly, but we're probably doing the best we can. Which is a little depressing, but not quite as frustrating. I do wish there was more information easily available (and reliable) though, but thank you everyone for taking part.
When the United States decided to go into Afghanistan, Canada had two choices - honor its treaty obligations and enter a war for which its leaders probably had no stomach, or break its treaty obligations. I doubt Canada's leaders were much happier about those choices than you would be, but that's life: sometimes none of your choices look particularly appealing.

It was much the same for the USA after negotiations for the surrender of bin Laden failed - invade Afghanistan at great cost in lives and fortune, or not invade, accepting more attacks and enforcing the attitude espoused by bin Laden that America is a paper tiger, unable or unwilling to strike back. I doubt George Bush was particularly happy about his available choices either.
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
CrazySlyHawk said:
This war has stretched on for around 7 years now and is an absolute joke. Canadians have proved their worth countless times before, but they should not bother in such a flop.
When have people started to classify wars now. "This one's a flop. I'd rather we go fight the Nazi's again. That one was fun." Sorry, but I thought it was an odd thing to say about a war.

In all hounesty, I can't see much difference besides the Nazi's and the al-Qa'ida aside from the Nazi's need for a large land grab. Between death camps and straight out murders, not alot has changed.

EDIT

Larenxis said:
And to everyone in general: This discussion has rubbed off on me. I'm growing more understanding that Canada may not being doing things perfectly, but we're probably doing the best we can. Which is a little depressing, but not quite as frustrating. I do wish there was more information easily available (and reliable) though, but thank you everyone for taking part.
That's probably the best thing I've heard all day. The fact that you're not being ignorent about this (that was a complement not an attack). I've seen so many people take the far left wing and stick to it on these issues.
 

Larenxis

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,648
0
0
I'd prefer it if we could stay away from the Nazi-talk. I've yet to find a discussion it didn't ruin. But thanks for the compliment, I'll refrain from pointing out the irony in spelling 'ignorant' wrong. Oh wait... Damn! Sorry.
 

darthgareth

New member
May 6, 2008
17
0
0
I do agree that what us canadians are doing is wrong (incorrect, not evil) but there is no way to stop the war without pointless conflict, or harming afgan people.
 

TheDon

New member
Apr 2, 2008
37
0
0
Violence is always wrong, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet so to speak. I personally believe that if your citizens are threatened by crazy bombstrapping Al Quadians, then it is your military obligation to capture/kill them all with as little civilian casualties as possible. When you think about the kids who carry the bombs to blow up infidels though, it is kind of hard to see the line between civilians and killers. The only solution I see is quick quiet invasion, or perhaps blow up their base of operations. I once saw the U.S. military drop a bomb through a chimney and take out the house without any of the other houses getting damaged.
 

Larenxis

New member
Dec 13, 2007
1,648
0
0
In response to TheDon: They don't exactly advertise their secret bases though, do they?