Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan
- Thread starter Larenxis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh man, I gotta disagree with this sentiment. I'm pretty sure fewer countries would feel free to openly support terrorists devoted to killing Americans if Americans were more careful about how the world views them. Prevention is generally better than treatment.werepossum said:
Yes. Yes it is. You wouldn't go to a southern evangelical church and start preaching evolution, would you? They'd beat the tar out of you. They're not justified in doing so, but you still should have expected the result. Similarly, the American government should have put more effort into understanding the region they were making diplomatic ties with.Saskwach said:
I suppose we have a difference of opinion. I tend to think fewer countries' rulers would feel free to openly support terrorists devoted to killing Americans if they believed those Americans would come after them. Up until 9-11 they knew that the terrorists would come after them, and that the USA would not. Now supporting either side has risks.Nugoo said:
I would prefer to ask if you would go into a house near to a southern evangelical church and take a teenager for an abortion if the pregnancy could potentially end her life. They might beat the tar out of you, true; but the teenager might die if you don't. Just as with our opening bases in Saudi Arabia there will be hate generated and no guaranty that doing nothing will cause any harm, but doing nothing also runs a risk as well. I prefer to aid the good people (Saudis or dumb teenager) and damn the bad people (terrorists and these hypothetical evangelical church folk willing to risk a teenager's life rather than countenance an abortion. Please note that these hypothetical evangelical church folk were created by me for this example and not necessarily representative of hypothetical evangelical church folk in general, in whom I seem to to have more faith than do you.) I do agree that we need to understand the terrorists in order to more efficiently kill them, and that we need to understand Muslims in general in order to avoid giving offense unintentionally, but at the end of the day I couldn't give a dying rat's last fart if al-Qa'ida gets it widdle feewings huwt. In fact, I prefer it.Nugoo said:
But I agree both are situations on which good people may disagree.
To TheDon, we do have satellites capable of resolving a cat, on a very clear day, in unpolluted areas. But it takes a hell of a long time to search Afghanistan one cat-space at a time.
Apologies to the mods for the quote thicket.
(Three apologies this thread. I'm getting soft.)
Unfortunately an Afghan jihad rally looks a lot like an Afghan wedding from above, about the same number of AKMs and the same amount of gunfire.TheDon said:
I dont think people realoze that this is a different type of enemy. Their not angry because we did something, the culture and relgion is based around this warped idea of dominance to the western world. Look at the Israel, Arab world conflict. Countless times they've tried to destory Israel out of just hate. In the six days war, Arab television stations were telling the people they would finally exterminate them and the people rejoiced. You can say thats racist or something but thats the reality, its not like its the peoples fault, thier completely brainwashed by a culture bent on hate. People like to talk about the basic North American moralty, its the same thing only twisted
It is not naive, it is optimistic. I believe that people are good at the core. I witness 'lost causes' coming around every day and I have a faith in humanity that is constantly being reasserted. I mean look at Hamas. A ceasefire! For reals! Even if it only lasts an hour, I'll still be happy. These human beings in Afghanistan have been manipulated; these twelve-year-old suicide bombers have had misinformation forced upon them. Murder isn't precisely the best way to educate someone, and therefore can not be the sole solution.
I'm not sure he meant it to be vulgar, even if it is, its an important part of being a warrior that you understand oneself and your enemy, so you better understand how he can be defeated with the means that you possess. Basicly, if someone is a professional warrior, if their goals can be accomplished more effectively through social customs then the blunt instrument of an assault, it is far more preferable so the warrior can save (possibly even gain) resources for when it is better needed. There can a lot of benefits from going native, especially intel gathering - if you win over the hearts and minds of a local population, you take away a big source of resources and natural camouflage from a guerrilla fighter.Larenxis said:
But apparently that isn't happening in Afghanistan. I was talking with a friend in the Canadian Military and I asked him, in your opinion, are we doing any good over there? His answer was we haven't really done anything to change the situation, they are just waiting to leave and when its asked what would they like built in their cities, towns, and villages, it isn't schools or hospitals or some other corner stone life style improving service they ask for, they ask for another mosque, even if they already have a number of them. Unfortunately, they are either too set in their ways or very close to hopelessly indoctrinated that it would take literally a few generations to live and die before any significant amount of change to the tribal warfare that is ingrained there. So they just wait and if some of the local war lords think they can benefit from increasing our death toll, you can be sure they will find a way, its their home turf after all.
You might see why I would prefer Canadian Military at home helping out in disaster relief (floods, ice storms, fire storms, etc) and securing our borders, especially our sovereignty in the arctic, over duking it out with tribal leaders and war lords because they have tendency to find common cause when they believe they are being occupied and can bleed our resolve and be more patient than us.
Other then our NATO obligations, I really see no reason for us to keep our men and women in harms way over there. Even then, it begs the question, is NATO even still needed or is it just dragging us down?
Hmm, something I am curious about, has Canada ever done its own independent investigation into the events of 9/11? Would Canada ever consider use of assasins against Al-Queda targets baring us no good intentions?
It is tragic but in the field you cannot be optimistic about someone who you don't know.Larenxis said:
For example I remember this training operation I was involved in a while back, we were on patrol when we ran across a single person walking towards us with his hands in the air. He looked like he was trying to surrender. We ordered him as best we could to keep his distance and not get too close to the patrol incase he was wired. As we were dealing with this guy, trying to get him to take his shirt off(he obviously didnt speak English) with a game of "charades," we were attacked by a bunker. The patrol ran for cover but this guy was in the open, and our enemies don't like people who try to surrender. I remember shooting at the bunker while at the same time watching this guy to make sure he didn't run over to us. Again I had no idea if he was armed or wired at all, but I couldn't take that chance. And this guy was pleading for us to let him come over to us, because we were under cover, he was screaming, laying on the ground, looking over at the bunker. I really wanted to help the guy but we couldn't risk it. Anyway we dealt with the bunker and found that during the firefight this guy had been killed by our soldiers because of some miscommunication. When we investigated the body afterwards it turned out the guy was wired with an IED. If we had let him take cover with us we'd all have been killed. But at the same time it was equally possible that he could have been an honest guy trying to surrender and got killed for it.
Larenxis, Hamas has agreed to lots of ceasefires with Israel, usually when either getting the worst of the latest round of violence, attempting to avoid retribution after some particularly successful act of terrorism, or needing freedom to smuggle in another shipment of rockets and mortar bombs to launch into Israel. Every ceasefire before has ended in an attack on Israel. Maybe this one will take, but that's not where the smart money's laying.Larenxis said:
These "human beings" have strapped bombs to retarded women and small children, murdered children for the crime of accepting candy from American soldiers, burned schools full of young girls for the crime of being sent to school. They blow up fellow Muslims who aren't even friendly with Westerners for no better reason than knowing that anti-war types will blame those deaths on Americans.
They murder their daughters to "restore the family honor" if the girls are no longer virgins even through rape or molestation. Their prescribed treatment of homosexuals is to burn them alive; they do however accept young boys as lovers (lovely little custom of Pushtu society.) Adulterers are stoned to death, sometimes by building a wall and toppling in onto them. There was a legal debate amongst three judges in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan a few years back on how best to punish a man who had committed adultery with another man; eventually they settled for building a wall, setting on fire, and toppling it onto him. Several times girls who had remained chaste were gang-raped because a judge sentenced her to be raped by the brothers of a girl with whom her brother had been too friendly, to the point that although she might still be a virgin, she was loose and had dishonored her family. The dishonored girl's family recoups its honor by dishonoring a girl with the misfortune.
These are people who kidnap Westerners, some of whom are there to protest on behalf of the terrorists, and cut off their heads for the crime of not being Muslim, the people who kidnap and behead Muslims for the crime of not being sufficiently hostile toward Americans. People who lob mortar shells into crowded markets and school yards, fire rockets into residential neighborhoods, killing people they've never met and who have never done them an ill-turn. People who sneak across the border and into schools to murder Jewish children, or seize Russian schools and shoot Christian and Muslim children alike in the back. And you think they are simply misinformed? You consider them misguided human beings? I consider them clever and dangerous rabid animals. You want to educate them, fine, knock yourself out. But settle your affairs first so your mother doesn't have to. As for "giving me the benefit of the doubt", don't do me any favors, child. Just grow up.
And now I think I shall leave this thread, as it reminds me too much of the fall of Western civilization. Sadly I think bin Laden is right; the West has become a paper tiger, and radical Islam is destined to rule the world with fire and steel. Long live the 7th century.
I dare not claim to be an expert, but this may be a way to bring the above example into a better light.Larenxis said:
Let's say you have a dog. He's, friendly, loyal, and would never hurt you. Now let's say that dog had never been vaccinated against rabies and he is bitten by a rabid fox. He will still look like your same old loyal pet, and act as such, but the disease will eventually cause him to lose himself and there is a great possibility he will attack you. In that case, do you try to reason with the animal as your old pet, or treat him as the threat against your life that he is and take a defensive stance?
I don't mean this to be racist in any way, but this is the best comparison that I can think of. People in this example are represented by the good dog. Those influenced to take on terrorist acts have been bit by a disease that makes them feel killing innocents and sacrificing their own lives for a god is acceptable (I am NOT saying a terrorist mindset is a disease, but it appears to act LIKE one under the correct circumstances). They have not been vaccinated against such notions with an education or global sense of knowledge. These people can be given knowledge after the fact, but like the dog that had rabies there will always be something off, something that could cause them to snap.
In the situation with the dog, the animal is put down. In regards to people... I'm not sure what the correct way of dealing with them would be. Killing them would be the easy way out, but by doing so they would no longer be martyrs because they didn't die by their own means, thus angering others like them to take more action. In my opinion education would be a pro-active solution for the young, but I'm not sure trying to tarnish a belief that aged people have thrown their life into would work.
*sighs* The whole situation is an up-hill battle with no easy solution, and I don't think anybody has a concrete answer on what will definitely work. Well, except for my mother wanting to nuke the entire middle-east, but I'd rather leave epic-scale genocide with her twisted take on the world.
I myself have had a bit of a personal stake in this mess. My cousin's cousin was the photographer killed in Afghanistan a couple of years ago, and two of my friends were in military training throughout high school. The one actually gave up the military because the Canadian Armed Forces would not make him deployable to Afghanistan. He is now in police training.
Just my 2 cents:
I live in New York, and I was able to see the smoke rising in the distance on September 11th. I was horrified that someone would do something like that to a group of innocent people in the 21st century, but as the days rolled on it dawned on me; what if it happens again? Will I be lucky enough to be far away from Ground Zero the next time?
When it was announced that we were invading Afghanistan, I was glad. No, it's not right to go in and murder civilians and topple governments for no good reason, but the thing is we DID have a reason. Out of the blue an organization decided to kill thousands of US citizens for reasons that were nigh impossible to sympathize with. While I will admit to having that 'we're not just going to let them get away with this hell no' mentality, I was mainly happy to hear about the invasion because we were doing something about it. The government wasn't going to sit on its hands and issue condemnations and trade embargos and other ultimately futile decretals; instead it moved in to disassemble the organization that caused the attacks. If I remember correctly, most of the Western world could sympathize with this; the Afghan government at the time was pretty much run by the Taliban, and there would be zero progress towards preventing future attacks if the people we were complaining to were the ones that we were trying to get rid of.
It did make me, personally, more calm it that there was a clear effort to prevent such a horrific series of events from happening again. Not to say that it isn't a difficult effort, but I think that it would eventually be possible to decrease, if not eliminate, Afghanistan's status as a terrorist stronghold. The problem seems to be that after the US invaded Iraq (I'll be the first to say that this had nothing to do with anything but business interests), the US turned into the villain and as a result efforts in Afghanistan were frowned upon, due to being linked with the US's 'world police' aura.
Basically, invading Afghanistan made me feel more secure in that there was a clear enemy and a clear to goal to fight towards. Iraq, on the other hand, was little more than a land grab for oilfields and an attempt to place some US influence in the Middle East. It was a retarded decision that was supported because of fear-mongering media outlets and backwards administration.
I live in New York, and I was able to see the smoke rising in the distance on September 11th. I was horrified that someone would do something like that to a group of innocent people in the 21st century, but as the days rolled on it dawned on me; what if it happens again? Will I be lucky enough to be far away from Ground Zero the next time?
When it was announced that we were invading Afghanistan, I was glad. No, it's not right to go in and murder civilians and topple governments for no good reason, but the thing is we DID have a reason. Out of the blue an organization decided to kill thousands of US citizens for reasons that were nigh impossible to sympathize with. While I will admit to having that 'we're not just going to let them get away with this hell no' mentality, I was mainly happy to hear about the invasion because we were doing something about it. The government wasn't going to sit on its hands and issue condemnations and trade embargos and other ultimately futile decretals; instead it moved in to disassemble the organization that caused the attacks. If I remember correctly, most of the Western world could sympathize with this; the Afghan government at the time was pretty much run by the Taliban, and there would be zero progress towards preventing future attacks if the people we were complaining to were the ones that we were trying to get rid of.
It did make me, personally, more calm it that there was a clear effort to prevent such a horrific series of events from happening again. Not to say that it isn't a difficult effort, but I think that it would eventually be possible to decrease, if not eliminate, Afghanistan's status as a terrorist stronghold. The problem seems to be that after the US invaded Iraq (I'll be the first to say that this had nothing to do with anything but business interests), the US turned into the villain and as a result efforts in Afghanistan were frowned upon, due to being linked with the US's 'world police' aura.
Basically, invading Afghanistan made me feel more secure in that there was a clear enemy and a clear to goal to fight towards. Iraq, on the other hand, was little more than a land grab for oilfields and an attempt to place some US influence in the Middle East. It was a retarded decision that was supported because of fear-mongering media outlets and backwards administration.
Metaphors can never fully encompass people sacrificing themselves to kill others.
The other night I heard something about the Taliban destroying an Afghanistan prison, releasing thousands of insurgents, and now all of the Canadian efforts in the country may have been in vain. I tried to catch more information on the news but it's suddenly out of the public eye now??? Anybody have some solid information on that?
It's also 2AM so I'm going to bed. I'll check back in sometime later to see if you guys found anything.
The other night I heard something about the Taliban destroying an Afghanistan prison, releasing thousands of insurgents, and now all of the Canadian efforts in the country may have been in vain. I tried to catch more information on the news but it's suddenly out of the public eye now??? Anybody have some solid information on that?
It's also 2AM so I'm going to bed. I'll check back in sometime later to see if you guys found anything.
Thats exactly want I was trying to say.DominantGiraffe said:
To werepossum: Your points remind me of "bayoneting babies in Berlin". War time propaganda has given the Muslims an image of insane radicals who treat each other cruelty. You really have soaked up all the lies told to you to justify the war in Afghanistan if you believe those things.
I'd be happy to stick a band-aid on a severed artery and call it progress, too. Just because the wound now looks nicer to me doesn't mean the patient isn't still dying.Larenxis said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kandahar-locked-down-after-talibans-dramatic-prison-raid-847474.htmlEtherealed said:
The stats are: 1,150 were broken out. 400 were Taliban and the other 750 are probably easy sells- they're on the run, don't like those who put them in jail, appreciate being broken out and likely won't be set free if they don't want to help the Taliban.