Attack That Killed Kids Targeted Al-Qaida Leader

Last I checked the Canadian government is still actively participating in this ugly war, a war based on lies, and a war full of war crimes that are happening in the here and now. <br><br> <a href="http://www.canimmigrate.com/news/item.nhtml?profile=news&UID=159">Meanwhile Canada is unsuccessfully trying to deport very old men based on war crimes charges that the courts say are bogus.</a> <br><br> Come on Editor's why the shyness? Canada's ugly war should be on the front page where it belongs!

I'd put more stories in 'war and peace' on the front page, but editorial policy forbids it.

I don't see how Canada has any influence over US battle strategy on this. Whether we are there or not, this kind of 'acceptable loss' thing is US policy, and will continue so long as air power is used.

That is also why Canadian forces employ a man-to-man ground based strategy, to lessen the chance of civillian casualties. Too bad the Taliban can't employ such tactics.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"I'd put more stories in 'war and peace' on the front page, but editorial policy forbids it."

Editorial policy states that articles concerning Canada's sovereignty should get front page placement. Canada is in this war because of what reason?

"I don't see how Canada has any influence over US battle strategy on this."

Canada cannot stop the US from intentionally killing innocent children and civilians (a war crime), but it does *not* have to support it!

"That is also why Canadian forces employ a man-to-man ground based strategy, to lessen the chance of civillian casualties."

The Canadian government can do much more than that, it can order its troops to withdraw from the war, else it becomes complicit in obvious war crimes. Canada has a legal and moral obligation to pull out when the use of war crimes is officially used by NATO as a military strategy.

"Too bad the Taliban can't employ such tactics."

The Taliban are not killing any of our kids, at least not any who are innocent civilians. The only Canadian's I see being killed are packing loaded guns having forced their way onto Afghan soil.

"Editorial policy states that articles concerning Canada's sovereignty should get front page placement."<br />
<br />
Close. Policy is that only stories relating to Vive's mission:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/multifaq/index.php?topic=15&qt_id=94&getlevel=019">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/multifaq/index.php?topic=15&qt_id=94&getlevel=019</a><br />
<br />
get posted at all, and those stories relating to sovereignty (NAU, SPP, Corporate Control of Democracy and Democratic reform {plus others topics}) get front page.<br />
<br />
As you say, "The Canadian government can do much more than that, it can order its troops to withdraw from the war, else it becomes complicit in obvious war crimes. Canada has a legal and moral obligation to pull out when the use of war crimes is officially used by NATO as a military strategy." so if we have that choice, our sovereingty is intact and not threatened - therefore not front page.<br />
<br />
I cannot debate policy with you, because I do not control it. I just follow it.<br />
<br />
"Canada is in this war because of what reason?"<br />
<br />
You know my answer to that.<br />
<br />
"Canada cannot stop the US from intentionally killing innocent children and civilians (a war crime), but it does *not* have to support it!"<br />
<br />
Where does this article say we supported or condoned the killing of non-combatants?<br />
<br />
"The Taliban are not killing any of our kids, at least not any who are innocent civilians."<br />
<br />
You may have worded this poorly. Kids are always innocent civillians. And they are killing Afghan kids. Does it matter that they are not Canadian kids? Do you not think they would kill Canadian kids if given the opportunity?<br />
<br />
"The only Canadian's I see being killed are packing loaded guns having forced their way onto Afghan soil."<br />
<br />
I know, because that is the only way you want to see them; Ignoring that just about everyone in Afghanistan carries loaded guns. And unlike the Taliban, NATO soldiers have been invited to stay.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

"so if we have that choice, our sovereingty is intact and not threatened - therefore not front page."

We have the choice to opt out of NAFTA too, yet that subject often gets a front page placement.

"I cannot debate policy with you, because I do not control it. I just follow it."

Yes but in order to follow policy you have to interpret it, and I'll be so bold as to point out that your interpretation is biased in favor of slotting Canada's war into the nooks and crannies of this website.

"You know my answer to that."

The answer is called NATO, which is really no different than NAFTA, is it not?

"Where does this article say we supported or condoned the killing of non-combatants?"

The Canadian governments active participation right along side the war criminals and it's complete lack of protest against known war crimes speak volumes.

"And they are killing Afghan kids. Does it matter that they are not Canadian kids?"

Please stick to the subject. I'm talking about NATO (which includes the participation of Canadian troops) killing Afghan kids. What the Taliban are doing is another topic altogether, and by no means can justify the use of similar tactics by NATO forces. War crimes are still war crimes no matter if both sides in a war are guilty of carrying out such crimes.

"Do you not think they would kill Canadian kids if given the opportunity?"

I have no idea because they are not doing anything of the kind.

"Ignoring that just about everyone in Afghanistan carries loaded guns."

So what? Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, yet NATO has not invaded the country because of it.

"And unlike the Taliban, NATO soldiers have been invited to stay."

You know just as well as I, that the Afghan government was hand picked by the US government and is being propped up by US led forces under the banner of NATO. If you think that a government's "invitation to stay" means anything when that governments very survival depends wholly on the "invitation to stay", then you are doing a fine job of proving that you are indeed very biased when it comes to the subject of the Afghanistan war.

"We have the choice to opt out of NAFTA too, yet that subject often gets a front page placement. "

Because our sovereingty is at risk if we don't.

"Yes but in order to follow policy you have to interpret it, and I'll be so bold as to point out that your interpretation is biased in favor of slotting Canada's war into the nooks and crannies of this website."

Quite the contrary. I believe some stories in 'War and Peace' should be front paged because they speak to how Canada is independent in how we project our and stand for our values, and for a time I was front paging them. I was 'asked' strongly not to do that any more. So, I don't. By design, all new stories appear in the sections, or in 'X New Stories in the last 24 hours' on the top of the front page.

The only way to 'bury' a story is to delete it, and I believe I've published every story assigned to 'War and Peace' for the last 3 or 4 years. Even if I disagreed with it.

"The answer is called NATO, which is really no different than NAFTA, is it not?"

Well, yes. NAFTA is about easing restrictions on business. NATO is about defending our allies, and having them defend us. At least, that is the theory.

"The Canadian governments active participation right along side the war criminals and it's complete lack of protest against known war crimes speak volumes."

Lack of condemnation of a thing does not mean support for it, the same logic as; because something is not proven true does not mean it is false.

"War crimes are still war crimes no matter if both sides in a war are guilty of carrying out such crimes."

I wholly agree. Assessing children as 'acceptable losses' is deplorable. But it is not only NATO or the US to blame here, Afghan forces are also involved. And I haven't read anywhere if Canadian forces were even consulted before this attack, but I highly doubt anyone would ask our opinion of it, nor follow our advice if they did.

"I have no idea because they are not doing anything of the kind. "

I think you have your blinders on again. I didn't ask if they had, I asked if there was an opportunity do you think they would take it? Given the recent proaganda release saying new terror school graduates are coming, I don't believe for a second that a Canadian school on Canadian soil would not be a prime target for the Taliban. They are exactally that sort of coward, because they are willing to bomb schools in their own country. To change public opinion here by attacking our own children is exactally their sort of tactic.

"So what? Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, yet NATO has not invaded the country because of it."

Huh? We invaded Afghanistan because they carry guns?

I always chuckle when you say that we invaded Afghanistan by force. I remember the first months of the deployment of Canadian troops. They had to be escorted around by French and Dutch troops because the paperwork for our troops to carry weapons hadn't been completed properly, so they couldn't carry weapons. 75 troops without weapons is hardly an invasion force.

"You know just as well as I, that the Afghan government was hand picked by the US government and is being propped up by US led forces under the banner of NATO."

And you know as well as I that many former drug lords and Taliban are part of that government, in contrary to your opinion, because the people voted them there.

"If you think that a government's "invitation to stay" means anything when that governments very survival depends wholly on the "invitation to stay", then you are doing a fine job of proving that you are indeed very biased when it comes to the subject of the Afghanistan war."

Why thank you. I've never hid my bias, nethier have you. And it's true, because the Afghan governemnt is incapable of defending itself. For many years, the 'government' was the most organized group who used the most brutal tactics to achieve it's authority. Now, they are democratic, and need time to develop proper authority based on rule of law.

And since we were party to the removal of the government and infrastructure, it is our duty under the Geneva Conventions to rebuild both to the point where they are self sustaining again.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Because our sovereingty is at risk if we don't."

Being bound by a treaty with a military establishment that's effectively being dictated mostly by the USA cannot be good for Canadian sovereignty.

"Quite the contrary. I believe some stories in 'War and Peace' should be front paged because they speak to how Canada is independent in how we project our and stand for our values, and for a time I was front paging them. I was 'asked' strongly not to do that any more."

Are you saying that you took on a biased view when posting these stories by placing only favorable stories to the front page? I'm left wondering if you were strongly asked to stop front paging stories that are only favorable to the war effort, or you where told to stop front paging *all* stories about the war?

If Canada's war is not considered to be a cause for concern here at Vive, then I'm truly mystified. The war is about Canada's involvement with an international cabal of war criminals who openly admit to their crimes (as the thread article states). Canada when looked at as a supposedly democratic country overwhelmingly does not support the war, yet the current "new" government elected with less than 1/4 of the eligible vote continue to support the war effort. Hardly a display of Canadian sovereignty if you ask me.

"The only way to 'bury' a story is to delete it, and I believe I've published every story assigned to 'War and Peace' for the last 3 or 4 years. Even if I disagreed with it."

Credit goes to you (and the powers that run Vive) for publishing these stories. However I'll still suggest that these stories (either positive or negative towards the war) should make it on to the front page.

"Lack of condemnation of a thing does not mean support for it"

However, a lack of condemnation plus active participation does suggest a level of support. Add to that the fact that most Canadians do not support the war, yet a minority government with little popular support continues to argue in favor of a continued unpopular war effort despite knowing about the war crimes carried out by its main so-called "ally" (the same cable that's trying to assume complete control over Canada through NAFTA and so on).

You may recall that I previously brought up the story about the getaway driver who claims innocence because while he drove away the bank robbers, did not actually rob the bank and did not actually shoot anyone dead. Well, that's the same level of innocence you are suggesting the Canadian government deserves.

"But it is not only NATO or the US to blame here, Afghan forces are also involved."

Well yes they are all war criminals, but make note that the Afghan forces are not really Afghan forces because they are under the command of an invasion force.

"I didn't ask if they had, I asked if there was an opportunity do you think they would take it?"

Well it seems that you really want me to speculate. I'll first suggest that the schools being blown up by the Taliban (if they really are doing such things given the war propaganda we're being fed) are probably schools built by the invasion forces or are being manned by what are viewed as "collaborators". The French resistance shot dead those who collaborated with the German invasion force during WWII, and I'm certain many innocent children where caught up in the cross fire. War is always very ugly because it's about killing to impose one will over another and nothing else.

From a strategic perspective, in my estimation it would be an idiotic tactical mistake for Taliban forces to kill Canadian children. However it's also an idiotic tactical mistake for American forces to kill Afghan children, which they've admitted doing, therefore the idiotic is certainly possible on all sides.

I'll reiterate that Afghan children are being murdered by US forces under the banner of NATO, of which Canada is an active participant. The Taliban are not murdering Canadian children.

"Huh? We invaded Afghanistan because they carry guns?"

You missed the point. You were suggesting that Canadian troops are carrying guns while in Afghanistan because a lot of Afghans carry guns (or something like that).

"I always chuckle when you say that we invaded Afghanistan by force."

Well then, let's say that the US military under the banner of NATO did not invade Afghanistan, then how would Canadian troops have managed to plant the Maple Leaf onto Afghan soil?

"And you know as well as I that many former drug lords and Taliban are part of that government,"

That's what you get when you make deals with the devil. Those thugs in the Afghan government are the same bunch that made up the so-called "Northern Alliance", popularized through war propaganda as the "good guys".

"in contrary to your opinion, because the people voted them there."

Yeah sure. It is hard enough to have a legitimate democracy even in the best of times, for example in Canada we have a PM that was voted in despite 77% of the eligible vote *not* going in his favor. In Afghanistan it was far worse than the fascicle elections held here in Canada, it was a militarily imposed "demockery". Whatever show that was put on by the invasion force cannot be taken seriously at all.

"And since we were party to the removal of the government and infrastructure, it is our duty under the Geneva Conventions to rebuild both to the point where they are self sustaining again."

Yes, and rebuild in "our image" and to "our advantage" of course, else what would be the point of war?

"Are you saying that you took on a biased view when posting these stories by placing only favorable stories to the front page? I'm left wondering if you were strongly asked to stop front paging stories that are only favorable to the war effort, or you where told to stop front paging *all* stories about the war?"<br />
<br />
No, like always, I am only saying what I write. 'War and Peace' was edited like all other sections, using the same criteria to determine if a story was front page or not. I was asked to stop front paging *all* stories in 'War and Peace', except for extreme cases (such as we declare war on Iceland or something).<br />
<br />
"However I'll still suggest that these stories (either positive or negative towards the war) should make it on to the front page."<br />
<br />
I would agree too, but it's not my sandbox, so I play by the rules I'm given.<br />
<br />
"You may recall that I previously brought up the story about the getaway driver who claims innocence because while he drove away the bank robbers, did not actually rob the bank and did not actually shoot anyone dead. Well, that's the same level of innocence you are suggesting the Canadian government deserves."<br />
<br />
Mmm, no. I'm saying our cousin borrowed the car, and robbed a bank while we were still at home across town. As it always has been throughout history, the US does not consult us before it acts militarally.<br />
<br />
"From a strategic perspective, in my estimation it would be an idiotic tactical mistake for Taliban forces to kill Canadian children."<br />
<br />
It would be a gamble. It would enrage people, but it would turn many other against the war too, which would be the Taliban' sgoal. Whether it made people more angry or more afraid is the gamble the Taliban would take. But I have no doubt they would take it.<br />
<br />
"However it's also an idiotic tactical mistake for American forces to kill Afghan children, which they've admitted doing, therefore the idiotic is certainly possible on all sides."<br />
<br />
Of course, the US always admits it makes mistakes when it knows it has killed innocents unintentionally. Or, are you actually believing the news story in the article? If so, why believe the news media this one time, and not any other? Because it matches you own perception of the war?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/afghan.violence/?eref=sitesearch">http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/afghan.violence/?eref=sitesearch</a><br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6233082.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6233082.stm</a><br />
<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5A5450B1-620F-487A-AA93-A93D31E88AF8.htm">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5A5450B1-620F-487A-AA93-A93D31E88AF8.htm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
"You missed the point. You were suggesting that Canadian troops are carrying guns while in Afghanistan because a lot of Afghans carry guns (or something like that)."<br />
<br />
No, I was saying people (soldiers or civillans) carring guns in Afghanistan is nothing out of the ordinary. We aren't there because people are carrying guns.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

"I would agree too, but it's not my sandbox, so I play by the rules I'm given."

A mysterious set of rules then.

"Mmm, no. I'm saying our cousin borrowed the car, and robbed a bank while we were still at home across town. As it always has been throughout history, the US does not consult us before it acts militarally."

In theory it's NATO that's acting militarily, but of course you are proving my point that NATO is a farce, because it's really nothing but a tool of the USA and we're the pee ons tagging along for the ride. I'll repeat again that the Afghan war really is about Canadian sovereignty and little else.