"The alibi is that we are there to prevent the spread of terrorism. In fact, it is by being there that you are creating enmity against yourself."
Can the Taliban be defeated?
"No, they can't be. There's no end to the supply of razakars (willing fighters). For an Afghan, there's no greater calling than taking on a non-Afghan occupying his land, especially a white man who is not a Muslim."
The British and the Soviets may have discovered that but, I ventured, the Taliban may be doing well not because of their DNA but the sanctuaries they allegedly enjoy in Pakistan.
"This is being alleged on the flimsiest of evidence," Ghori said. "Where's the proof?
http://thestar.com/opinion/article/202946
Note: http://thestar.com/opin...
When Did Afghanistan Declare War On Canada?
Posted on Monday, April 16 at 09:14 by BC MaryContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
History is so much better when it's re-written, isn't it? If the Taliban had simply given Osama over to the ICC for trial, perhaps things like Iraq and Guantanamo Bay would never have happened.
But hiding someone who is wanted for terrorism is now punishable under the UN charter by 'invasion'.
"There was one mention of Canada by Osama bin Laden, way back when."
Way back when? Doesn't Al-Queda regularally try to scare us by saying Canada is on 'the list'? oooooooo! We don't want to be on 'the list'!
"Can the Taliban be defeated? . . . For an Afghan, there's no greater calling than taking on a non-Afghan occupying his land, especially a white man who is not a Muslim."
There is where the logic fails. 'The Taliban' can be defeated, by other Afghans. And Canadians are not 'occupiers', nor are we trying to take over the country.
"This is being alleged on the flimsiest of evidence," Ghori said. "Where's the proof?
Interesting. Former Pakistani ambassador to Turkey. No agenda on his mind, is there?
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
And just who's right is it, to "demand" another government hand over a suspect and without any proof or evidence of that suspects guilt? The USA would have envaded Canada many times over when our government refused to hand over all those the USA demanded.
"But hiding someone who is wanted for terrorism is now punishable under the UN charter by 'invasion'."
So it appears and what is the next infraction to create war?
".. For an Afghan, there's no greater calling than taking on a non-Afghan occupying his land, especially a white man who is not a Muslim."
"White man?" Perhaps "westerner" who assumes they have more rights then the people they claim to protect.
One would consider the local natives to have once been a terrorist or insurgency, under the new rules. Perhaps only Muslims and any culture unlike ours will have to be taught the lesson.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
That is the whole point of the ICC. Even if he wasn't the financier behind 9/11 (which he was), there's still the whole matter of the embassy bombings . . .USS Cole . . .
That is when Afghanistan 'declared war' on Canada. When he was not given to the ICC for charges or trial.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Would the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq be prevented, depends on the real reason the US is showing so much interest in the middle east. Their excuses are many but still feeble. Perhaps it's their constant lies that make the Taliban what they are today.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
<br />
October 14, 2001<br />
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html</a><br />
<br />
October 17, 2001<br />
New offer on Bin Laden<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html</a><br />
<br />
"perhaps things like Iraq and Guantanamo Bay would never have happened."<br />
<br />
The criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the torture chambers at Guantanamo had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden. To this day the USG cannot present a valid reason why it had to invade and occupy Iraq, and their initial excuse has been proven to be an intentional lie.<br />
<br />
The USG certainly never had a good reason to imprison people for life without trial, nor has it ever had any justification for torturing people.<br />
<br />
To suggest that the Taliban and Osama made them behave like murderous psychopaths is absolutely ridiculous.<br />
<br />
"But hiding someone who is wanted for terrorism is now punishable under the UN charter by 'invasion'."<br />
<br />
That's complete nonsense. The UN Charter demands that conflicts are resolved peacefully, where criminals are brought to justice in front of an international court. War can be declared by the UN as an absolute last resort to settle a major problem, however the UN did not declare war against the government of Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
"Doesn't Al-Queda regularally try to scare us by saying Canada is on 'the list'?"<br />
<br />
Not that I'm aware of. Got any proof that this is happening?<br />
<br />
"There is where the logic fails. 'The Taliban' can be defeated, by other Afghans."<br />
<br />
The Taliban are not green men from Mars, they are native born Afghans who prior to the invasion had a significant level of support among the Afghan population because they were able to bring relative peace and stability to the country where no one else could.<br />
<br />
Afghanistan's history has seen several major invasion attempts, with all ending in failure. The longest conquest lasted 55 years after Alexander the Great died. Most invasions last at most a decade. According to history, the current invasion won't last for more than another 4 years or so and it will not end in "success".<br />
<br />
"And Canadians are not 'occupiers', nor are we trying to take over the country."<br />
<br />
That's complete nonsense. O'Connor just finished stating that Canada will have to continue with the occupation of Afghanistan for at least another 15 years. Canada has already been occupying Afghanistan for 6 years since 2001, so that'll be 21 years minimum according to Canada's defense minister! If that's not an occupation and take over, then what the hell is it?<br />
<br />
Here you are trying to argue that Canada is militarily occupying Afghanistan and killing people who oppose the occupation for purely humanitarian reasons when the snakes that have ordered this fiasco cannot even work in the best interests of Canadians right here at home. If they will sell out their own country for pennies, imagine what they are doing to those ungrateful Afghani's!<br />
<br />
"Interesting. Former Pakistani ambassador to Turkey. No agenda on his mind, is there?"<br />
<br />
OK, but where's the proof?<br />
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over"<br />
<br />
FTA:<br />
<br />
"Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts<br />
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today."<br />
<br />
"For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said."<br />
<br />
So why not hand him over to the ICC? Kind of makes your constant cries of 'Where is Osama!' and 'Where is the Proof?' is the Taliban knew where he was, and were willing to hand him over.<br />
<br />
"The criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the torture chambers at Guantanamo had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden."<br />
<br />
We aren't talking Iraq. The topic is Afghanistan. If the ICC had Osama, what excuse would they have to go into Iraq? If Guantanamo is about Iraq, then why are most prisoners there from Afghanistan?<br />
<br />
"The UN Charter demands that conflicts are resolved peacefully, where criminals are brought to justice in front of an international court. War can be declared by the UN as an absolute last resort to settle a major problem, however the UN did not declare war against the government of Afghanistan."<br />
<br />
How soon ye forget. The UN made it legal that if a country that had a terrorist act performed against it, and another country was harbouring those believed responsible, then invasion was authorised to catch and detain those believed responsible. I showed you the relevant General Assembly resolutions. A declaration of war is not needed.<br />
<br />
"Not that I'm aware of. Got any proof that this is happening?"<br />
<br />
Not paying attention is not an excuse. Here one a couple weeks old.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/196302">http://www.thestar.com/article/196302</a><br />
<br />
"The Taliban are not green men from Mars, they are native born Afghans . . ."<br />
<br />
No, many are native born Pakistanis. The Mosque that teaches the Talib is in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
"prior to the invasion had a significant level of support among the Afghan population because they were able to bring relative peace and stability to the country where no one else could."<br />
<br />
Nice historical re-write. The Taliban ruled through terror, fear and random executions in the UN built soccer stadium. The population was ethier apathetic, or scared of them.<br />
<br />
"That's complete nonsense. O'Connor just finished stating that Canada will have to continue with the occupation of Afghanistan for at least another 15 years."<br />
<br />
So, if the legal government asks us to stay, is it an occupation?<br />
<br />
"Here you are trying to argue that Canada is militarily occupying Afghanistan and killing people who oppose the occupation for purely humanitarian reasons . . "<br />
<br />
Not nearly as absurd as referring to the Taliban motives as 'purely humanitarian'.<br />
<br />
""Interesting. Former Pakistani ambassador to Turkey. No agenda on his mind, is there?"<br />
<br />
"OK, but where's the proof?"<br />
<br />
Proof of what? That he is the former Pakistani Ambassador to Turkey? It's in the article.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
<br />
Why did the USG not demand that the Afghan government hand over Bin Laden to the ICC? Why did the USG bomb Afghanistan if they never wanted Bin Laden in the first place?<br />
<br />
"We aren't talking Iraq. The topic is Afghanistan." <br />
<br />
You mentioned Iraq as follows: "If the Taliban had simply given Osama over to the ICC for trial, perhaps things like Iraq and Guantanamo Bay would never have happened."<br />
<br />
"If the ICC had Osama, what excuse would they have to go into Iraq?"<br />
<br />
Osama had nothing at all to do with Iraq!<br />
<br />
"If Guantanamo is about Iraq, then why are most prisoners there from Afghanistan?"<br />
<br />
The American torture chambers at Guantanamo have nothing at all to do with Afghanistan. These are American torture chambers run by American tortures who are paid by the enslaved American tax payer.<br />
<br />
"I showed you the relevant General Assembly resolutions. A declaration of war is not needed."<br />
<br />
The UN did not authorize the use of force, and the US did not exhaust alternative measures to resolve the situation before using force. The US relied on its own twisted interpretation of international law that favored war.<br />
<br />
See: The legality of the United States intervention in Afghanistan<br />
<a href="http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Forum/Afghanlegality.htm">http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Forum/Afghanlegality.htm</a><br />
<br />
"Not paying attention is not an excuse. Here one a couple weeks old.<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/196302"">http://www.thestar.com/article/196302"</a>;<br />
<br />
Are you paying attention? According to your linked report, no one but our own government is making the claim that Canada is on some kind of "Al Qaeda list" - whatever that means. So where's the proof? All I see is baseless fear mongering coming from a pack of known liars.<br />
<br />
"No, many are native born Pakistanis. The Mosque that teaches the Talib is in Pakistan."<br />
<br />
The movement started after the last great Afghan "liberation" by the Soviets. Refugee camps and schools were set up in Pakistan where millions of Afghans fled, so it's no surprise that many Taliban came from Pakistan where they were able to establish themselves in relative safety away from the Soviets. Some of that Taliban training was at least partly funded by the CIA to oppose the Soviets.<br />
<br />
"The Taliban ruled through terror, fear and random executions in the UN built soccer stadium. The population was ethier apathetic, or scared of them."<br />
<br />
The population were supportive of the Taliban because they brought a level of relative peace to the people by suppressing lawlessness. Without at least some support the Taliban would not have been able to so quickly take over almost the entire country. The US led invasion not only rules by terror, fear, and random executions, but it also has a lot more fire power and resources than the Taliban ever had, yet it is failing because the invaders do not have the support of the population. The same anti-occupation reaction is going on in Iraq.<br />
<br />
"So, if the legal government asks us to stay, is it an occupation?"<br />
<br />
There is no legitimate government in Afghanistan, other than perhaps the one that is fighting against the invasion force. Obviously the resistance forces are not asking to be occupied.<br />
<br />
"Not nearly as absurd as referring to the Taliban motives as 'purely humanitarian'."<br />
<br />
That would be absurd indeed! By my standards the Taliban are clearly *not* humanitarian, and there's nothing I can say that's good about their beliefs and methods. However it is not my place to judge the Afghan people with how they choose to live their lives.<br />
<br />
Back to my question: Do you think that the Canadian government is occupying Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons?<br />
<br />
"Proof of what?"<br />
<br />
Haroon asked if the Taliban were doing well because of sanctuaries they allegedly enjoy in Pakistan. Ghori said there was no proof of this.<br />
<br />
During the Soviet invasion Pakistan was clearly a haven, and it seems highly likely that Pakistan is also serving as a haven from the US invasion. You get what you deserve for relying on a brutal military dictatorship as an ally. It's funny that the troops don't seem to grasp the stupidity of the whole situation and how their lives are held in total disregard by those who order them about.<br />
Firstly, the US does not recognize the ICC. Therefore, it would be the best place to ensure he has a fair trial. Secondly, if the US and Canadian governments didn't want Bin Laden, then why were the first teams sent in JTF2 and US Rangers (with Canadian Snipers)?
"Osama had nothing at all to do with Iraq!"
That is my point! His relationship with Saddam was the pretext for invading Iraq. If Bin Laden was in a Swiss Jail awaiting trial before the ICC - what pretext would the US have to invade Iraq?
"The UN did not authorize the use of force, and the US did not exhaust alternative measures to resolve the situation before using force. The US relied on its own twisted interpretation of international law that favored war."
The UN resolutions I showed you do indeed authorize force.
"Are you paying attention? According to your linked report, no one but our own government is making the claim that Canada is on some kind of "Al Qaeda list" - whatever that means. So where's the proof? All I see is baseless fear mongering coming from a pack of known liars."
You confuse me. You believe threats if the government says they come from Al-Queda, but not if the government says that Al-Queda is still a threat? Do you want the empty threat on Al-Queda letterhead? Personally, I think it's just all fear mongering.
"There is no legitimate government in Afghanistan, other than perhaps the one that is fighting against the invasion force. Obviously the resistance forces are not asking to be occupied."
Funny. I seem to remember internationally monitored elections. Using that logic, does that make the FLQ a 'resistance force'?
"Back to my question: Do you think that the Canadian government is occupying Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons?"
'Purely', no. But you already knew our soldiers are there with orders to kill or capture Bin Laden, so it can never be a 'purely' humanitarian mission. Armies are rarely on 'humanitarian' missions.
"Haroon asked if the Taliban were doing well because of sanctuaries they allegedly enjoy in Pakistan. Ghori said there was no proof of this."
Right. Ghori has an agenda, because he refuses to see the Taliban training in Pakistan and the tribal alliances between Pashtuns that even you can see when earlier you said "Refugee camps and schools were set up in Pakistan where millions of Afghans fled, so it's no surprise that many Taliban came from Pakistan where they were able to establish themselves in relative safety away from the Soviets."
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Canada recognizes the ICC, so why is it backing up a country that recognizes only a few international treaties and breaks the ones that it supposedly does recognize whenever it feels like it? The world can see Canada standing along side a hypocritical torture state, and that cannot look very good.
"Therefore, it would be the best place to ensure he has a fair trial."
The US had no intention of putting Osama Bin Laden up on trial, and I can say that with absolute certainty - as proof, I offer up the the US torture camps.
"Secondly, if the US and Canadian governments didn't want Bin Laden, then why were the first teams sent in JTF2 and US Rangers (with Canadian Snipers)?"
We have no idea what these advanced teams were up to, however it's a safe bet they were sent in to help kick off the war. We know that deals were with war lords that opposed the Taliban (so-called Northern Alliance) and gave them assistance which included critical air support.
"The UN resolutions I showed you do indeed authorize force."
We can argue about the language to no end, I'm relying on the consensus of experts in international law. One thing is very clear, and it's that the UN did not authorize the use of force against Afghanistan. Instead, the US and its puppet allies started bombing almost right away on their own. There was no immediate threat to the USA, and we now know that the US government had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. The US gov also had funded and trained Osama Bin Laden, and funded the Taliban during the Soviet invasion, even if the official 9/11 story is true (which it clearly is not) whatever problem they were dealing with was of their own making.
"You believe threats if the government says they come from Al-Queda, but not if the government says that Al-Queda is still a threat?"
I don't understand what you are saying with that. I don't believe much of anything without at least some evidence to back it up, and it is clear that the "terrorist" fear mongering coming from our government is totally baseless.
"Funny. I seem to remember internationally monitored elections. Using that logic, does that make the FLQ a 'resistance force'?"
Fair elections are not possible while a war is going on.
"But you already knew our soldiers are there with orders to kill or capture Bin Laden"
Billions spent and thousands dead just to capture one man without even any evidence to back up the allegations against him?
"he refuses to see the Taliban training in Pakistan and the tribal alliances between Pashtuns that even you can see"
Pakistan is playing two cards, on one hand the dictatorship took whatever bribes were offered to it by the USA for its support against the people of Afghanistan, and on the other hand it continues to support the Taliban who are fighting against the US led invasion force, mostly because it has no choice if it's to keep civil unrest under wraps.