Harkat Informant Called 'insane'

We don't know how accurate the information is in Suskind's book but we do know the accuracy of American Intelligance. It appears the American operatives will come up with only the logic Bush likes to hear. It's very sad that Canada will fall into the same sham. We now have a leader that will do anything to come up with evidence in support of his mentor, Bush. It's unreal that Harper is attempting to get on a bandwagon thats loosing it's wheels. Once again the US has created it's own enemy. The American trained Iraqi are now turning against them. Afghanistan was not a lesson they learned and Canada hasn't either.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Just a point of order - in 2002 when this guy was arrested, Cretien was PM.


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

That's a very good point, and it's a point worth repeating loud and clear to make sure it sinks in. <br><br> Harper may be a creepy guy, but he's not the main source of the problem. What's going on today has its roots that go back well before Harper managed to sneak in through the back door. <br><br> We should be thinking of the problem not in terms of any one particular government, but in terms of something else entirely that among other things, is able to manipulate whatever government may be in power to do it's bidding. <br><br> The valid point about Harper, is that his government is a much more willing prostitute than usual. Keep in mind that the opposition could shut down the Harper government, but instead they choose not to do so. Through inaction, the opposition effectively agrees with what Harper is doing, and they are more than willing to let Harper be the scape goat for what's to come. <br><br> Next election, when everyone is pissed off at Harper, the opposition will be delighted to get your vote, and when that happens, we'll see the cycle of bad policies continue unabated.

The revelation on Harkat is shocking but unfortunately it's quite believable. The other one of the secret trial five who's out on bail - Adil Charkaoui - maintains that he had been being harrassed by CSIS, demanding that he become an informant or mole for them, for some time before he was arrested.

Meanwhile, as we speak, the three remaining in detention in the new "Guantanamo North" prison in Kingston, are starving themselves to death to demand humane conditions. PLEASE write to Stockwell Day, Minister of "Public Safety", to ask that the men be properly treated.

Just a point of order - in 2002 when this guy was arrested, Cretien was PM.<<

Good point, but was it not Harper who was to do better. Harper was yelling at Cretien for not joing the US in Iraq. Harper is the one to change the role of Canadas military in Afghanistan and doing the American walk. Harper is the one who said Cretien can solve the softwood dispute by a simple phone call to Bush. Harper is wanting to bully Canadians to do the willing of his mentor, Bush. Harkat is an embarrassment to Harper. The informant is considered insane after the interrogation by the Americans. Ironical! I'm surprised Harkat isn't.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Next election, when everyone is pissed off at Harper, the opposition will be delighted to get your vote, and when that happens, we'll see the cycle of bad policies continue unabated<<

It certainly makes one wonder why they bother to vote. As we get older we can see that nothing realy changes other then get worse.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

<blockquote>Harper was yelling at Cretien for not joing the US in Iraq.</blockquote> Harper is a cheap whore compared to Chretien. I'm sure that the only reason Chretien did not jump into Iraq was because the promised payback was not high enough. <br><br> People tend to have very short memories, so I'll do a refresher. Chretien merrily joined with the US in attacking both Haiti and Afghanistan. The concept of right and wrong had nothing to do with the equation, otherwise Chretien would not have helped kick out the popular and democratically elected leader in Haiti, or helped with the annexation of Afghanistan based on a well established fairytale.

The only "payback" that Cretien was interested in was votes. Same as Martin. Cretien wouldn't play ball with Iraq until it was given UN sanction because that message played well in Canada. If Canadians supported an Iraq invasion like they did the Afghan invasion, we would be there today. Same with BMD. Martin was all for it when the polls were in his favour, then he did a backtrack at the last minute (without even informing half of his staff) after the successful campaign against it changed public opinion.

Payback comes in many forms. And votes is one of them. If anyone was a whore, it was the Libs, who changed their tune based on public opinion of the moment.

<blockquote>If anyone was a whore, it was the Libs, who changed their tune based on public opinion of the moment.</blockquote> <br><br> Yes, but our so-called leaders ARE supposed to OUR whores, and NOT someone elses. <br><br> I have a couple questions: What makes you think that most Canadians supported the invasion of Afghanistan? Such a thing was an act of war, but I don't ever recall that Canada officially declared war against Afghanistan, do you? As far as I know Canada is officially <strong>not</strong> acting as UN peacekeepers, and Canada is supposedly under the banner of NATO in an offensive operation of some unspecified kind. Who in the hell is supporting this mystery operation?

"What makes you think that most Canadians supported the invasion of Afghanistan? "

From polls done from September 2001 to January 2002.

"Such a thing was an act of war, but I don't ever recall that Canada officially declared war against Afghanistan, do you?"

NATO did, and the UN approved. As part of our NATO commitment, we are required to defend allies attacked by outside forces. Sources are easily found for this.

"As far as I know Canada is officially not acting as UN peacekeepers, "

Stop right there. Afghanistan is not about peace keeping. Any other conclusions about our intentions toward the Taliban are therefore incorrect.

The "Peacekeeping" buzzword has become the governments way of saying our Military does not need funding.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

<blockquote>From polls done from September 2001 to January 2002.</blockquote> <br><br> Let's see the polls done from 2003 onwards. We all know how many people got suckered by the 9/11 bloodfest, these days few people are still buying into the Bin Laden fairytale. Even if the Bin Laden story is true, it was a pretty lame excuse to invade Afghanistan simply because of one man, especially considering that the Afghan government tried to hand him over. <br><br> No matter, I'd like to see a reference for at least one of the polls you are refering to, along with the questions asked and how the results were interpreted. As you probably know, it is very easy to create a biased poll. <br><br> <blockquote>NATO did, and the UN approved.</blockquote> <br><br> So, how do I get to confirm that either the UN or NATO declared war against Afghanistan? I've found no such declarations anywhere, have you? As for the "UN", let's be clear, you are really just refering to the UN Security Council, some of the members have a vested interest in securing Afghanistan for its strategic location and resources. You ought to know that one of the UN-SC member nations (under the banner of the Soviet Union) had previously tried to annex Afghanistan only 30 years ago, while another member (under the banner of the USA) helped to fight the Soviets off for its own selfish reasons. <br><br> <blockquote>Stop right there. Afghanistan is not about peace keeping.</blockquote> <br><br> I know that, which is why I mentioned it, but who else knows it? The UN authorized only that peacekeepers help secure the so-called "interim government" <i>after</i> the US (under the banner of NATO) had already attacked the country illegally. Many Canadians were misled to think that the Afghanistan "mission" is a peacekeeping one authorized by the UN. To this day, there is still NO hard evidence backing up the official excuse for the war, nor do we even know what the mission is. The attack on Afghanistan as a nation was unprovoked, therefore it was not defensive in nature, and therefore NATO had no obligation to assist the USG's attack and occupation. The Canadian government is knowingly participating in a war crime. <br><br> From what I've been able to determine, there are no UN peacekeepers in Afghanistan, nor have there ever been. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. The propagada machinary is in overdrive, with NATO being distanced from the military operation - NATO has suddenly been transformed into the "collation forces". <br><br> So, what does any of this have to do with Harkat? It should be painfully obvious by now that we're being suckered with fake terrorism to justify wars of aggression. What's going on is all spelled out right here: <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/">The Project for the New American Century</a>. Do Canadians really want to be part of this insane project?

"Let's see the polls done from 2003 onwards."<br />
<br />
Military and UN resolutions are not subject to public opinion. As has been pointed out before, regardless of September 11 2001, to pull out of Afghanistan before they are self reliant would be a disservice to them and dishounourable to us.<br />
<br />
"No matter, I'd like to see a reference for at least one of the polls you are refering to"<br />
<br />
Google Ipsos-Ried or Angus Ried. I found them fairly easily.<br />
<br />
"So, how do I get to confirm that either the UN or NATO declared war against Afghanistan? I've found no such declarations anywhere, have you?"<br />
<br />
Of course. UN Security council resolution 1378(2001).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement">http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement</a><br />
(PDF Link!!)<br />
<br />
"The UN authorized only that peacekeepers help secure the so-called "interim government" after the US (under the banner of NATO) had already attacked the country illegally."<br />
<br />
No, you assume it's illegal because up until now, you hadn't read the Security Council resolutions.<br />
<br />
"Many Canadians were misled to think that the Afghanistan "mission" is a peacekeeping one authorized by the UN."<br />
<br />
Many Canadians are regularally misled by the MSM, when the MSM uses the incorrect term 'Peacekeepers'. Not the publics fault for the MSM's mistake.<br />
<br />
"To this day, there is still NO hard evidence backing up the official excuse for the war, nor do we even know what the mission is. The attack on Afghanistan as a nation was unprovoked, therefore it was not defensive in nature, and therefore NATO had no obligation to assist the USG's attack and occupation. The Canadian government is knowingly participating in a war crime."<br />
<br />
Hard evidence was to be determined by the ICC, if the Taliban had given up Bin Laden.<br />
<br />
From the Security Council Resolution, stating the goal of the mission in Afghanistan:<br />
<br />
"The Security Council,<br />
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular resolutions 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000 and 1363 (2001) of 30 July 2001,<br />
<br />
Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12<br />
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,<br />
Recognizing the urgency of the security and political situation in Afghanistan in light of the most recent developments, particularly in Kabul, Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the<br />
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace theTaliban regime,<br />
<br />
Welcoming the intention of the Special Representative to convene an urgent meeting of the various Afghan processes at an appropriate venue and calling on the United Front and all Afghans represented in those processes to accept his invitation to that meeting without delay, in good faith and without preconditions, Welcoming the Declaration on the Situation in Afghanistan by the Foreign Ministers and other Senior Representatives of the Six plus Two of 12 November<br />
2001, as well as the support being offered by other international groups,<br />
<br />
Taking note of the views expressed at the meeting of the Security Council on the situation in Afghanistan on 13 November 2001, Endorsing the approach outlined by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General at the meeting of the Security Council on 13 November 2001,<br />
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm">http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm</a><br />
<br />
"From what I've been able to determine, there are no UN peacekeepers in Afghanistan, nor have there ever been. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate."<br />
<br />
Bingo! Deteriorate? By that, do you mean that women can leave their homes, and girls can go to school? Or that the Taliban have stepped up their offensive while the weather is nice?<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

<blockquote>Military and UN resolutions are not subject to public opinion. As has been pointed out before, regardless of September 11 2001, to pull out of Afghanistan before they are self reliant would be a disservice to them and dishounourable to us.</blockquote> <br><br> Um we're in a supposed democracy, and yet we're supposed to accept without question to pay for whatever "war of the day" comes up? I for one don't care about what the UN Security Council thinks, not when it's my money going down the toilet for a cause that's based on nothing but lies and treachery. Just because the UN-SC made a decision, does not mean it's right, esp when it was based on lies. The UN may have the political might to impose whatever dictum it pleases, however it has no moral authority over dictums that are based on lies, or are simply wrong by most standards. <br><br> In thinking about Vives Le Canada's mission, you'd think the Afgan war would factor in as a big time sovereignty issue. It looks to me that Canada's military is just another play thing as far as the US led NATO organization is concerned, since in recent memory none of the NATO wars had anything to do with defending a NATO ally against an agressor nation. <br><br> <blockquote>Google Ipsos-Ried or Angus Ried. I found them fairly easily.</blockquote> <br><br> I can also find this: <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060505.wxpoll06/BNStory/Afghanistan/home">Support plummets for Afghan mission</a> <br><br> The polls are about as trustworthy and honest as the MSM is in general (something that you have pointed out further along in your reply). <br><br> <blockquote>Of course. UN Security council resolution 1378(2001).</blockquote> <br><br> Yes, I already read that one, however I saw no declaration of war against the Afganistan goevernment in it, and there's no authorization for using NATO to attack the country. If I missed something, please point it out. <br><br> <blockquote>No, you assume it's illegal because up until now, you hadn't read the Security Council resolutions.</blockquote> But I did read the resolutions as noted above. The war against Afganistan is indeed illegitimate, since the Afghan government did not attack a NATO country, nor has any evidence been put forth to prove that the evil Bin Laden (a former CIA asset) had anything to do with it. The FBI has recently admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, the Afghan government of the day (Taliban) had tried to hand over Bin Laden on more than one occasion, but the offer was refused by the USG. The UN resolutions could not ever be complied with no matter what the Taliban was willing to do. If this sort of thing is familiar, think about Saddam's many attempts to comply with the UN and avoid war. <br><br> <blockquote>Many Canadians are regularally misled by the MSM, when the MSM uses the incorrect term 'Peacekeepers'. Not the publics fault for the MSM's mistake.</blockquote> <br><br> The public is also misled by doctored up polls. <br><br> <blockquote> Hard evidence was to be determined by the ICC, if the Taliban had given up Bin Laden. </blockquote> But try they did! <br><br> <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/">U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden</a> <br><br> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html">Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over</a> <br><br> <blockquote> From the Security Council Resolution, stating the goal of the mission in Afghanistan: "The Security Council, Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular resolutions 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000 and 1363 (2001) of 30 July 2001, ... Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism ... etc </blockquote> I really like that one as a mission, "Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism". Do I really need to explain that the "mission" is undefined and impossible to acheive, especially through the use of deadly force and lies? The real mission in Afghanistan is to secure the region for an oil and gas pipeline. Preparations for war on that matter were made well before the 9/11 attacks. <br><br> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html">This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination </a> <br><br> <blockquote>Bingo! Deteriorate? By that, do you mean that women can leave their homes, and girls can go to school? Or that the Taliban have stepped up their offensive while the weather is nice?</blockquote> <br><br> Feel good propaganda aside, lets look at the fact that ordinary people have been protesting against the US installed puppet regime and the occupation. <br><br> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500866_pf.html">Afghan Leader Losing Support</a> <br><br> <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/10A18C5B-CF56-4B05-8613-9CB1CB343BCC.htm">Anti-US protests spread in Afghanistan</a> <br><br> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-07-afghan-fury_x.htm">NATO, protesters trade shots during Afghanistan protest</a>

<blockquote> however I saw no declaration of war against the Afganistan goevernment in it, and there's no authorization for using NATO to attack the country. If I missed something, please point it out.<p></blockquote> From <a href='http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement'>Here:</a><p> <blockquote> 1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;<p> 2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;<p> 3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;<p></blockquote> <blockquote> The FBI has recently admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, the Afghan government of the day (Taliban) had tried to hand over Bin Laden on more than one occasion, but the offer was refused by the USG.</blockquote> Hindsight is always 20/10. We are there. Canadians supported deployment of our troops after 2001/9/11. Again, regardless of what led us there, we can do our best to help them out, or we can be another country on the list to leave the Afghans in the lurch.<P> <blockquote> But try they did!<p> U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden<p> "The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law."<p> </blockquote> Do I really need to cite Islamic "law" that allows a girl to be gang raped for the indescretions of her brother? How about the woman the Taliban executed in a soccer stadium, then sold her children into sex slavery, because her daughter murdered her husband? I have video of that one.<p> Sounds like the multimillionaire would get a fair 'trial' from them good'ole boys.<p> <blockquote> Do I really need to explain that the "mission" is undefined and impossible to acheive, especially through the use of deadly force and lies?</blockquote> Well, yes. Explain how going to Afghanistan and tearing down the training facilities that spawned the likes of the Kahdr family won't reduce the overall threat of the Bali nightclub bombings. 'Vague' is not 'undefined'<p> Here's a better solution. Jeffery Sachs in 'The End of Poverty' put it best. 'Spend less than 10% of a countries military budget to end world poverty, and make friends of those potential enemies. It's cheaper to feed friends and give them a leg up towards their own prosperity, than to defend yourself from terrorists later.'<p> I agree that the mission is without end, so long as the US's mission to 'spread democracy' and the Islamofascists mission to 'spread (radical) Islam' are in conflict. Each use the means afforded them, to those ends.<p> <blockquote> Afghan Leader Losing Support <p> "President Hamid Karzai's government, which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country."<p> Anti-US protests spread in Afghanistan <p> "Anti-US protests sparked by reports of desecration of the Quran by American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay have spread across Afghanistan, leaving three more people dead."<p> NATO, protesters trade shots during Afghanistan protest<p> "NATO peacekeepers exchanged fire with protesters who attacked their base Tuesday"<p> </blockquote> Ok, So they don't like their US installed Puppet, and will riot at the drop of a hat, what does that have to do with protesting the 'occupation'? I understand the whole 'desecrate the Koran' and 'desecrate the Prophet' anger. I also see they are proving exactally what the Danish cartoons pointed out - Islam has been subverted. (aside from them using the word 'Peacekeeper' again )<p> Jared Diamond's book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and Dr. Sachs' book 'The End of Poverty' both touch on the same theme - that Islam was once great, far ahead in medicine and science that Europe. But it was Europe's tendency to be more open and the Middle East's subversion to a more closed and radical society that has let to the great disparity between east and west.<p> It's that disparity that the Islamofacsicts despise. I think our mission in Afghanistan is a just one. Give the Afghans a leg up, then leave when appropriate. Otherwise, we'll just be in an escalation of ideologies, and that will be far more expensive (in dollars and lives).<p> As for the war being about Oil, yea, I don't buy that. As I've said here before, if it was about Oil it was a poor decision. The value of the oil there is far less than the cost of the war so far.<p> <p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />