Contrasting with the tranquil and vague rationalization from the federal government has been a rabidly defensive outcry by the armed forces. Conveniently disregarding the large number of innocent people killed in the invasion and consequent occupation, military officials have been quick to respond to anti-war sentiments by offering up the suggestion that the public often forgets about “all the good things” which Canadian soldiers contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
An intensified pro-military advertising campaign in Canada over recent years has been coupled with corporate media refusing to carry out a critical analysis of the political and economic reality of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. This has fostered the conditions for at least partial support of the war by working class Canadians.
But the attempts at winning over public opinion have not been as successful as some political leaders and military brass had hoped. According to recent polls, nearly 50 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Public demonstrations against the occupation are still strong, with thousands protesting in the streets throughout 37 cities last October 25, in order to spread the truth about the Conservatives’ agenda.
When examined, the often ignored numbers don’t lie either. Canada entered a war that aroused international popular condemnation, and which is now responsible for the deaths of between 20,000 and 49,600 Afghanis, according to Jonathan Steele of the Guardian. Canada’s participation in Afghanistan provides essential logistical support to the simultaneous US war in Iraq. Canada’s death count in the Afghan “theater of operations” is now at 45 troops, with an additional 150+ injured. In analyzing the number of dead, the math paints a dreary picture which is difficult to understand. Great Britain, which currently has 4,700 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, has had fewer troops killed than Canada, which has fewer than half the number of British soldiers stationed there. Meaning that Canada’s fatality rate is double that of the British rate. Yet these realities do not penetrate Canadian media.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/canadas-unexplained-military-presence-in-afghanistan/
Note: http://www.dissidentvoi...
Canada's Unexplained Military Presence In Afghanistan
Posted on Tuesday, May 29 at 11:43 by siljanContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
<br />
Unexplained?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html">http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html</a><br />
<br />
"Canadians largely remain perplexed as to why Ottawa has sent troops to a war which many see as unjustified, and even more seem to feel is still unexplained."<br />
<br />
Unjustified? See above link.<br />
<br />
"No solid reasoning has come from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to elaborate . . ."<br />
<br />
Then why not as Jean Cretien, who sent them there?<br />
<br />
"Despite the rising military and civilian death toll overseas, he claims that Canada now has a “better military” from the experience."<br />
<br />
And who is killing the civillians? Could that be the Taliban? If some of those civillians or soldiers were to suddenly come back alive, I'm sure that death toll would fall.<br />
<br />
"Contrasting with the tranquil and vague rationalization from the federal government has been a rabidly defensive outcry by the armed forces"<br />
<br />
I just included this sentence, because I really like it as an example of left propaganda. The 'contrast' is 'tranquil', but the 'federal government' is 'rabidly defensive'.<br />
<br />
"Conveniently disregarding the large number of innocent people killed in the invasion and consequent occupation, military officials have been quick to respond to anti-war sentiments by offering up the suggestion that the public often forgets about “all the good things” which Canadian soldiers contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan."<br />
<br />
Conviently disregarding that it's not Canadian Soldiers killing innocent civillians; reconstructing a country ravaged by 40 years of war is bad?<br />
<br />
"Canada entered a war that aroused international popular condemnation, and which is now responsible for the deaths of between 20,000 and 49,600 Afghanis, according to Jonathan Steele of the Guardian."<br />
<br />
Popular condemnation? IIRC, polls were in excess of 60% in favour of the war. I think there are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. I guess the propaganda that thay are the same war worked as well as the other sides 'but Saddam gassed his own people!'. <br />
<br />
And don't make me laugh about the Guardian! Even Amnesty International doesn't enumerate the civillian casualties that high!<br />
<br />
"Canada’s death count in the Afghan “theater of operations” is now at 45 troops, "<br />
<br />
Ummm, 55.<br />
<br />
"Meaning that Canada’s fatality rate is double that of the British rate. Yet these realities do not penetrate Canadian media. "<br />
<br />
And the fact that Canada has had the heavier combat burden doesn't permeate the alternate media.<br />
<br />
"an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest News Service this past September showed that of just over 1,000 Canadians questioned, 80 per cent actually believe that Canadian forces are conducting a “vital humanitarian mission” in Afghanistan."<br />
<br />
But didn't they say in the first paragraph "Canadian public opinion has generally hovered in a state of confusion, with many people unsure of exactly why troops have been sent there in the first place." ?<br />
<br />
"Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan currently have approximately 90 per cent of their work consisting of combat missions, and only 10 per cent allocated to humanitarian projects — a scandalous injustice when it is considered that 1.5 million people in Afghanistan are suffering from imminent starvation."<br />
<br />
Exactally. It's the UN's job to distribute food, and soldiers job to protect those distributing the food. Where is the UN while this is going on? (But of course, it's easier to blame the soldier.)<br />
<br />
"Since Canadian forces arrived in the region in late 2001 . . . "<br />
<br />
(both of them)<br />
<br />
"(and actively engaged in on-ground missions beginning in early 2002). . ."<br />
<br />
(75 soldiers)<br />
<br />
", the US government has been able to utilize more of its military resources in the invasion and occupation of Iraq."<br />
<br />
OMG! The US lied to us!?! Wow! They didn't send 100,000 troops after convinceing us to only send 1000 troops? I guess we should just let the Afghanis bear the brunt of the US's decision to invade Iraq, and leave Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
That's called 'making the worst of a bad situation'.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html"">http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html"</a>;<br />
<br />
Geez, you are still buying into this?<br />
<br />
It has *never* been *proven* that Afghans were behind 9/11. At best, we think that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
Oh, wait, it was never proven that he was behind 9/11 either.<br />
<br />
What was your point already?<br />
<br />
The Sharp Wolf
And we all know *Saudis* were behing 9/11, they just trained in A'stan.
The wonderful thing about discussions like this, is nobody can prove anything. It's all opinion.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Nowhere, but you used that link to justify Canadian military presence in Afghanistan.
"The wonderful thing about discussions like this, is nobody can prove anything. It's all opinion."
You see, that's kind of exactly my point. Opinion has to be backed up by fact, especially when we're talking about something as serious as going to war in a foreign country.
And that's where the true problem, the crux of the matter lies: we don't know the truth. How can we know that sending troops is really helping anything? Are we reconstructing a country ravaged by war, or helping an imperialistic and militaristic power strengthen its grasp on the region?
How can we be sure? The politicians who sent our troops in there are liars, bent on enriching themselves no matter the means. Our troops are following the orders of those liars, and fed propaganda 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our so-called "allies" are liars too, and guilty of war crimes to boot. How can we believe any of them? How can we know beyond the shadow of a doubt?
We don't know. And thus, we are waging war for unknown reasons, which yields unknown results. One would think that this knowledge would have some kind of importance when thousands of lives depend on our decision.
The Sharp Wolf
<br />
Logical fallicy. I have an opinion, based on my experience. I don't have to back it up, because I'm not presenting it as fact. I can show you evidence that supports my opinion, but I don't have to prove my opinion.<br />
<br />
That being said, 24 dead Canadians is the reason we are in Afghanistan. That is the explanation for our 'Unexplained Military Presence in Afghanistan', refered to in the title of this article. Do you have some evidence that 24 Canadians did not die that day?<br />
<br />
"How can we know that sending troops is really helping anything? "<br />
<br />
Try doing your homework - find out what is really going on, rather than what the media (MSM and Alternate) tells you is going on.<br />
<br />
"How can we be sure? The politicians who sent our troops in there are liars, bent on enriching themselves no matter the means. Our so-called "allies" are liars too, and guilty of war crimes to boot. How can we believe any of them? How can we know beyond the shadow of a doubt?"<br />
<br />
Logical fallicy - "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Because they lie, does not mean they always lie. Because our reason for being in Afghanistan has not been proven true, does not mean it is false. Rearguard is fond of this line of thinking too. [sorry bud, but you are
<br />
"We don't know. And thus, we are waging war for unknown reasons, which yields unknown results."<br />
<br />
Incorrect conclusion, due to the fallicies above. Results are known.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Minister/newsletter/2006-12-14_e.asp#3">http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Minister/newsletter/2006-12-14_e.asp#3</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/">http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/RAC-22316160-SXL">http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/RAC-22316160-SXL</a><br />
<br />
And many more. I like littlegreenfootballs.com for stories by and about our soldiers. If you want to be open to the possibility that our solders have brains, and can tell you truthfully what they see with their own eyes.<br />
<br />
But, like I said above; soldiers are soldiers and not responsible for reconstruction or food distribution. UNHCR is.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
<br />
Sure, you of course don't have to prove *your* opinion. But *governments* do have to prove theirs. And that is where the problem lies. <br />
<br />
Sure, you can believe anything you want, but when our government sends our troops kill and get killed, I expect them to have something a little better than faith in their own opinions. Personnal opinions are one thing when they stay personnal. But when thousands of lives depends on the opinion of a few questionable persons, I demand facts to back it up.<br />
<br />
Our government says that we're helping things, that we've got a better military, that we're beating up the Talibans or whatever else they come up with. Maybe, just maybe they're not lying this one time, but I demand scientific *proof* beyond the shadow of a doubt, because these matters are just to important to hang on simple opinions.<br />
<br />
""That being said, 24 dead Canadians is the reason we are in Afghanistan. That is the explanation for our 'Unexplained Military Presence in Afghanistan', refered to in the title of this article. Do you have some evidence that 24 Canadians did not die that day?""<br />
<br />
You have evaded my question, yet once again.<br />
<br />
So I'll ask one last time:<br />
<br />
What the hell is the link between those 24 deaths and Afghanistan, the Talibans or bin Laden?<br />
<br />
Nowhere in the link you provided did it say anything about Afghanistan. Nowhere have you explained how Afghanistan, the Talibans or Osama bin Laden were responsible for 9/11. So far, nobody has ever explained it to me, and I haven't found anything anywhere to back this up.<br />
<br />
So, please, enlighten me, tell me exactly how you think 9/11 and Afghanistan are related, or stop wasting my time.<br />
<br />
And if you have nothing to back up your opinion, at least don't hide behind the "this is my opinion and I don't have to explain it" pseudo-argument. I ask for logical arguments because that's how productive debates are done. If you don't have any and your arguments are based solely in faith in our government or something like that, please, don't even bother next time.<br />
<br />
""Try doing your homework - find out what is really going on, rather than what the media (MSM and Alternate) tells you is going on.""<br />
<br />
And how am I supposed to do that? Go on site, maybe? I am actively trying to find out what's going on. Which is why, among other things, I ask others for their opinions and in particular what facts they use to back up these opinions.<br />
<br />
But this is a complete mess. Our only sources of information are liars, or tools of murder who follow the orders of these liars. So far, our politicians have shown that they don't care what means are used or how many lives are destroyed for them to further their agendas. Why would it be any different this time?<br />
<br />
""Logical fallicy - "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Because they lie, does not mean they always lie. Because our reason for being in Afghanistan has not been proven true, does not mean it is false.""<br />
<br />
True enough, because they have lied time and again does not mean that they are lying this one time. But it does mean that to believe them this time for no reason would be foolish. <br />
<br />
Like I said, *maybe* they're not lying this time. However, so far, our governments and politicians have lied more than they have told the truth. Why should we believe them without any proof this special one time? This is a serious matter. We're talking about war, wide-scale death and destruction. To gamble with the lives of thousands, based solely on opinions which are not backed by any facts is insane. <br />
<br />
So, maybe this time they're telling the truth, but they'll have to earn my trust with proof, not PR campaigns and "support the mission or you're not a patriot" slogans.<br />
<br />
""Incorrect conclusion, due to the fallicies above. Results are known.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Minister/newsletter/2006-12-14_e.asp#3">http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Minister/newsletter/2006-12-14_e.asp#3</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/">http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/RAC-22316160-SXL">http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/RAC-22316160-SXL</a><br />
<br />
And many more. I like littlegreenfootballs.com for stories by and about our soldiers. If you want to be open to the possibility that our solders have brains, and can tell you truthfully what they see with their own eyes.""<br />
<br />
Let's see...<br />
<br />
National Defence, NATO, Mainstream Media and the Canadian International Development Agency.<br />
<br />
Talk about independant and unbiased, eh?<br />
<br />
They're all involved and have much to gain in this war.<br />
<br />
Thus, they cannot be trusted.<br />
<br />
As for the other site (littlegreenfootballs.com), I'll give it a look. Still, I'm wary of the opinions of soldiers. They are tools of murder who are brainwashed into obeying their orders, no matter who gave them or for what reason. I'm sure they want to help people, but they're still following the orders of proven liars who, so far, have stopped at nothing to enrich themselves and further their own petty agendas. <br />
<br />
So, who are they going to fight, really? Dangerous terrorists? Or dissidents who oppose a corrupt government which our own government is supporting? How would they know? They only follow orders. So, when they say that they're winning over the terrorists or whatever, I'm inclined to remain skeptic. They have been told that they were fighting and winning terrorists, no more, no less.<br />
<br />
I have friends in the army you know. They're good guys, one of them is my best friend, and they really want to help people. And yet, they don't give a damn about politics. They think that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, and yet, they're incapable of explaining me how so. In the end, they only do what they're told to do. As much as I like them, I can't trust their opinion on this matter.<br />
<br />
"But, like I said above; soldiers are soldiers and not responsible for reconstruction or food distribution. UNHCR is."<br />
<br />
Right, soldiers are tools of murder, killing at the whims of our politicians, and we should do well to remember that.<br />
<br />
So, our soldiers are there to kill is basically what you're saying, right? Which brings us back to question number one: what's the purpose of this killing? Are our troops there to help people? Or to help an imperialistic power divide and conquer? If they are there to help people, why are they working with NATO, rather than the UNHCR?<br />
<br />
Until someone can at last explain to me what's the link between 9/11 and Afghanistan, why we should believe our politicians this one time and how exactly our troops are helping anyone, especially when they're fighting for a corrupt government which has been installed by an occupying power, I think "Why the hell are we there?" remains a good question to ask.<br />
<br />
The Sharp Wolf
<br />
Well, in 1996, Osama called for a 'fatawa' it calls for and authorizes Muslims to indiscriminately kill Americans and Jews everywhere. He started with the US embassys in Africa, then worked his way to the USS Cole.<br />
<br />
text of Fatawa:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html</a><br />
<br />
and a second one in 1998:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html</a><br />
<br />
About this time, Mohammed Atta was starting his Al Queda cell in Germany. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda</a><br />
<br />
Mohammed Atta spent time in a training camp in Afghanistan (co-incidentally the site where 4 Canadian soldiers were killed by a US fighter jet, including a fine man, 'King Marko')<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farms</a><br />
<br />
Training camps were also bombed in Afghanistan by President Clinton after the USS Cole was attacked.<br />
<br />
And you will find similar links about the other members of the 9/11 hijackers, 7/7 bombers, US embassy bombers etc.<br />
<br />
So, we have training camps that were authorized by the Taliban, training people that killed 24 Canadians on 9/11/2001. A -> B -> C.<br />
<br />
"So, please, enlighten me, tell me exactly how you think 9/11 and Afghanistan are related, or stop wasting my time."<br />
<br />
Sorry, am I forcing you to type such lengthy posts, when you could be using Google for what you seek?<br />
<br />
"But this is a complete mess. Our only sources of information are liars, or tools of murder who follow the orders of these liars."<br />
<br />
If you cannot see the evidence objectively, there is no way to convince you of it's accuracy, and I am wasting my time. <br />
<br />
"National Defence, NATO, Mainstream Media and the Canadian International Development Agency."<br />
<br />
"Talk about independant and unbiased, eh?"<br />
<br />
"They're all involved and have much to gain in this war."<br />
<br />
"Thus, they cannot be trusted."<br />
<br />
You cannot trust them, because of "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Firstly, there is no such than as an unbiased source. Don't insult me by asking for one. Secondly, they have to gain, yes, but they also have a lot to lose because it is the people on the ground who must pay with their lives, while you and I have the luxury of debating their moves based on very little third hand information from the comfort of our homes.<br />
<br />
"Still, I'm wary of the opinions of soldiers. They are tools of murder who are brainwashed . . ."<br />
<br />
Well, don't bother then. You don't think they can objectively tell you what they see with their own eyes. Might as well not waste your time any further.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />