PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan to Canada : Stop griping about troop deaths



Hari_Om
27 Sep 06,, 06:46
If the Canadian “griping” is about the level of troop deaths in Afghanistan than General President Musharraf does have a point when he says :


When you get involved in places like Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan, yes indeed you have to suffer casualties, and the nation must be prepared to suffer casualties

If the Canadian “griping” OTOH is occasioned by some other contributory factor to the death of Canadian troops in Afghanistan;) , than that is another matter :


Pakistan to Canada: Stop griping about troop deaths (http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-27T025649Z_01_N26228824_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-PAKISTAN-COL.XML)

Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:59 PM EDT

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf bluntly told Canadians on Tuesday to stop complaining about the number of soldiers they were losing in Afghanistan, saying Canada's death toll was far less than Pakistan's.

Canada has 2,300 troops based in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. In the last three months, 20 soldiers have been killed in clashes with Taliban militants, prompting calls for the mission to be brought back home.

Musharraf told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that if Canada was worried about soldier fatalities, it should not be in the war-torn country.

"When you get involved in places like Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan, yes indeed you have to suffer casualties, and the nation must be prepared to suffer casualties. So if you're not prepared to suffer casualties as an army, then don't participate in any operation," he said in an interview.

Since Canada joined the U.S.-led war on terror in late 2001, about 35 of its soldiers have died in Afghanistan. Musharraf, whose country neighbors Pakistan, dismissed this as a mere handful.

"We have suffered 500 casualties. The Canadians have suffered four or five. What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? Who are you talking to? You are talking to the president of a country that has suffered 500 casualties," he said.

"You have suffered two dead and there is crying and shouting all around the place that there are coffins. Well, we've had 500 coffins."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief spokeswoman said she was unaware of the comments.

Musharraf also dismissed a suggestion by Canadian Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor that Canadian troops might be based in Pakistan to help the fight against militants.

"I can assure you our troops are more effective and we have more experience of war. This (suggestion) shows a lack of trust in Pakistan," he said.

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 06,, 07:01
Wonderful. This from a guy who just gave up his fight.

lemontree
27 Sep 06,, 07:09
Muaharraf must stop making a fool of his nation, by such foot-in-the-mouth statements. I pity the souls he commands.

kams
27 Sep 06,, 18:17
OMG, with all due respects to Pakistani Army, they lost people inside their border. They did not die in Afghanistan. If you let your country to become a base for international terrorists what else do you expect?

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 06,, 18:20
Casualties are extremely regrettable but necessary. In this case, it would seem that the Canadians are willing to tolerate theirs while the Pakistanis are not. If you're not fighting to win, then you've done shame to the men you have lost.

Since Kragil, I never viewed Musharaff as a leader of men. I'm even less incline to believe he could lead a Mickey Mouse club.

Ray
27 Sep 06,, 18:42
Musharraf does not understand the difference in the psyche.

kams
27 Sep 06,, 18:44
Musharaff is a survivor.

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 06,, 19:58
How the hell did he make General?

troung
27 Sep 06,, 20:10
"I can assure you our troops are more effective and we have more experience of war. This (suggestion) shows a lack of trust in Pakistan," he said.

Wonderful, they lost in 1971 and the Kargil and failed to take Kashmir in 1948 and 1965. Losing does provide experience in warfare but constantly losing is not a mark of being effective or competent.

Oh yeah and they just lost to the Tribals... :confused:

I'll take the Canadians...

Anoop C
27 Sep 06,, 23:09
How the hell did he make General?

By superceding two others due to political considerations. His predecessor, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, though a highly regarded professional, fell into disfavor with the then PM, Nawaz Sharif, because he argued for a formal role of the military in governing the country. Sharif, at that time, had almost as much electoral power as former PM, Z.A. Bhutto, had during 1977, when he appointed Gen. Zia-ul-Haq as COAS for his apparent lack of interest in politics. In both cases, the PMs made terrible errors of judgement, as one found out on his gallows and the other found out in exile.

By no accounts is Gen. Musharraf half the soldier that he claims to be. He is given to aggrandization and not to action. His only decisive actions so far have been retreats, whether near the Mizo hills in 1971, Kargil in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and now FATA in 2006.

lemontree
28 Sep 06,, 05:18
How the hell did he make General?
A$$-licking one can assume.
He also happens to be a former coy cdr of 2 SSG that butchered their own men in Mar/ Apr 1971 just because they were bengali. Those men were with the unit since its raising about a decade ago. Musharraf is one of the original genocidal war criminals of the 20th century.

smilingassassin
29 Sep 06,, 10:42
As a Canadian I have every right to complain about the deaths of my boys, particularily when Mushy's policy of signing peace deals with the Taliban is contributing to Canadian soldiers deaths!

Hari_Om
30 Sep 06,, 19:32
Your Prime Minister has a different view.

You are a Liberal perhaps ? :

Anyway Musharraf got the Canadian deaths in Afghanistan wrong by a factor of at least 7X.


Harper silent as Pakistan PM dismisses Canadian casualties (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1038b69a-a22c-4ad7-95db-2d9ea4f10c53&k=52495)

Mike Blanchfield in Ottawa and Allan Woods in Bucharest
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, September 28, 2006

The Conservative government went out of its way Wednesday to avoid criticizing Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for characterizing Canadians as complainers over the deaths of their soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Liberals, meanwhile, criticized the Pakistan strong man for the controversial remarks, which came in a CBC television interview.

''We have suffered 500 casualties,'' Musharraf told CBC in a televised interview Tuesday night. ''Canadians may have suffered four or five.

''You suffer two dead and you cry and shout all around the place that there are coffins,'' the general said. ''Well, we have had 500 coffins.''

In fact, 36 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan, including nine this month.

The interview was one of several Musharraf has given in recent days following his arrival in Washington for a three-way meeting with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai a vocal critic of Musharraf's tolerance of the Taliban and U.S. President George W. Bush.

While Liberal Leader Bill Graham insisted Canadians ''aren't moaning'' about this country's casualties, Prime Minister Stephen Harper avoided direct comment on Musharraf's remarks, telling journalists travelling with him to the Francophonie summit in Romania that he had not been briefed on the interview.

However, Harper did take a shot at another critic former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, who questioned the success of the Afghanistan mission in an interview with the Toronto Star.

''We are doing the defence,'' Martin told the newspaper. ''But are we doing the amount of reconstruction, the amount of aid that I believe was part of the original mission? The answer unequivocally is that we're not. And I believe that we should.''

Harper said it was irresponsible for Martin to offer the criticism because it was his government that decided to send Canadian troops to Kandahar, the most dangerous part of Afghanistan.

''When you make those kinds of decisions as a prime minister you have to be able to take responsibility for them and stick with them,'' Harper said. ''The fact that Mr. Martin is unable to do that ... illustrates why he is no longer prime minister.''

On the Musharraf issue, Harper reiterated that Pakistan is an important ally in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, and that the flow of Taliban insurgents across the Pakistan-Afghan border into the Kandahar region is an issue ''we are all aware of.''

In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he had not called Islamabad to complain about Musharraf's remarks.

''We've lost soldiers. They've lost soldiers. That is a very emotional issue. There are Afghans who are dying daily,'' MacKay said.

Asked whether he thought Musharraf's remarks were callous, MacKay replied: ''Look, all I can say is that we have to work co-operatively with Pakistan; they're an important partner in this mission.''

MacKay also sent strong signals he did not want to upset the three-way discussions taking place in Washington between Bush, Karzai and Musharraf.

''Partners need to pull together and they need to keep the important principles that we believe in, collectively, in mind and so, to that end I'm mindful of the fact President Karzai, Musharraf, and President Bush are meeting this week,'' MacKay said.

''We're hoping that that will result in greater understanding and co-operation.''

Graham said that, as the former defence and foreign minister, he has urged Musharraf's government to do more to make its border with Afghanistan less porous.

''That's a very legitimate point for us to make. I don't think that it's appropriate to come back and say we're moaning. We're not moaning,'' said Graham.

''It's accepted amongst the NATO allies that Taliban elements and insurgent elements in Afghanistan do have a safe haven in Pakistan. President Musharraf himself has in the past said that the control of the frontier areas by Pakistan has always been problematic.''

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said he was disappointed Musharraf ''would belittle the sacrifices that Canadians are making,'' although he acknowledged the sacrifices that Pakistani soldiers have made in their lawless tribal belt along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

''What he needs to do is ensure that Talibans do not continue to flow from Pakistan into Afghanistan so that they don't come back with training and finances and kill our soldiers, kill our men and women.''

Dosanjh noted how Karzai, in his visit to Ottawa last week, pointed the finger at Afghanistan's ''neighbours'' for providing safe havens, training and sources of finance.

Karzai has been vocal in his criticism of Pakistan's role in providing a safe haven for Islamic extremists, although in the run up to his meeting in Washington this week, Karzai has shied away from singling out Pakistan by name, an approach he took during his address to Canada's Parliament.
Harper met Wednesday with Romanian President Traian Basescu, where they discussed the country's shared effort in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.

smilingassassin
02 Oct 06,, 02:56
Nope, I'm a conservative too, A liberal would be whining because we are simply there, I complain because I don't like it when a foriegn leader tells me how to feel about about the death of my fellow Canadians fighting creaps he's making peace deals with....

Ray
02 Oct 06,, 03:57
Smiling,

Please note it is not any old foreign leader. :cool:

It is the front line ally. :tongue:

It is the person who claims openly that without Pakistan, the West would be on its bended knees. :eek: :tongue: ROFL


It is the Messiah himself who is speaking!

He is your Saviour! ;)

(He, of course, conveniently forgets what Armitage told him about bombing his country to Kingdom Come and the millions of dollars the CIA and Bush gave his govt to shore up his bankrupt and decadent country !)

smilingassassin
03 Oct 06,, 01:08
Heh, I must be a Blasphemere!


If the Canadian “griping” is about the level of troop deaths in Afghanistan than General President Musharraf does have a point when he says "When you get involved in places like Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan, yes indeed you have to suffer casualties, and the nation must be prepared to suffer casualties"..

With Liberals most certainly it is the issue....


If the Canadian “griping” OTOH is occasioned by some other contributory factor to the death of Canadian troops in Afghanistan , than that is another matter :

In a nutshell thats MY beef about Mushy's comments....

kargal
09 Dec 06,, 05:36
I wonder is this Forum origenated from Canada or India. All Indians craps
raising a sologan of Mushi-Mushi with khusi Khusi. No doubt he did Mushi Mushi in Kargil episode, Thanks to Pres. Clinton for the rescueing the Indian Army(100,000) with all lattest equipments, could not have done it, it seems to me wound s are still fresh.
Relationship between Pakistan & Canada are greenly perfacts. Canadian are not worried about Mushi. They are singing Khushi Khusi.:biggrin:

kargal
09 Dec 06,, 05:42
Hey Chimo read my comments- Kargal

gilgamesh
09 Dec 06,, 05:53
I wonder is this Forum origenated from Canada or India. All Indians craps
raising a sologan of Mushi-Mushi with khusi Khusi. No doubt he did Mushi Mushi in Kargil episode, Thanks to Pres. Clinton for the rescueing the Indian Army(100,000) with all lattest equipments, could not have done it, it seems to me wound s are still fresh.
Relationship between Pakistan & Canada are greenly perfacts. Canadian are not worried about Mushi. They are singing Khushi Khusi.:biggrin:

Whattttttt?????:confused:

Your uninvited Prime Minister, Mian Nawaz Sherief went sobbing to Prez Clinton, who did not even acknowledge his presence and even refused to grant him audience as diplomatic protocol would require. So humiliated was Nawaz, he had to order food from a Pakistani restaurant.

kargal
09 Dec 06,, 06:18
Nawaz Sharif was not politician, or Arm person,is onlya gentleman from jack trade of business, otherwise could have promoted Kargil episode to the end.
Remember always bow your knee & head infront of Clinton, 'Cause he rescued you from Mushi Mushi action.

Officer of Engineers
09 Dec 06,, 06:28
Hey Chimo read my comments- Kargal
I have absolutely no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

brokensickle
28 Dec 06,, 21:24
On the one hand the Canadians have a respect of the sanctity of human life in general.
On the other hand Musharraf and his country has known only death and turmoil since the creation of their country and generally have no sanctity for human life.
Simple answer it would seem on its surface. The question should be, when will they wake up to the absurdity of constant clashes of violence and death and oppression in the culture of that area? It's definitely not the West or Israel's fault. That argument is merely a straw-man for the age old problem that has plagued them, 'Themselves'.


Despite some of our differences you Canadians are GREAT next door neighbors. I mean that.:cool: Will you let me become an honorary Mountie?:) I would like to be stationed in your Southern Rockies just in case I have to make a quick escape.:biggrin:


Ivan

Ray
29 Dec 06,, 18:41
Kargal,

Suffering from Alzheimer's?

BS does not work to change the facts, what ho, Pakistani Punjabi?

The posts do indicate how loved you are and how the world 'appreciates' your wet dreams of 'victories'.

Stop dreaming and smell the coffee!

Canmoore
30 Dec 06,, 00:29
Despite some of our differences you Canadians are GREAT next door neighbors. I mean that.:cool: Will you let me become an honorary Mountie?:) I would like to be stationed in your Southern Rockies just in case I have to make a quick escape.:biggrin:


Ivan

Likewise!

I went to highschool with this guy who was obsessed with the Marines. Everything he ever talked about was the USMC. Well after graduation I lost contact with him, its been 5 years since I seen him last. Well a few weeks ago, I was running searches on myspace.com for people who I went to school with.

I found his page...and would you guess it! He is living his dreams, with the US Marines.

ajtigger
02 Jan 07,, 21:37
Although I am a liberal, I agree with Musharraf's statement regarding the fact that Canadians gripe too much about the deaths of their troops.

1. If you are gonna go into a war zone, you have to understand that there will be troop deaths. A military is a military, it is intended to go to battle and fight wars, and that can't happen without a significant number of people dying. Whether we initially agreed with our participation in Afghanistan or not, we are there now, and the war is at a point at which we cannot pull out.

2. Canada hasn't lost that many troops at all in comparison to many other countries in current armed conflicts. America recently marked the loss of its 3,000th troop in Iraq, and has no intention to pull out of there any time soon.

With regards to the Afghanistan mission, Canada has come to a point at which it has to decide who its friends are in the world. If we want to continue to be aligned with the Western heavy-hitters, and we really have no choice but to continue aligned with them anyway, a good friendship requires that we scratch each other's backs once in a while.

Canmoore
03 Jan 07,, 01:13
If we want to continue to be aligned with the Western heavy-hitters, and we really have no choice but to continue aligned with them anyway, a good friendship requires that we scratch each other's backs once in a while.

Do you not think that we are scratching our own backs by being in Afghanistan?

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 01:39
Do you not think that we are scratching our own backs by being in Afghanistan?

We are scratching the backs of the rest of the US bloc and Afghans who were tired of Taliban extremism. All it means for us is more spending.

Its called "rational egoism"--helping others, at least in international relations, will ultimately lead to benefits for the helpers.

Killing the taliban is really more of a pertinent issue for the US and EU--who have generally been the primary target of Islamic extremism in recent years (note the word "primary", I am not denying the odd arrest(s) in places such as, say, Dubai and Toronto). We put ourselves even more in the line of fire by being there (i.e. Candian soil officially becomes a more prime terrorist target by having troops in Afghanistan), so we are putting ourselves at risk by actively supporting US anti-terrorism military efforts. Hopefully, our deaths and money will result in some kind of a return from the US, maybe in the form of a benefit-of-the-doubt in a future dispute or something like that, in exchange for our scratching their backs here.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 02:57
We goto war not because our citizens are safe. We goto war for precisely the reason our citizens are not safe. What you're suggesting is tantamount to allowing Al Qeida hold us hostage. That, no matter what government, cannot and must not be allowed.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 03:22
We goto war not because our citizens are safe. We goto war for precisely the reason our citizens are not safe. What you're suggesting is tantamount to allowing Al Qeida hold us hostage. That, no matter what government, cannot and must not be allowed.

Oh cmon man! Get yourself straight. Who the heck "goes to war" "because" our citizens our safe??????? What I am "suggesting" is exactly the only benefit that I can milk out of our presence in Afghanistan--and that is, the only benefit for the Canadian people and the reason that we have no choice but to remain there now. If this mission is doing nothing to reinforce our relationship with our Western allies, then I don't know what it is.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 03:23
Terrorists have to be stopped in their tracks.

It does not matter who they are, what religion they profess or which govt supports them.

They are a menace to civilsation.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 03:28
Terrorists have to be stopped in their tracks.

It does not matter who they are, what religion they profess or which govt supports them.

They are a menace to civilsation.

They are only a menace to the civilization that the particular terrorist group is opposed to. I agree that most of them are opposed to Western civilization, but still--they are opposed to one particular civilization and its influences.

Why should we spend billions (and I emphasize billions) on a military expedition that is simply addressing the Al Qaeda presence in one particular part of the world? In the end, it all comes down to our interests, and, from a strategic point of view, the interests of our allies.

No matter what you may say, eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan will not eliminate Al Qaeda. This mission simply makes Canada more of a target for terrorists.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 03:33
Oh cmon man! Get yourself straight. Who the heck "goes to war" "because" our citizens our safe??????? What I am "suggesting" is exactly the only benefit that I can milk out of our presence in Afghanistan--and that is, the only benefit for the Canadian people and the reason that we have no choice but to remain there now. If this mission is doing nothing to reinforce our relationship with our Western allies who started this expedition in the first place, then I don't know what it is.

Correct your tone, Mister. I've seen more blood in more mud than your liberal butt would even want to admit. I've served this country. I've lost people. So, don't go preaching to me about what war is. I know exactly what war is.

Canada, as a country, MUST rely on Alliances for our defence. We've relied on NORAD for decades and re-enforced NATO much along the same lines. If the US or Europe falls, we fall. If they hurt, we hurt. Or did the fact that our economy sufferred after the Americans shut down the border after 11 Sept escaped you?

When we took the lead in Afghanistan, we lead from the front. We stand by our Allies so that they don't have to suffer and in turn, we don't have to suffer. For decades, we allow one single brigade to stand for us while everyone else was committing entire corps.

My people are bleeding over there. My Regiment has bled over there. We're not bleeding for the Americans. We bled for Canada. Canada gave her word. Canada kept her word. That has nothing to do about antying up the balance sheet.

Stand down, little man, I've chewed bigger butts than yours.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 03:34
No matter what you may say, eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan will not eliminate Al Qaeda. This mission simply makes Canada more of a target for terrorists.

Horse pucky! We kill them over there. There's less of them coming over here.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 03:44
Horse pucky! We kill them over there. There's less of them coming over here.

You talk like most of the Al Qaeda members present in Canada are Afghani. Well, I shouldn't say otherwise--I don't really know the statistics--but the way I see it, the more we kill, the more will come, regardless of where we kill them and how many used to come from wherever. An influx of Al Qaeda members could, very well, choose to come in from say, Syria, after we, hypothetically speaking, rid ourselves of the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, to plan an attack here.

They aren't going to congratulate us for killing their compatriots, and I seriously don't want us to prolong the war with missions elsewhere.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 03:53
Correct your tone, Mister. I've seen more blood in more mud than your liberal butt would even want to admit. I've served this country. I've lost people. So, don't go preaching to me about what war is. I know exactly what war is.

I'm not "preaching to you what war is". I am simply laying down the facts. I respect your life experiences, but the matter is not "whether we support the troops or not"--as Canadians, we all support anybody who fights in the name of Canada---but whether or not it is still worth it to put them in harms way, i.e. whether the issue is now stale, is what is to be debated. I personally believe that it isn't stale, and that this mission needs to continue, simply to not chicken out on the Afghani people and to appease our allies.


Canada, as a country, MUST rely on Alliances for our defence. We've relied on NORAD for decades and re-enforced NATO much along the same lines. If the US or Europe falls, we fall. If they hurt, we hurt. Or did the fact that our economy sufferred after the Americans shut down the border after 11 Sept escaped you?

Which is exactly why I keep reinforcing that we have to support our allies.


When we took the lead in Afghanistan, we lead from the front. We stand by our Allies so that they don't have to suffer and in turn, we don't have to suffer. For decades, we allow one single brigade to stand for us while everyone else was committing entire corps.

Good for us. But the issue is now, like I already told you.


Stand down, little man, I've chewed bigger butts than yours.

When I debate, I don't stand down to anyone--whether you are Nelson Mandela or Osama Bin Laden. You have served in the army, and therefore are particularly biased towards military occupations. I have watched these things from the sidelines and made my own opinions about them, based on observations and perspectives that you have been blinded to. I have seen a certain "big picture" from the outside that you haven't from being inside it. We come from different backgrounds. The "size of the butts we have chewed" is not the matter, I respect you for the service you have given our country. Its the fact that we have "chewed different butts". That is what we are debating here. The opinions that we have derived from the compilations of our different life experiences.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 07,, 04:57
They aren't going to congratulate us for killing their compatriots, and I seriously don't want us to prolong the war with missions elsewhere.

And they don't have a base to plan their attacks. Get this through your head. Osama's Al Qeida DIED in Afghanistan. We helped kill them and we did help kill them when 3 PPCLI was attached to 187 BCT.

OBL's Lieutenants who planned, orchestrated, and executed the African Embassy bombings, the USS COLE attack, and 11 Sept are dead. We kill them. What's more they no longer have a base to do those attacks.

What's left are pipsqueak attacks (Spain, London, Bali, and even our own little example) when compared to those events.


I personally believe that it isn't stale, and that this mission needs to continue, simply to not chicken out on the Afghani people and to appease our allies.

And what you don't understand is that the mission is FAR more than that. We gave our word. We keep our word. THAT has more to do with our mission than any appeasing. Our word means something, from issuing saving bonds to saying that we will be there AND that we will NOT be there.

When we say yes, we mean yes. When we say no, we mean no.

THAT's what the mission means. We are HONOURED to keep Canada's word.


When I debate, I don't stand down to anyone--whether you are Nelson Mandela or Osama Bin Laden. You have served in the army, and therefore are particularly biased towards military occupations. I have watched these things from the sidelines and made my own opinions about them, based on observations and perspectives that you have been blinded to. I have seen a certain "big picture" from the outside that you haven't from being inside it. We come from different backgrounds. The "size of the butts we have chewed" is not the matter, I respect you for the service you have given our country. Its the fact that we have "chewed different butts". That is what we are debating here. The opinions that we have derived from the compilations of our different life experiences.

I guarrantee you that I see a hell of alot bigger picture than you. Thus far, EVERYONE of your point has been refuted. We're in Afghanistan so that OBL cannot rebuild his HQ and do those Embassy bombings, USS COLE, and 11 Sept again. Instead, he gave his support to those bastards who would rape and murder 12 year old girls.

If you want to give him a free reign and feel no danger from that, then you're completely delusional.

Ray
03 Jan 07,, 04:59
They are only a menace to the civilization that the particular terrorist group is opposed to. I agree that most of them are opposed to Western civilization, but still--they are opposed to one particular civilization and its influences.

Why should we spend billions (and I emphasize billions) on a military expedition that is simply addressing the Al Qaeda presence in one particular part of the world? In the end, it all comes down to our interests, and, from a strategic point of view, the interests of our allies.

No matter what you may say, eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan will not eliminate Al Qaeda. This mission simply makes Canada more of a target for terrorists.

Terrorism has targeted most countries of the world. It is not solely against the West.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 05:01
Terrorism has targeted most countries of the world. It is not solely against the West.

I agree, but the issue that we are discussing right now is whether or not the Afghan War contributes to curtailing Islamic terrorism against the West and Western Interests.

Canmoore
03 Jan 07,, 19:12
What is going on in places like Afghanistan, can be paralleld to the waning days of the Roman Empire.

Rome spread civilization beyong her borders to the furthest reaches of the known world. And the world was better for it. However, there are always forces at work which seak out anarchy and the dystruction of Civilzation.

It was the barbarians on the frontier of the Roman Empire who rejected the new Civilzation, they soon they spread from the frontiers, deep into the roman empire like a disease, Civilazation collapsed as a result, leaving in its place a void where anarchy was the rule, called the dark ages.

Places like Afghanistan are the last frontiers of todays great Civilzation, we as humans have come to far to allow history to repeat itself and sit on our butts as those forces of anarchy slowly eat away at our civilzation. We must stop it at its source, and not allow it to spread.

BH Khan
03 Jan 07,, 19:44
I was told that Canadian troops are in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan Gov't? If so, then Canadian intention would be to ensure that Afghanistan is run under a stable, non-fanatical and progressive government. Personally I believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to attack it directly at the roots. The Taliban would not be needed by the Afghan people if the people could live in stable political and economic conditions. Canadian soldiers are there to try get the Afghans stability, the rest would be up to the people concerned.

Musharraf is a dumbass, he was selected by a dumbass and the only good thing he did was get rid of a dumbass - which resulted in the swearing in of another dumbass. But one is better than two. There are far better Generals within the Pakistani Military who deserve the C&C/Supreme Commander rank more than Musharraf. And this general bias favouring the Army over the Air Force and Navy is not good; certain PAF Air Chiefs deserve the C&C role more than certain Army Generals.

ajtigger
03 Jan 07,, 20:17
And they don't have a base to plan their attacks. Get this through your head. Osama's Al Qeida DIED in Afghanistan. We helped kill them and we did help kill them when 3 PPCLI was attached to 187 BCT.

What YOU fail to demonstrate that you understand is that Islamic Terrorism is not a single organizaton, but an entire concept. If you destroy one major Islamic terrorist organization, more will spring up. It is quite possible that an even bigger network than the Al Qaeda could spring up after we destroy it. These people aren't looking for peace--they are looking to destroy the West, and that's final. The movement isn't going anywhere. New and more powerful recuperations are always on the horizon, bigger organizations will come. This is not a movement that will ever show signs of letting up.

Al Qaeda shouldn't be thought of as a single, large military organization like a military of a country. It is a movement, almost like a religion in itself, that a network of people adhere to--people in many different circumstances and with many different types of resources. Using intelligence services to track down potential attackers and arresting them accordingly is the best way to combat them.


And what you don't understand is that the mission is FAR more than that. We gave our word. We keep our word. THAT has more to do with our mission than any appeasing. Our word means something, from issuing saving bonds to saying that we will be there AND that we will NOT be there.

When we say yes, we mean yes. When we say no, we mean no.

THAT's what the mission means. We are HONOURED to keep Canada's word.

My goodness! Many people keep there words for doing all kinds of different things. Again, what we are trying to figure out here is whether or not the Afghanistan Mission has any point left to it for us, and we already decided it does, so there. I understand that you are "honoured" to keep Canada's word, but that is besides the point. We are not discussing whether we kept our word or not, but whether we made a promise we shouldn't have made.


I guarrantee you that I see a hell of alot bigger picture than you. Thus far, EVERYONE of your point has been refuted. We're in Afghanistan so that OBL cannot rebuild his HQ and do those Embassy bombings, USS COLE, and 11 Sept again. Instead, he gave his support to those bastards who would rape and murder 12 year old girls.

If you want to give him a free reign and feel no danger from that, then you're completely delusional.

People are not gonna stop raping people and killing people anyway. Why kill more people ourselves, if the cycle of violence, especially in terms of Islamic terrorism, will never end? It is a false cause. I should add that most people on these forums are fanatics for all things military, so obviously they will feel like their pro-military arguments are the only ones that have merit. Like it or not, we all see only one side of the issue.

Tronic
03 Jan 07,, 21:24
Dude, get off your high horse, you're in a state of paranoia big time. The "West" is not being invaded or whatever. You guys have merely joined a war against Extremists which has been going on for decades, long before 9/11 happened and long before you woke up from your sleep... there is no war against the West. It is merely a war which has pit Extremists against Moderates... The West has joined this war waaayyy too late to complain about invasions and such stuff... welcome to this war, you're way too new to this to get freaked out so soon...

oh and btw, Ironically, Islam is also a Western religion, not an Eastern one... ;)

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 07,, 05:31
What YOU fail to demonstrate that you understand is that Islamic Terrorism is not a single organizaton, but an entire concept.

What you fail to understand is that your view is false. The Mongols proved it against the Assasins. The Brits proved it against the Thuga. We proved it against the Nazis. And against the Soviets. And in case you haven't noticed, the Islamists are on the losing end against the Serbs, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, ... and us.


Al Qaeda shouldn't be thought of as a single, large military organization like a military of a country. It is a movement, almost like a religion in itself, that a network of people adhere to--people in many different circumstances and with many different types of resources. Using intelligence services to track down potential attackers and arresting them accordingly is the best way to combat them.

They're men and they act as men and I ain't afraid of no man. They organzie as a group. They have structure. And we can destroy that structure. But you wouldn't understand that, having pit AQl Qeida ilk as gods when they're nothing more than bastards and we can kill those bastards.


My goodness! Many people keep there words for doing all kinds of different things. Again, what we are trying to figure out here is whether or not the Afghanistan Mission has any point left to it for us, and we already decided it does, so there. I understand that you are "honoured" to keep Canada's word, but that is besides the point. We are not discussing whether we kept our word or not, but whether we made a promise we shouldn't have made.

Does that matter? We made a promise. We will keep it. That's what men do or are you not a man?


People are not gonna stop raping people and killing people anyway. Why kill more people ourselves, if the cycle of violence, especially in terms of Islamic terrorism, will never end? It is a false cause. I should add that most people on these forums are fanatics for all things military, so obviously they will feel like their pro-military arguments are the only ones that have merit. Like it or not, we all see only one side of the issue.

Yes, the right side. Islam cowed before. Islam retreated before. Islam retreated in my life time, In my service. Had it not been for the CANADIANS, Islam would have been slaughtered from the Balkans. Deal with that fact!

T_igger_cs_30
22 Jan 07,, 11:45
As a new member I am spending a lot of time reviewing threads, I have just finished this one, I know it started in Sept of last year but the last post was only this month.
I would just like to say from the initial post I can see very clearly why the debate developed like it did.
I would just like to bring a point of order as to some it would appear that the Canadian soldiers themselves started the shouting about the number of soldiers laying down there lives, when in fact, and at this point I appologise to all the Canadians on the forum but in my opinion Canadian politicians have for a long time embarressed the Canadian serviceman, I have served with them as far back as 1975 and the invasion of Cyprus when my Sqn at the time put a cordon in around Nicosia airport along with the PPCLI ( I am sure it was I hope I am right memory is starting to fade!!!) to block the Turkish advance at the time.
They were a fine bunch, and it was always a pleasure and fun to serve with them.
I guess in a long winded way I am trying to say, lets not forget that the actual serving members of the Canadian Armed forces were not the ones who started the complaint. They like all soldiers(male and female) from a lot of countries right now are doing what is expected of them........ and GOD BLESS THEM ALL

dave lukins
22 Jan 07,, 12:17
Remember the food and the beer but not the cordon!! They were great guys to work with and very professional. Soldiers do what soldiers do ,then complain later. If that changes then there is something wrong

T_igger_cs_30
22 Jan 07,, 12:41
Remember the food and the beer but not the cordon!! They were great guys to work with and very professional. Soldiers do what soldiers do ,then complain later. If that changes then there is something wrong

Dave can you believe that was 32 years ago :eek: where did it go ?................not the time....the case of beer you owe me ?

dave lukins
22 Jan 07,, 13:14
Dave can you believe that was 32 years ago :eek: where did it go ?................not the time....the case of beer you owe me ?
Ah the wonderful thing called memory....Whats your name again..can't recall you!! ok.its in Remys Bar and I still have the card

mostlymad
23 Jan 07,, 17:15
You are a Liberal perhaps ? : (responding to smilling assasin post)

sure and pigs fly!

(took me this long to post 'cause I was laughing so hard) ;)

Stan187
23 Jan 07,, 18:22
Yes, the right side. Islam cowed before. Islam retreated before. Islam retreated in my life time, In my service. Had it not been for the CANADIANS, Islam would have been slaughtered from the Balkans. Deal with that fact!

That's truth if I've ever seen it.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jan 07,, 05:48
I have served with them as far back as 1975 and the invasion of Cyprus when my Sqn at the time put a cordon in around Nicosia airport along with the PPCLI ( I am sure it was I hope I am right memory is starting to fade!!!) to block the Turkish advance at the time.
They were a fine bunch, and it was always a pleasure and fun to serve with them.

Sergeant-Major,

I'm pretty sure that was A Squadron, Canadian Airborne Regiment.

T_igger_cs_30
24 Jan 07,, 12:23
Sergeant-Major,

I'm pretty sure that was A Squadron, Canadian Airborne Regiment.

As I said memory is starting to fade somewhat on somethings, you may well be right , but for some reason the PPCLI sure sticks hard in my mind......I wiill look for clarification

Whatever the unit ......the MEN were great to work with as I said

Stan187
25 Jan 07,, 02:06
Sergeant-Major,

I'm pretty sure that was A Squadron, Canadian Airborne Regiment.

What is a squadron in American terms? A company?