TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Defending Afghanistan
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

No reason for anyone to be in Afghanistan. That corrupt POS country will never be a democracy but for some reason our leaders are lying to us about how "noble" being there is. Fuck Afghanistan. Strategically, Osama is a genius. Here we are stuck in a quagmire in a worthless country. What more could the guy ask for? His goal is foment Islamic revolution where ever he can, almost like an Islamic version of Che Guevara. He's done exactly that in Afghanistan. WTF?

I think we need a major shift in policy if we are to win afghanistan. We need more SF and Civil Affairs to help get the infrastructure of the country put back together. Right now they will follow whoever puts the money up and helps them get on the right track to a sustainable non violent future.

That policy shift is going on right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Zild doesnt know his history. He is forgetting that Canada made significant contributions in World War I and World War 2. Who liberated Netherlands? Who participated in liberating considerable portions of Italy and France? Without Canada, it would not have been the same. Tens of thousands of Canadians gave up their lives in those wars. Yes, we did and do support our allies. Canada has a strong but small military, and came to the defense of our allies when NEEDED. But today its becoming clear that Afghanistan is unneccessary. Few years ago there was something to fight for there, and now after the fog cleared up, its obvious that Canadian troops are merely protecting (crappy and corrupt) Afghan leadership and patrolling the heroin fields. And besides, the only country that has to the date invaded us was ... our closest neighbour. We don't worry about other countries invading Canada. Just like Norway doesn't worry. Anything else is merely political intimidation. We don't shit on anyone's lawn, and enjoy having a good image in the world. No offense, but United States isn't exactly a very popular and widely loved country (compared to Canada), and we definitely dont have the guns to back up our "tough" stance, so we try not to invade countries or stick our noses into other countries' business - thouggh occassionally we come to the rescue of our allies even if our public doesnt support the stance. And now in Afghanistan, we see that Afghan politicians are spitting on the graves of the Canadian soldiers with ill-conceived and ignorant laws that once again allow women to be controlled and raped systematically. Smart thing to do for Canada now is to threaten to the Afghan government that we are pulling out. I am sure that would be enough for them to cancel the law. Zild might think that Canadian military is weak, but 1,000 Canadian troops are strong enough to control the Kandahar province. EDIT: He is also conveniently ignoring the articles I posted on Afghanistan. At least I use evidence and rational thinking to base my conclusions on, and not harsh language.

it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again!

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think we need a major shift in policy if we are to win afghanistan. We need more SF and Civil Affairs to help get the infrastructure of the country put back together. Right now they will follow whoever puts the money up and helps them get on the right track to a sustainable non violent future. That policy shift is going on right now.

Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Why should we throw our precious resources into the toilet for such a worthless country?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No reason for anyone to be in Afghanistan. That corrupt POS country will never be a democracy but for some reason our leaders are lying to us about how "noble" being there is. Fuck Afghanistan. Strategically, Osama is a genius. Here we are stuck in a quagmire in a worthless country. What more could the guy ask for? His goal is foment Islamic revolution where ever he can, almost like an Islamic version of Che Guevara. He's done exactly that in Afghanistan. WTF?

I wouldn't go that far. The man has nutty views and even nuttier followers. He went to a shithole country that was ruled by even worse people to hide and train his nutjob followers. Now, he's hiding in caves to avoid detection and capture. It doesn't take much to avert detection in a place where people share the same crazy ideological views. I think people give him too much credit.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I wouldn't go that far. The man has nutty views and even nuttier followers. He went to a shithole country that was ruled by even worse people to hide and train his nutjob followers. Now, he's hiding in caves to avoid detection and capture. It doesn't take much to avert detection in a place where people share the same crazy ideological views. I think people give him too much credit.

It's so easy to call Osama simply a nut job. Unfortunately, millions of people agree with his views. 9/11 was an ingenious fomenter of Islamic revolution, at least in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. The man is smart. And America falls for his shit far too easily.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It's so easy to call Osama simply a nut job. Unfortunately, millions of people agree with his views. 9/11 was an ingenious fomenter of Islamic revolution, at least in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. The man is smart. And America falls for his shit far too easily.

i never said he was a nut job. I wouldn't call him a genius, but he is smart enough to convince other people to kill themselves for his cause. That makes him a cult leader in my view. No smarter than any other cult leader, e.g., Warren Jeffs (mormon polygymist sect leader). I would say he is more manipulative than smart. He has the advantage of having millions of actual 'nutjobs' believe in his ideology. Your so called 'islamic revolution' in afghanistan occurred prior to him locating there. The taliban already imposed their ultra conservative ways on the people prior to him moving his operations to that country. In fact, I believe that was part of the reason he moved his operations to afghanistan.

As for america falling for his shit, i'm not sure what that means. I do know, however, that american politicians have a political obligation to persue him until his death. Regardless of the truth, it would be political suicide for an american politician to say, "forget osama, he is irrelevant." His connection to one of the most horrific individual acts on a civilian populuation since WWII (japan being nuked being far worse) will always be engrained in the psyche of amercians. I'm a pretty logical dude (in my own mind), and I realize that an unending chase for osama is terrible idea based on a pure cost/benefit analysis. Nevertheless, I support a continued search for the man based purely on my emotional connection to 9/11. Whether it's a good or bad thing, sometimes human nature dictates that a good decisions doesn't always have to be made using a computer. Sometimes satisfying your emotional needs is benefit enough to support a poor financial decision.

How sad is this - NATO-led coalition sacrified hundreds of troops, billions of dollars in arms and financing, yet the Afghan leadership is passing the kind of legislature that Taliban would. In a way the current leadership is the Fifth Column for Taliban movement.

I say to the Canadian troops: stop guarding the heroin crops and let's get the hell out of Afghanistan. Besides, nearly 60% of Canadians oppose the participation in Afghanistan anyway.

http://www.thespec.com/News/article/546921


Top Afghan cleric defends marriage law

quote:

April 11, 2009 By Rahim Faiez and Heidi Vogt The Associated Press KABUL - A key backer of an Afghan law that critics say legalizes marital rape and rolls back women's rights rejected an international outcry as foreign meddling Saturday and insisted the legislation offers women many protections. The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse, and regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone. The legislation has raised the spectre of the deposed hardline Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The strict Islamist regime required women to wear body-covering burkas and banned them from leaving home without a male relative. Following an international uproar, in which U.S. President Barack Obama called the law "abhorrent," Afghan President Hamid Karzai put it under review. The move puts enforcement on hold. Mohammad Asif Mohseni, a top Afghan cleric who was one of the law's main drafters, said the legislation cannot be revoked or changed because it was enacted through a legislative process - passed by both houses of parliament and signed by Karzai. He condemned the outcry, saying western countries were trying to thwart democracy when results did not please them. "The westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. What does democracy mean? It means government by the people for the people. They should let the people use these democratic rights," Mohseni told reporters in the capital, Kabul. Surrounded by supporters, Mohseni unfurled reams of paper with hundreds of women's signatures and thumbprints backing the law. The legislation came out of three years of debate and revision involving both Islamic scholars and members of parliament, Mohseni said. Afghanistan is an Islamic state and its constitution defers to the Qur'an as the ultimate authority. Mohseni said the law simply reiterates rules from Islam's holy book. "In Shariah law, it states that a woman cannot go out without the permission of her husband," he said. He argued that the law is permissive because it allows a woman to go out for a medical emergency or other urgent reason without asking beforehand. In addition, a couple can agree to opt out of this rule when signing a marriage contract, he said. Mohseni said much of the uproar has come from people misinterpreting the law. He said a woman can refuse sex with her husband for many reasons beyond illness. For example, he said, a woman may be fasting for Ramadan, preparing for a pilgrimage, menstruating, or just given birth. Mohseni also argued that the law can be interpreted to mean simply sleeping in the same room as a couple every four nights, but an Associated Press translation of the pertinent article suggests this reading is unlikely. The law says that every fourth day a man �can pass the night with his wife, unless it is harmful for either side, or either of them is suffering from any kind of sexual disease. It is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire." "If she is not sick, and if she does not have another problem, it is the right of a man to ask for sex and she should make herself ready for it. This is the right of a man," Mohseni explained. Though the law only applies to the country's Shiite population - 10 per cent to 20 per cent of Afghanistan's 30 million people - Mohseni, the country's top Shiite cleric, said most of the articles could also be applied to Sunnis. A prominent Sunni cleric, Maulavi Habibullah Ahsam, said the rules about women submitting to sex and leaving the home would also be acceptable to Sunnis. Not everyone is happy with the law in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, dozens of Afghan legislators and officials condemned the legislation, saying it encourages re-Talibanization. The law contradicts the country's constitution and human rights, treating women as objects rather than subjects, they said in a declaration. The Afghan Constitution states that both men and women "have equal rights and duties before the law." Much has improved for women since the fall of the Taliban. Millions of girls now attend school, and many women own businesses. Of 351 parliamentarians, 89 are women. But in the conservative country, critics fear those gains could easily be reversed. Mohseni argued that women and men are very far from equal in today's Afghanistan and should not be treated as such. He pointed out that many rural women are illiterate and would not be able to find work if they were asked to provide some of the family's financial support. Men are typically the breadwinners in Afghan households, expected to provide for their wives and children. "It is not possible for all women to pay the same amount of money as men are paying. For all these expenses, can't we at least give the right to a husband to demand sex from his wife after four nights?" he said.

In other developments:

http://www.thespec.com/News/article/564771

Afghan sex-abuse allegations unfounded: military police

quote:

OTTAWA � Allegations that Canadian commanders turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of young boys by Afghan soldiers and police have been dismissed as unfounded by military investigators. The Canadian Forces National Investigative Service, which oversees military police, says it has determined allegations made by returning soldiers and the pastors who counselled them contained �serious discrepancies� and could not be verified. �There�s rumours and innuendos of course, but there�s no information to corroborate those allegations,� said Lt.-Col. Gilles Sansterre, head of the investigative branch. At least two soldiers have claimed they witnessed young Afghan boys being led into a Canadian forward operating base, where they were sodomized by Afghan troops and police. �We interviewed a number of people that could provide us some information and the bottom line is that testimony of some people was inconsistent and could not be corroborated by others,� said Sansterre. �We�ve been led to the conclusion the allegations are unfounded.� Maj. Kevin Klein, a high-ranking chaplain, has said publicly he warned commanders in 2007 about accounts of sex abuse that he was hearing from soldiers. Another chaplain, Jean Johns, said she counselled a Canadian soldier who said he witnessed a boy being raped and then wrote a report on the allegation for her brigade chaplain. Despite their claims, Sansterre said military police found no evidence that the allegations were reported to the chain of command. The investigation was thorough, and in the end there was no evidence Canadian military law was broken, he added. The fact the alleged crimes happened in Afghanistan was a complicating factor in the investigation. Sansterre said military police have jurisdiction over Canadian soldiers and civilians in the war-torn region, not Afghan nationals in their own country. There wasn�t even enough evidence to pass along to Afghan police for them to launch their own investigation, he said. The allegations that Afghan soldiers, police and even interpreters sexually abused young boys while on Canadian bases in Kandahar also prompted a wider investigation involving a military board inquiry, which has yet to deliver its findings. The NDP�s defence critic called it an �unconvincing report� and accused the military of sweeping the matter under the rug. �There�s an effort here to close the file on this thing and I don�t think that�s the right thing to do,� said Newfoundland MP Jack Harris. �It�s pretty clear that these reports were passed on to the chain of command and what we want to know is what was done about them.� Documents obtained by the New Democrats under the Access to Information Act show that after the allegations were raised in public, senior officers ordered to soldiers to report any suspected cases of abuse so they could flag them for investigation by Afghan officials. The troops, however, expressed skepticism to padres in the field that much would be done about it � citing the Afghan tribal code of justice. Pashtunwali �is very different from ours (system) and enforcement is not very effective,� said the June 2008 monthly pastoral report.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.