Many thanks to Richard Evans for pulling this together.
Previous: Joke’s on you, Canada.
Update – Check out this question;
“As you may know, there has been discussion about the treatment of Taliban detainees captured by Canadian forces and handed over to the Afghan authorities. There have been allegations that they have been mistreated. Some people say that Canadians should be outraged by these allegations and that Canada’s reputation in the world has been hurt. Other people say that the Canadian government and forces should not be held responsible for what happens to prisoners held in Afghan controlled detention centers. Which view is closest to your own?
Notice that the pollsters gave a lot of info on the supposed “mistreatment” of “detainees” but none whatsoever, as Adler noted, on the taliban themselves.
In the words of Tim Wollstencroft – “That would be ..ah ah.. that would be provactive and would probably be viewed as a biased question.”
More: The Toronto Star jumps aboard the “better government through push-polling” train – because nobody knows foreign policy better than an off-duty waitress just back from the bingo hall.
A’dam, I’m sure Karzai has cut deals with a lot of people described as Taliban, it is Afghanistan, a tribal society after all. “Taliban” comes in many flavors and degrees which the MSM is too stupid to differentiate.
The really bad assed Taliban that swallowed up the country were headed by outsiders and had a large presence of outsiders as their enforcers. They aren’t there now. Ever read any books written by Afghans survivors regarding that period? There are a number out there. Look them up on Amazon or Google. Hint: The Kite Runner for one.
You cherry pick stuff without context or valid facts. It’s getting old.
I do believe the “Food for Oil” program was a product of the Clinton’s government, wasn’t it?
Do you even understand what that program was about?? Doubt it. It was a US response to get humanitarian aid to Iraqis after sanctions were imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War. The UN imposed the sanctions. The US sought to ameliorate the consequences. So, wherever you are going with that reveals your stupidity.
Have you and A’dam, Jose, Iberia ever read anything other than MSM headlines, comic books, a few blogs? Ever Googled, check wikipedia before spewing undigested factoids, read a history book, sought and weighed opposing opinions before opening your mouths? So far, you are indictments of how dumbed down public education has gotten. Really. It’s pathetic.
Easy on them penny…it could be too much Librium.
sorta sounds like liberal,eh?
penny at May 24, 2007 8:39 PM
” do believe the “Food for Oil” program was a product of the Clinton’s government, wasn’t it?
Do you even understand what that program was about?? Doubt it. It was a US response to get humanitarian aid to Iraqis after sanctions were imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War. The UN imposed the sanctions. The US sought to ameliorate the consequences. So, wherever you are going with that reveals your stupidity.”
Why yes Penny I’m well aware what the program was all about. It was about controlling another government and keeping people fed while the US got what they wanted, cheap oil. Now go back and read the string of post to catch up so you too can figure out what’s going on. Especially the bit about the “latte-crowd.”
Penny: A’dam, I’m sure Karzai has cut deals with a lot of people described as Taliban, it is Afghanistan, a tribal society after all. “Taliban” comes in many flavors and degrees which the MSM is too stupid to differentiate…The really bad assed Taliban that swallowed up the country were headed by outsiders and had a large presence of outsiders as their enforcers. They aren’t there now.
Oh, so when President Karzai says holding peace talks with “the Taliban” might be a worth a shot, he’s obviously referring to the more moderate elements only, but when Jack Layton or your average bingo-lovin’ off-duty waitress says the same thing, then they’re obviously referring to the crazy guys with machetes and bloodshot eyes who’ve “been known to chop people’s heads off.”
Well in that case, we can chalk the whole SC poll controversy down to a simple misunderstanding. While Adler and Kate and others here believe that the respondents were referring to the Evil Taliban, they may simply have been referring to the moderate Taliban wings, whom Mr. Karzai and the majority of the Afghan Senate and Mr. Layton and US Senators Frist (R-TN) and Martinez (R-FL) all agree are worth negotiating with. Problem solved!
A’dam, give your head a shake. Moderate Taliban? What is that, something like moderate serial killer?
There are no moderate Taliban, who represent only 20% of Afghan population, and seized power, aided and abetted by Taliban in Pakistan. Karzai has his own parliament to deal with, and, as a push poll showed, negotiation is a valued thing.
The problem here is there is no room for negotiation with these killers – end of story. It is rare indeed to see successful negotiations with militant Islamist fascists (I can’t think of a single case, though there may be one).
Frankly, negotiations and ceasefires have been used by Taliban and their ilk to undermine their “enemy” (yes, that’s how they see us), and/or rearm and restore their command, control and logistical functions.
That is why we cannot negotiate with Taliban, no matter how nice that might seem to be.
Shamrock: A’dam, give your head a shake. Moderate Taliban? What is that, something like moderate serial killer? There are no moderate Taliban.
Not according to Penny, who wrote, “I’m sure Karzai has cut deals with a lot of people described as Taliban, it is Afghanistan, a tribal society after all. ‘Taliban’ comes in many flavors and degrees which the MSM is too stupid to differentiate.”
Nor according to Sen. Frist, who said, “You need to bring them [‘them’ apparently referring to, in his words, ‘people who call themselves Taliban’] into a more transparent type of government.” He later clarified, “I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.”
Nor according to the Afghan Senate, who passed a motion earlier this month calling for “direct negotiations with the concerned Afghan sides in the country.”
Nor according to President Karzai, who said, “We have had representatives from the Taliban meeting with different bodies of Afghan government for a long time…I have had some Taliban coming to speak to me as well…Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country…They are the sons of this soil. As they repent, as they regret, as they want to come back to their own country, they are welcome.”
That is why we cannot negotiate with Taliban, no matter how nice that might seem to be.
Well, your opinion. One would think, though, that the Afghan government has a better grasp of their country’s internal power relations and realities than anyone here, and if they want to negotiate, then negotiate they shall. After all, isn’t the whole point of the Afghanistan mission to enable democratic self-determination? Though it’d be a shame if the new government turned out to be as despotic and oppressive as the old regime, wouldn’t you say?
Re: Tim’s position: typical mealy-mouthed, bureaucratic, politically correct, pissant BS!