More Frightening News About Our Involvement in Afghanistan

As we search the globe for any shred of information on our role in Afghanistan, we have just learned something else that should give all Canadians pause and demand that we pull out of there immediately.

Knowing that Stephen Harper has gotten himself mixed up with the Afghan underworld and that the women of Afghanistan claim they will never be happy until every last foreign soldier has left the country, news from Germany is that the Taliban has now infiltrated the Afghan army and are starting to turn on those training them.

Three German soldiers were killed by those they are training and there are rumblings of a mutiny. According to David Climenhaga.

You'd never know it from Canadian mainstream media coverage of the war in Afghanistan, of course, but Spiegel Online International reported yesterday that German troops in that country are in a state of near revolt against their commanders. The reason? The danger they face training Afghan soldiers who, in the words of one German trooper quoted by the magazine, "consider us to be infidels who don't belong in their country."

Said another Bundeswehr soldier quoted by the English-language online edition of the German newsmagazine: "One doesn't know anymore if they will suddenly turn their weapons on you." The reason for this angst is the attack last Friday by an Afghan soldier being trained by the Germans that killed three Bundeswehr soldiers and injured six others, some of them critically. The 26-year-old Afghan attacker, who Spiegel reported is believed to be a Taliban sympathizer, was killed in a hail of return fire from the Germans' comrades. With German morale at "rock bottom," the publication said, many Germans soldiers are "now refusing to go on further patrols or missions with Afghan troops."

With the rising sentiment and cries for freedom from corporate rule and viscous dictators, it's not surprising that the Afghan people are also fighting back. We are just not listening to them. Instead we buy into the hype, wear our yellow ribbons, "support the troops" and then go about our daily business.

George Bush and Stephen Harper have always stuck to the line that those we're fighting hate our freedoms. They don't hate our freedoms so much as the fact that we are denying them theirs.

In Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he says that Stephen Harper ascribes to the neoconservative theory of a Clash of Civilizations. But is that how you view Canada's role?

It's Ronald reagan all over again.

Thank you Jack Layton. You are Right About Afghanistan

Jack Layton has come out publicly stating that Canadian trainers in Afghanistan will end up in combat positions.

He's absolutely right. In fact two American soldiers training Iraqi troops, were killed recently.

I have a real problem with this issue, and hope that we can convince the Liberals to change their position. I read Bob Rae's justifications, and agreed with them to a certain extent. He seems to genuinely care. But I still don't support our staying in that country even a moment longer.

I'm just afraid that if this becomes an election issue for the NDP, it could further split the left and Harper will get his majority.

The Liberals and NDP have to call a truce. It doesn't mean that they can't aggressively campaign, as I believe that many people may vote strategically this election. But if Harper gets in again, especially with a majority, we'll be toast.

But thank you Jack Layton. It took courage to take a stand. And if they call you 'Taliban Jack' again because of it, wear it with pride.

Will Afghanistan Host the Next Hundred Years' War?

With NATO and the United States committed to unlimited engagement in Afghanistan, some of us are wondering if and when this war will ever end.

The war being waged by the United States and the Western military alliance it controls, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is well into its tenth year and is already the longest war in the history of the U.S., Afghanistan and NATO alike. In fact it is NATO's first ground war and its first armed conflict in Asia.It has now graduated into a broader war, having engulfed neighboring Pakistan with a population of 170 million and a nuclear arsenal.

The war launched on the whim of a Clash of Civilizations; has escalated into the longest war in the history of the United States and Canada.

John Farmer from the New Jersey Star-Ledger says that History is repeating itself in Afghanistan. He's absolutely right. It's as though we've learned nothing.

The maddening thing about Afghanistan is that losing is not an acceptable option, but winning doesn’t seem a real possibility. It may be a new American tragedy, but it’s a very old one as history records these things.

All of this dates back to “The Great Game,” as history has dubbed it, the arrogant efforts of imperial powers dating back 200 years to dominate South Asia and what is now Afghanistan, a keystone to the region. Now, we’re caught in that cockpit.

A war that was lost from the day we first landed troops.

Stageleft says that it has turned into a circus, and Don Cherry's recent visit validates this notion. A great place for photo-ops, but I wouldn't want to live there. Because there is a war we don't see. One taking place behind those photo-ops. That's the war we need to stop.



This is not a partisan issue, but a human one, since it appears that this could very well outlast any government.

However, it is my civic duty to protest war and that's what I'm doing. Not as a Liberal but as a Canadian.

And it's my civic duty to protest so much money going to feed this war, when it could be better spent feeding our nation.

But on that note, Canada has won another award.

Yes we have won the American Foreign Policy in Focus, 'Lemon Award' for our purchase of fighter jets that are the world's Edsels.

The Golden Lemon Award goes to the Conservative government of Canada for shelling out $8.5 billion to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters. According to Defense Minister Peter MacKay, “This multi-role stealth fighter will help the Canadian forces defend the sovereignty of Canadian airspace.” Exactly whom that airspace is being defended from is not clear.

The contract also includes a $6.6 billion maintenance agreement, which is a good thing because the F-35 has a number of “problems.” For instance, its engine shoots out sparks, and no one can figure out why. It is generally thought a bad idea for an engine to do that. There are several different types of F-35, and the vertical lift version of the aircraft doesn’t work very well. It seems the fan that cools the engine, doesn’t, and the panels that open for the vertical thrust, don’t. Also switches, valves and power systems are considered “unreliable.”

The F-35 is looking more and more like the old F-105 Thunderchief, a fighter-bomber used extensively at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Pilots nicknamed it the “Thud” (the sound the plane made when it hit the ground after failing to clear a runway, a rather common occurrence). One pilot said it had all the agility of a “flying brick,” thus its other nickname: the “lead sled.”

I'm so proud.

Dear Nancy Ruth. War Will Not Liberate Women so 'Shut the f--- up'

Nancy Ruth is another Conservative senator appointed by Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, who was trying to break the tradition of patronage. She is best known for telling aid groups who were opposed to our new anti-abortion stand in foreign policy, to “shut the f--- up”

A lovely woman.

Ruth is now chairing a special senate committee on the advancement of human rights in Afghanistan, and wants a special emphasis on promoting and "preserving" women's rights in the region.

That includes training Afghan police and soldiers in gender sensitivity, providing health and education for females and ensuring that any political resolution with the Taliban to end the 10-year conflict does not erode the gains that have been made by women.

I don't even know where to start.

"Gender sensitivity"? Is she nuts? A few facts:

- Every 30 minutes, an Afghan woman dies during childbirth
- 1 in every 3 Afghan women experience physical, psychological or sexual violence
- 44 years is the average life expectancy rate for women in Afghanistan
- 70 to 80 percent of women face forced marriages in Afghanistan

And this is under Hamid Karzai. And Ruth is worried about gender sensitivity. It's like going to the hospital with third degree burns on every part of your body and the doctor saying: "You really have to do something about your hair. It's a mess".

If this so-called "human rights" senate committee really want to help women in Afghanistan, they need to get our soldiers out of there. Because that's what they really want.

In the video below you will hear one woman near the end say that she does not expect, nor does she want, some foreign power to come and liberate her. If she can't do that herself than it can't be done.

Besides it was all this "liberating" that took away women's rights in Afghanistan in the first place.

The Radical Fundamentalists Were the Product of the Good Old U.S. of A.

Journalist Stephen Gowan wrote a piece in August on the plight of women in a country with too much western interference. Women’s Rights in Afghanistan. What's left.

While worries are expressed about “women’s precarious rights in Afghanistan … seeping away” there was a time when the rights of Afghan women were much stronger, and stronger still among the people who shared a common culture with Afghans but lived in Soviet Central Asia. While US journalists draw attention to worry that a US troop withdrawal, and the possible return of the Taliban to government, will imperil the few rights women have gained, US establishment journalism expressed few concerns about the loss of women’s rights when Washington backed the misogynist Mujahedeen in its fight against a progressive government in Kabul that sought to free Afghan women from the grip of traditional Islamic practices.

The United States not only trained and paid both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but they deliberately recruited the most extreme elements, to fight against the Soviets. And now many of those extremists have found a home in the current Afghan government.

And before they interfered, women in the country were enjoying enormous freedom.

Further evidence of Washington’s supreme indifference to the rights of women abroad is evidenced by the role it played in undermining a progressive government in Afghanistan that sought to release women from the grip of traditional Islamic anti-women practices. In the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs.” There were female members of parliament, and women drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a male guardian for permission. That this is no longer true is largely due to a secret decision made in the summer of 1979 by then US president Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to draw “the Russians into the Afghan trap” and give “to the USSR its Vietnam War” by bankrolling and organizing Islamic terrorists to fight a new government in Kabul led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan.

And Canada Has Given Them Little reason to Trust Us

In March of 2009, we learned of a new law being passed in Afghanistan that, among other things, would make it illegal for women 'to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission or have custody of children.'

Canadians were outraged.

So Lawrence Cannon mounted his white steed and went off to the rescue.

The Canadian government reacted with outrage following reports that the administration of President Hamid Karzai has approved a wide-ranging family law for the country's Shia minority ... Canadian officials contacted the Karzai's office, and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon spoke to two Afghan cabinet ministers Tuesday seeking clarification.

Seeking clarification, huh?

Poor Larry got caught with his pants down, during their hostile takeover of the Rights and Democracy agency, that is supposed to be arms length of government.

In April 2009, Parliament Hill was abuzz with news that Afghanistan passed a law that deprived women of their children in cases of separation, banned them from appearing in public without the permission of their husbands, and made it illegal to refuse to have sex with them. Lawrence Cannon swore he knew nothing about the law and that it came as a complete surprise to him… he was contradicted by two employees - the president, Rémy Beauregard, and Razmik Panossian, its policy director, who told Embassy Magazine that Canada had known it was coming for months…

Canada knew it was coming for months. Do they really believe that the women in Afghanistan can trust us? We stood by and did nothing to prevent this. Karzai's justice minister said that there are only two rights that women should have. The right to obey their husbands and the right to pray. And the Harper government did nothing! Nothing except try to cover their tracks and pretend to care!

Travis Lupick with Straight.com, believes that Stephen Harper’s religious beliefs may be hampering humanitarian efforts. And while it appears that this "born again" Christian was really just a "born again" opportunist, those propping him up do hold strong religious views. And Lupick is right in saying that those views will hurt any initiative.

Today, another Canadian mother mourns the loss of a son. And everyday in Afghanistan, mothers mourn, not only their children killed by "liberating" soldiers, but their sons who join the rebels.

And they fear the long term impact of the increased militarization of their society.

Time Magazine ran a story in July asking, What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan? In it they attempt to convince their readers that a return of the Taliban will reverse gains made by their occupation, forgetting that the women in that country are nowhere near where they were before the Americans got involved in the first place.

And as Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post says: "We invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban in 2001. This young woman's nose and ears were cut off by the Taliban in 2009." That woman was the image on the cover of that Time magazine. Some progress.

What the women in Afghanistan really want is to not have to raise their children in a war zone. 90% of the casualties in that conflict are civilian. Not soldiers. Not the "enemy". Not the "scumbag murderers". Civilians, including women and children.

So Nancy Ruth. Unless your committee considers the possibility of getting out of there now, you should just 'shut the f--- up'!

Musical Propaganda and How the West May be Writing the Lyrics

"After silence that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." -Aldous Huxley

Using music as propaganda is nothing new, Harper's piano playing aside. National anthems can dance us into war and rhythms soothe our conscience over it's human costs.

But it actually plays a much more important role when it comes to propaganda.

In Nazi Germany, there was always music to stir the masses, but what was more important were ditties that could be sung when away from public demonstrations, and this was often done by simply changing the words to popular songs, that citizens found difficult to "get out of their heads".

One example, was the Christmas classic, Silent Night, which was sung as:

Silent night! Holy night!
All is calm, all is bright
Only the Chancellor steadfast in fight
Watches o'er Germany by day and by night
Always caring for us.

Silent night! Holy night!
All is calm, all is bright
Adolf Hitler is Germany's wealth
Brings us greatness, favour and wealth
Oh give us Germans all power (1)

Joseph Stalin also used popular songs as propaganda, often rewriting the lyrics himself. By tweaking old folk songs, especially those that inspired the 1917 revolution, he was able to create a "cult of personality".

But the interesting thing in modern context is that the Taliban are now tapping into this phenomenon.

When the United States first helped them to gain power, these "freedom fighters" banned all music except religious poems and ‘chants’. This was in part to remove any Soviet influence that may have found it's way into the Afghan culture.

But now the Taliban are using music and Afghan culture to integrate and agitate. And they don't have to change the lyrics to do it.

The Taliban is using the tradition of folk songs to strengthen anti-government discontent, similar to the American protest songs of the 1960s. However, rather than appealing to the morality and intellect of its audience, the Taliban taps into the medium of folk songs to unite a diversified, and mainly uneducated population through culture and heritage. There is a clear similarity with the Stalinist government of the 1930s where folk songs were used to unite an illiterate population, but the Taliban has had no need to rewrite the lyrics to the songs, as the weapon of propaganda lies in the historical and cultural significance of the music ... [they] now enlists singers in their war of propaganda; producing songs praising Taliban martyrdom and damning infidels in a style similar to American rap music.

We can't really fault the exploitation of martyrdom, when the west's war propaganda promotes those dying for their country.

And the Taliban and other "insurgent" groups, have the advantage of a shared history and culture.

And while we may find it expedient to demonize the enemy as "scum", "animals" and "sub-human", in the era of information, via the internet, our own words can be turned against us in rallying the Afghan people.

While Taliban propaganda is often rudimentary and crude, the ICG report says, the Taliban is adept at exploiting local disenfranchisement. Its use of local languages and traditional cultural medium like songs and poems give it greater outreach than that of international organizations and the government. The ICG report also points out that the Taliban has also begun using DVDs and photographs, which it had earlier prohibited. (3)

When Bob Rae visited Afghanistan and determined that there was work to be done, he no doubt saw it as a Peacekeeping mission, and an attempt to change the public perception in that country. Rae is a decent and compassionate guy.

But three more years with Stephen Harper at the helm of any part of it, will not be a peaceful mission. His ideology of the "Clash of Civilizations", will not allow him to do any reaching out, unless it is politically motivated.

He has already aligned himself with the corrupt Karzai government, and his recent bluster, was only blowing smoke.

The Afghan people see the last election in that country as fraudulent. The majority do not support their leader, and they blame the West for their interference into their affairs.

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich rightly calls western propaganda all fake: Fake Taliban Leader, Fake Elections, Fake Deadline, Real Trouble

“The war in Afghanistan is taking place in a netherworld where facts and common sense have no place. Elections are fake. Our deadline to withdraw is a fake. Now, we learn that a fake Taliban leader has been leading us to believe that NATO was facilitating high-level talks between Taliban leadership and the corrupt Afghan central government we’re propping up. It was truly amazing that our government said we were negotiating with high-level Taliban leadership while at the same time we were stepping up air strikes to wipe them out.

Stephen Harper may have felt that it was prudent to stonewall on the Afghan detainee issue. He may have felt it wise to align himself with a man who is thought to be a monster. And he may have believed that photo-ops with Karzai and the suppression of news relating to torture and the enormously successful drug trade, helped to further his agenda and win support for the war at home.

But the Afghan people are singing a different tune. One that we need to listen to, if we hope to come out of this with any self respect.

Sources:

1. Bible Bill: A Biography of William Aberhart, By: David R. Elliot and Iris Miller, Edmonton: Reidmore Books, 1987, Pg. 174-175

2. How Effective Can Music Be as a Means of Political Propaganda? By: soundslikethefuture, July 29, 2010

3. Taliban's war of words undermines Afghanistan's nation building: A successful propaganda campaign has weakened public support for the Afghan government and its international backers, according to a new report from the International Crisis Group, By Aunohita Mojumdar, The Christian Science Monitor, July 29, 2008

"As the World Spirals". A New Global Soap Opera

Critics are calling WikiLeaks a soap opera. It's "gossipy" some say. Nothing to see here.

If that's the case, why are they so afraid of Julian Assange?

The Jerusalem Post claims: In the name of decency and democracy, the founder of WikiLeaks is holding the world hostage.

I prefer to think that the world was held hostage by embedded journalists, used to sell the war, not report on it; and media outlets who do more to suppress information than reveal it.

Canadians and Americans in particular, who have been suffering from a news deficiency, are turning to WikiLeaks as the only purveyor of truth.

ABC calls WikiLeaks a blueprint for things to come:

The inner processes of statecraft have never been so completely exposed as they have been in the last week. The nation state has been revealed as some sort of long-running and unintentionally-comic soap opera. She doesn’t like him; he doesn’t like them; they don’t like any of us! Oh, and she’s been scouting around for DNA samples and your credit card number. You know, just in case.

None of it is very pretty, all of it is embarrassing, and the embarrassment extends well beyond the state actors - who are, after all, paid to lie and dissemble, this being one of the primary functions of any government - to the complicit and compliant news media, think tanks and all the other camp followers deeply invested in the preservation of the status quo. Formerly quiet seas are now roiling, while everyone with any authority everywhere is doing everything they can to close the gaps in the smooth functioning of power. They want all of this to disappear and be forgotten. For things to be as if WikiLeaks never was.

The concentration of corporate media, designed to manipulate public opinion, has been broken. For those of us frustrated with lack of viable information, we are overjoyed. Our cup is overflowing.

And guess what? We're smart enough to sort through the gossip and decide for ourselves what is important and what is not. The media should be doing the same thing, instead of attempting to spin the story to minimize the political damage.

Arthur Brisbane in the New York Times asks: What if the Secrets Stayed Secret?

The image of Mr. Assange as ringmaster is deeply disturbing, especially since he seems to so relish his worldwide notoriety. The image of great news organizations as performers in the ring, though, is even more alarming to me. These are what some would view as the journalistic “problems” of this latest chapter in the WikiLeaks story: The exposed secret cables seem to threaten what little stability there is in the world. Extreme damage control by the United States is now urgently needed across a broad diplomatic front. And, to cap it off, many view the episode as an exercise in master manipulation of the news media by someone whose aims are obscure.

As unsettling as these issues are, it is appropriate to take a deep breath and consider the alternative. What if, instead of publishing what it knew, The Times had chosen to pass on WikiLeaks’s 250,000-plus secret documents? What if The Times had mulled it all over and determined that the release of such sensitive information would endanger the government’s efforts to advance American interests in the world, and so concluded reluctantly that the newspaper would have to suppress the story?

Journalistic “problems” notwithstanding, it’s simply inconceivable that The Times would choose this path. The Times, like other serious news organizations in democracies, exists to ferret out and publish information — most especially information that government, business and other power centers prefer to conceal. Arming readers with knowledge is what it’s about, and journalists are motivated to pursue that end.

'Arming readers with knowledge is what it’s about, and journalists are motivated to pursue that end.' Do you hear that Canwest, Sun, Globe and Mail, and all the others who have been complicit in stifling rather than reporting the news?

Look over here. It's us. Your former readers who now have to look elsewhere for content and substance. Who have now joined the ranks of the Assangenites (cool word, huh?) and given up on you.

So to my "comrades" (hee, hee), enjoy the updates. And to our so-called media: read 'em and weep.

With All Due Respect Mr. President. War in Itself is a Senseless Act of Violence

President Obama paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan recently, hoping to meet with Afghan President Karzai, but as it turned out, only a phone call was possible.

But he did visit with soldiers, and spoke of one battalion that had just lost six of it's members, through what he referred to as a "sensless act of violence".

It is a war. What in a war would be considered a sensible act of violence?

Violence is not a sensible act, it is a reactionary one. The reaction to anger or fear. It can be both offensive and defensive.

And if you shoot at people, there is a reasonable expectation that they will shoot back at you.

I remember Rick Hillier once calling car bombers cowards. When you are being bombarded with the firepower of the U.S. and other NATO countries, you use what is available to you. It is preservation and opposition to an invasion.

This war has reached such levels of inhumanity that we can no longer separate the enemy from the ally. The Karzai government, which has benefited from an enormous transfer of wealth from the West, has given little in exchange.

We have asked for no accountability and therefore have received none.

We live in a society where children are held in the utmost regard. When one is abducted the Nation holds it's breath. When they are victimized we rise up in anger, demanding that those who would do harm to a child are dealt with severely.

And yet we ask our soldiers to act as silent witnesses to the rape and torture of children.

And we justify it because it is war. Our soldiers are coming home broken and we wonder why.

WikiLeaks has provided us with a window of opportunity. We have been invited to play an active role in determining the direction of our involvement in Afghanistan.

We can no longer give our government a blank cheque to feed rampant corruption and brutality.

It's time to rethink Afghanistan.

Our Young Men and Women are Giving Their Lives For This?

When Maxime Bernier was foreign minister he told his former girlfriend, Julie Couillard, that “the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with building democracy in that country but has to do with the global control of the opium trade. It’s a drug war.”

Now he may have just been trying to impress her, but it would certainly appear that oil is not our only interest in the area.

The U.S. State Department admitted that heroin was a problem but suggested that only the "terrorists" were profiting:

"Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and criminal groups... Cutting down the opium supply is central to establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004)

In 2006, the Associated Press reported: Opium cultivation out of control, U.N. says Afghan crops total 92 percent of world’s supply, exceed global consumption

Afghanistan’s world-leading opium cultivation rose a “staggering” 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police. The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin — outstripping the demand of the world’s heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures.

In 2008, Arthur Kent, formerly with NBC but now a freelance journalist covering the War in Afghanistan, reported that the Canadian government was well aware of the rampant corruption and drug trade, but exerted enormous message control to keep it from the public:

... most other foreign governments were distancing themselves from Karzai’s teetering regime. Western diplomats, including Canadians, were advising their political masters to discipline Karzai and his ministers, or risk seeing the government's tenuous legitimacy collapse completely. But Arif Lalani [our ambassador] and his superiors in Canada’s Conservative government were staunch in their support for Karzai - and busy staunching unflattering facts about his ministries and security services ...

“Lalani’s secrecy and censorship led to misunderstandings and poor decisions,” one high-ranking Canadian diplomat has told Skyreporter. He has asked that his name be withheld out of concern that his words will provoke the same harsh denunciation meted out last week by Harper government officials over the prisoner abuse revelations. “Lalani and David Mulroney were able to enforce a very narrow agenda, with no links leading back to them. It created a culture of non-accountability. Canadians really have no idea why the overall Afghan mission is doing so poorly, or who’s responsible.

And our ambassador was briefed on the drug trade and corruption:

I told him about the heroin trafficking scandal at Kabul Airport, just down the road. And was he aware that the Pentagon was filling the pockets of Hamid Wardak, the son of the regime’s defence minister, with contracts for his father’s Afghan National Army?

Arthur Kent is the brother of Harper's junior minister, the devious Peter Kent.

And speaking of brothers (great segue, huh?), Hamid Karzai's brother Ahmed Wali, appears to be in the thick of the Canadian government sanctioned criminal activity. According to the New York Times:

Ahmed Wali Karzai is the younger bother of Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan. He is a prominent political figure in the southern region of the country and leads the provincial council of Kandahar Province, the governing body for the region that includes Afghanistan's second largest city. He is also a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade.

And now with the latest WikiLeak documents, it seems that our government may have been giving this alleged criminal, security contracts, at a time when the rest of the world tried to distance themselves from the man.

Karzai’s brother lobbied for role in Canada’s major aid project

The brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai lobbied aggressively for the contract to provide private security for Canada’s major aid project to rebuild the Dahla Dam in the country’s south, despite his “reputation for shady dealings,” according to leaked U.S. diplomatic cables.

It's time to rethink Afghanistan and say NO to three more years.

The Harper government is involved in enough corruption at home. We don't need to export it.

WikiLeaks Reveal a Media That is Gutless and Culpable

The latest WikiLeaks are proving to be not only an embarrassment and diplomatic nightmare, but they show that our media has fallen down on the job.

These are important revelations that should have been made public, but instead we have been fed lie upon lie.

Iran Dismisses Hostile WikiLeaks Documents

According to the documents released by online whistleblower WikiLeaks, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the US to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme and stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in a news conference: "We don't give any value to these documents. "It's without legal value. Iran and regional states are friends. Such acts of mischief have no impact on relations between nations."

Feds open criminal investigation into WikiLeaks disclosures

Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Justice Department is conducting an "active, ongoing criminal investigation" into the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified U.S. diplomatic documents whose impact was still being assessed in embassies worldwide. "It is not saber-rattling," Holder told reporters in response to a question. "To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law, they will be held responsible."

Wikileaks: Another revolt against the "elites"

This week is bound to be dominated by the news of the massive leaks of U.S. diplomatic cables, with Thursday set as the big day for Canada and its alleged "inferiority complex." (Whatever can they mean? Are they talking about our tendency to see everything in the United States as better than what we have here? Tea Parties, Fox News, etc.?) In the Star's own story on this "diplomatic 9-11" today, Washington bureau chief Mitch Potter puts his finger on something interesting. What's at stake here, he writes, is the U.S. struggling to keep its authority in the world, amid popular uprisings against anything that smacks of authority.

Clinton: Wikileaks an attack on international community, those responsible will be prosecuted

"This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign-policy interests," Clinton said at the State Department. "It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity." Joining in the administration's pushback, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was pursuing possible criminal charges against the online whistle-blower group and its founder, Australian Julian Assange.

Latest updates: Wikileaks' diplomatic cables release

WikiLeaks, a whistle-blowing website known for leaking state secrets, has released its latest batch of controversial documents. It has posted the first of what it says will be more than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

This is what happens when you have so many secrets and the media becomes part of the propaganda as embedded journalists. We've been fed nonsense and now we are getting the facts.

Harper Government Complicit in Rape and Torture of Afghan Children

Will WikiLeaks, Detainee documents and the accounting of Canadian soldiers, blow a hole in the Harper Afghan story? The one he has been writing, painting himself as a strong leader, standing strong against a formidable foe?

Maybe this is the story we should be listening to:

Canada's handling of young Afghan detainees queried

The Canadian Forces have for years arrested children suspected of working with the Taliban and handed them over to an Afghan security unit accused of torture, CBC News has learned. Allegations that militants captured by Canada were transferred to Afghan forces and later tortured were hotly debated in Parliament last fall.

A document obtained by the CBC's investigative unit shows that Canadian soldiers captured children as well in the fight against the Taliban, and that many of them were transferred to the custody of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, or NDS. The document, obtained under an Access to Information request and marked "secret," shows that Defence Minister Peter MacKay was briefed on the topic of juvenile detainees in Afghanistan March 30. The "Canadian eyes only" note informs MacKay of how many children suspected of "participating in the insurgency" have been arrested by Canadian Forces and how many of them have been transferred into Afghan custody in the previous four years.

The note also shows that an undisclosed number of juvenile detainees were being kept in a Canadian transfer facility at Kandahar Air Field for "a significant period."
The numbers in all cases, however, were blacked out.

Or this: Canadian troops handed over child detainees to Afghan security, CBC reports

Or the most disturbing story of them all:

Every day, Travis Schouten lives with the image of the rape of an Afghan boy at a Canadian Forces base. Witnessing two men, one armed with a knife, sodomize the child during an incident in late 2006 helped drive the 26-year-old to the brink of mental collapse. But the former corporal said the assault is just the tip of an iceberg and underneath lies the systemic sexual abuse of boys at the hands of Afghanistan’s police and army. It’s something he said the Canadian Forces has turned a blind eye to.

“It’s disgusting,” said Schouten, now retired after eight years in the military. “We’re telling people that we’re trying to build a nation there and we let this happen?” “We allow rampant abuse of young boys at the hands of what is supposed to be their finest police officers and army officers, then what does that say?”

And before you dismiss this as collateral damage, please watch the following video. These children just want the same things our children want. An education. A chance to play. And most importantly a chance to grow up.

It's time to rethink Afghanistan. Say NO to three more years.

Who Are We Training the Afghan Army to Kill? Us?

In March of 2006, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Canada, and during a press conference, was asked by our then foreign minister Peter Mackay: "Russia was in Afghanistan for a long time and with sad results. Do you have some advice for Canada?"

And though a translator was used, Lavrov understood and immediately responded with an emphatic NO!

I thought the question rather odd, given the history and wasn't sure if Mackay was trying to be a smart ass or was simply naive. Regardless, it was definitively a diplomatic faux pas.

Because the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is somewhat different than the official version. It was in fact a deliberate attempt by the Americans to lure the Soviets into an unwinnable war.

The U.S. was still licking it's wounds after their disastrous Vietnam adventure, where they wasted enormous amounts of money and lives, only to go home in defeat. And the fear was that during this time, the Soviet Union had been able to build a stronger military, and what better way to destroy that, than by allowing others to do their dirty work.

I was recently turned on to the writings of Chalmers Johnson, who died this past week, and am reading his Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope.

He describes the chain of events, reminding us that the American training and arming of the Mujahedeen, of which Osama Bin Laden was a member, took place before, and not in response to, the invasion.

It should by now be generally accepted that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 was deliberately provoked by the United States. In his memoir published in 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates made it clear that the American intelligence services began to aid the mujahideen guerrillas not after the Soviet invasion, but six months before it.

In an interview two years later with Le Nouvel Observateur, President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski [shown with Bin Laden in photo above] proudly confirmed Gates's assertion. "According to the official version of history," Brzezinski said, "CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that's to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. (1)

When asked by Le Nouvel Observateur, whether he in any way regretted these actions, Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It drew the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? On the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, saying, in essence: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.' " (1)

And the Americans would continue to work behind the scenes, training and arming and killing.

And Ronald Reagan when president said of the created Taliban and other stateless armies:

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors." (2)

If Reagan was alive and functioning today, I wonder what his message would be. Would he still admire their "relentless struggle" against their oppressors?

Not likely. Their creation of both al Qaeda and the Taliban was dismissed as "blowback" by the CIA. In layman's terms: "OOPS!"

In critiquing the George Crile book and resulting film, Charlie Wilson's War, a grotesquely inaccurate, historically challenged, version of the events; Chalmers Johnson writes:

Neither a reader of Crile nor a viewer of the film based on his book would know that in talking about the Afghan freedom fighters of the 1980s, we are also talking about the militants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban of the 1990s and 2000s .... Among those supporting the Afghans (in addition to the United States) was the rich, pious Saudi Arabian economist and civil engineer Osama bin Laden, whom we helped by building up his al-Qaeda base at Khost. When bin Laden and his colleagues decided to get even with us for having been used, he had the support of much of the Islamic world. (3)

The U.S. trained them and armed them and then walked away, "leaving it [Afghanistan] to descend into one of the most horrific civil wars of modern times."

Which brings us to the latest decision to extend Canada's involvement in the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, another three years. It is being sold as "training". A non-combat mission.

Nonsense.

We will be engaged in an accelerated civil war without end.

And who will we be training? If the West is so afraid of Islamic fundamentalists, why are they determined to arm and educate those, who if not fundamentalists now, could very well be in the future.

What will our "blowback" be?

We should be working toward a peaceful solution, not creating more enemies.

It could be argued that when George Bush Sr. simply walked away from the mess his country helped to create, it triggered an internal disaster in Afghanistan. But this mess started because of imperialistic game playing.

I don't want to spend 500 million dollars a year training people to kill. The money would be better spent encouraging them to stop.

Sources:

1. Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope, By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-9303-2, Pg. 12

2. Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day, Ronald Reagan, From the Oval Office, March 21, 1983

3. Johnson, 2010, Pg. 88-89

More Government Secrets. Millions Spent on Helicopters Without Disclosure

Herr Harper is at it again, spending millions on WAR helicopters, and attempting to conceal the expense because he knew we wouldn't approve.

Canadians need jobs and healthcare and education and a climate change plan. We don't need WAR toys and we sure as hell don't need WAR!

The Defence Department has quietly acquired a new fleet of helicopters for combat missions in Afghanistan, but is refusing to provide details about how much the deal cost taxpayers or how many aircraft are operating. The lease of the Russian-designed Mi-17s helicopters for use in Kandahar province is shrouded in secrecy.

For "combat missions"? I thought we were no longer going to be engaged in combat.

Too many secrets.

Until this week, the Harper government had been silent about the M1-17 "Hip" helicopters that were leased last year from Russia. The government still refuses to provide any details of their procurement, including how much the lease is costing Canadian taxpayers.

When is it going to be too much?

Let's sing along:

And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
The next stop is Afghanistan,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we're all gonna die

And for those of you too young to remember this song, ask your parents or grandparents. I'll bet they can at least sing the chorus.

The War in Afghanistan is Just More Corporate Welfare. They are Turning Into Bums.

The decision to engage in three more years of WAR, is only pandering to the corporate welfare bums who must stop killing for profit.

They need to stand up for themselves and keep their hands out of the public purse. That money is ours, not theirs, and we have got to stop feeding their addiction.

A Toronto Star poll shows that 69% of Canadians oppose this move.

Malali Joya calls us war criminals and she's absolutely right.

When are we going to realize that we don't get to steal from other countries simply because we have bigger guns?

Michael, Michael, Michael. Decriminalize Marijuana Good. Extend War Bad. Talk to Me.

This should have been a good week for the Liberals.

Michael Ignatieff had agreed to decriminalize marijuana for personal use. It got Shelley Glover in a flap and anytime we can get that ditz in a flap is a good week.

That move would have brought out young voters.

Dictator Harper squashed a climate change bill voted on by Parliament and supported by the nation.

He single handedly extended our WAR by three years. We were angry.

So why Mr. Ignatieff, did you and Bob Rae agree to support this arbitrary move? If you had your reasons then you should have presented them. You should have demanded a vote in Parliament on an issue of such importance.

We are not prepared to replace one dictator with another, so please talk to us and do it soon. No rhetoric. Demand that this goes to Parliament and debate it. We can accept nothing less.

Canadians are tired of war and we're tired of Harper. We want an alternative and Jack Layton can't cut it. I thought you could. Give me a reason to believe that you can, and you can't do that by agreeing with this horrendous decision.

We don't need war, we need jobs. We need a strategy to end poverty.

I'm not ready to change parties, because I believe the fundamentals are sound. But damn it, fix this.

Three words: NO MORE WAR!!!!

Besides the Fact That Michael Den Tandt is an Idiot, There Can be Some Merit to His Comments

Now that the Kingston Whig Standard is part of Sun Media we get the usual right-wing round up, gracing the editorial pages.

And it's quite interesting what they have been doing with Harper's one-man decision to extend the Afghanistan war by three years. They are twisting the story, deflecting the criticism away from the King, and putting it on the leader of the opposition, since Ignatieff has actually been supporting a training, non-combative mission, something that is not viewed well by all members of his caucus. This is allowed and actually welcomed in a democracy. Go Libs.

I wish the Cons would stand up their leader once in a while.

This week, columnist Michael Den Tandt presented his twist on the story. He uses the usual Conservative talking points, "Ignatieff languishing in the polls", despite the fact that he's technically doing better than the man leading the country, and making this out to be Ignatieff's War, admonishing his caucus for not bowing to their boss.

Had this gone to Parliament perhaps Den Tandt would have a valid argument, but it didn't.

However, his column does reveal more of our democratic deficit.

With something as important as an annual 500 million dollar expenditure, not to mention training people to kill human beings, this should not have been a decision left to one person. It should not have been a partisan issue, and it should have been debated endlessly.

Because this should be OUR decision to make. Not Stephen Harper's . Not Michael Ignatieff's. Not Michael Den Tandt's. OURS.

If King Harper won't take it to Parliament, we need to take him to task. Parliament is all we have. It enables us to lobby our MPs and express our displeasure.

But who do we express our displeasure to now? Den Tandt is expressing his to the Liberal caucus for listening to their constituents. Get a grip. I'm sure there are people in Conservative ridings who are battle weary and want to see an end to this too.

Afghanistan has been just named one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It is being run by drug lords and war lords, while the West is guzzling the country's natural resources.

The wonderful Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan Parliament, says that we are being lied to. She is advocating for the poor in her country, whose situation will not change until all foreign soldiers are gone.

We need to help clean up the mess by offering funds for a legitimate attempt at rebuilding. Karzai is not a legitimate President and his government is not respected by the majority of the Afghan people. We don't need to train soldiers but workers. We need to lay down our guns and come home.

A little blast from my past, a song shared on Unseat Harper, 'One Tin Soldier', reminded me of something that is of vital importance. We need to become war protesters again.

And since we can't protest to Parliament, seeing as how they are out of the loop, we must take our protest to this government.

Two seemingly unrelated stories this week: Harper squashing the climate change bill and extending a war, may actually not be unrelated at all.

All that oil guzzling is helping to cause Global Warming. Listen to the lyrics of the song.

The people of the Middle East wanted to be able to control their own oil, selling it at a price, to benefit their citizens. A Caliphate. But as early as the 1950's Canadian oil execs suggested that they may have to engage "in a war for survival of its oilfed economy", (in case Russia tried to get to it first) while American General Tom Metz compared a Caliphate to Adolf Hitler. Go figure. You can read about it here with sources.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own

And in a case of being careful what you wish for, our oil addiction could be our undoing, especially when we are allowing greed to trump common decency, and ignorance to trump necessary action.

And all that loss of life in war will only mean more loss of life, due to the effects of Climate Change.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there

And the secret they wanted to share was the most valuable of all:

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Enjoy the song but listen to the message.

I Hate to Say I Told You So ... But

The Globe and Mail has published an excellent article about how Stephen Harper finely crafted the messaging of Canada at war, with unprecedented media control.

The Globe and the Star have actually been fairly good at attempting to sound the alarm but few people really wanted to believe it, so for the most part they simply went along.

As a result, Canada was the only country with no independent media, only embedded journalists who wrote what they were told to write.

The Harper government used a pervasive message-control tool to persuade Canadians their foremost purpose in Afghanistan was building schools and fostering democracy rather than waging a war that was turning bloodier by the day.

An investigation by The Canadian Press shows the Conservatives systematically drafted “Message Event Proposals” as part of a quiet campaign to persuade Canadians their country was primarily engaged in development work to rebuild a shattered nation rather than hunting down and killing an emboldened insurgency.
The government used MEPs literally to script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-2008 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Harper's claim that he never got the memos about Detainee torture becomes even more suspect, because he controlled every aspect of this mission.

When Canadian soldiers brought in the usually hooded and tightly bound detainee, our military police on the spot would first inform the colonels and generals in the Kandahar mission control centre.But instead of alerting the Red Cross right away, like the Dutch and British, these commanders, following orders, sent the information to CEFCOM, the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command in Ottawa. This information would then be passed over to Defence Headquarters and to Foreign Affairs.

There have been alarms about this several times in the past but again ignored:

"What we're seeing here is a degree of control within the government, within the caucus ... that we haven't seen for a very long time .... That control extends to every corner of government.

And that whole yellow ribbon campaign was stolen from Desert Storm. Our defense minister at the time, Gordon O'Connor, came straight from the PR firm, Hill & Knowlton, to run our defense department:

Hill & Knowlton's yellow ribbon campaign to whip up support for "our" troops, which followed their orchestration of Nayirah's phony "incubator" testimony, was a public relations masterpiece. The claim that satellite photos revealed that Iraq had troops poised to strike Saudi Arabia was also fabricated by the PR firm. Hill & Knowlton was paid between $12 million (as reported two years later on "60 Minutes") and $20 million (as reported on "20/20") for "services rendered." The group fronting the money? Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a phony "human rights agency" set up and funded entirely by Kuwait's emirocracy to promote its interests in the U.S.

Be sure to read the entire Globe piece, though long. If we had learned of this years ago it might have saved lives.

Broken Soldiers: Yet Another Reason to Rethink Afghanistan

Many Canadians have become complacent about the war. It will end next year, so why bother?

But it's not something we can just wrinkle our nose at and it will go away.

This country is still at war, and the Afghan Detainee story has soured many against the 'mission'.

After a very successful campaign, we started to believe that maybe what we were doing was noble, and Harper was right to get us all on board.

But then in an act of cowardice, he is now allowing our troops to take the fall for his own grievous errors in judgement, and we can't let that happen.

This country must mourn not just our dead, but our broken soldiers, who did the best job they could, in a place where we should never have poked our nose in, in the first place.

The Hill Times highlights this issue. It speaks of our soldiers coming home to an ambivalent public, soured over our leaders possible complicity in torture. But we can't blame our men and women in uniform. That makes us no better than Stephen Harper.

And of course the recent news of the commander at CFB Trenton being charged with murder is not going to help much either.

Afghanistan veterans on disability now 6,000 Forces,
Veterans Affairs reluctant to disclose casualty records after eight years of war.
By TIM NAUMETZ
February 8, 2010

More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says ....

The Conservatives Are Not at War, They are on a Crusade

"War is always at the most unrestrained when religion vests it with holy purpose." Michael Ignatieff, Warrior's Honour

There has always been a double standard when it comes to war in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalism is blamed for all conflict, while western interventionism is deemed noble and righteous.

We are fighting a ferocious enemy who hates what we have accomplished and wants to destroy it.

To further justify unwarranted attacks and illegal invasions, we resort to fear mongering.

From the pulpit, millennialists like John Hagee, preach of an apocalyptic need to destroy the perceived spread of Islam, to fulfil a biblical prophesy. But in order to do that he must create the illusion of imminent danger.

“Ladies and gentlemen, America is at war with radical Islam,” Hagee said. “Jihad has come to America. If we lose the war to Islamic fascism, it will change the world as we know it .... They hate us because we are free. They hate us because it is their religious duty to hate us. They are trained from the breast of their mother to hate us. Radical Islam is a doctrine of death. It is their desire, it is their hope, it is their ambition, it is their highest honor to die in a war against infidels. And you are ‘infidels’ and there is nothing you can do to accommodate them. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

His message is pretty clear.

And even the military resorts to similar logic, though they attempt to make it sound more rational.

In Linda McQuaig's book, Holding the Bully's Coat, she speaks of attending a lecture in Toronto given by U.S. Lt.-Gen. Thomas Metz, former commander at Fort Hood, where many believe that it was this Islamophobia that drove Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to go on a shooting rampage.

Rick Hillier took training at Fort Hood and referred to the Taliban as "detestable murderers and scumbags" and further stated "We're not the public service of Canada ... our job is to be able to kill people." (If the Wall Street Journal is correct, Hillier may already be the subject of a war crimes investigation by the International Criminal Court)

The Islamic faith is not evil," says the general [Metz], then quickly adds. "but it's been hijacked by thugs ... Most of the Islamic World believes the suicide bombers of the World Trade Center are now in the land of milk and honey." The general notes that there are almost a billion people in the Islamic world, and that if only one per cent of them are radical, "that's ten million radicals." He then shows a chart depicting the military challenges America faces, measured in terms of level of danger and level of likelihood. At the very apex—the most dangerous and the most likely—sits just one: radical Islamic terrorism. "Radical Islam wants to reestablish the Caliphate," says Metz. "Just as Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, you can read what they want to do." (Holding the Bully's Coat, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, pg. 67-68)

It is said that there are roughly two to three billion Christians in the world. So by the general's mathematical reasoning, could that mean twenty to thirty million Christian radicals? There's no denying that nuts like Jason Kenney, Charles McVety and John Hagee have hijacked the faith.

Their ilk want nothing less than the total destruction of the Muslim world, and they are using Israel to achieve that goal, so they don't have to get their own hands dirty.

But what of the real reasons for this mission?

Pope Urban II may have used the battle cry "God Wills it" to rally his troops for the first Crusade in 1095, but he also dangled a prize: "The possessions of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own ... "

And General Metz did not disappoint his audience of senior Canadian military officers, soldiers, defence analysts and lobbyists; gathered on a Saturday morning in the Toronto neighbourhood of Armour Heights. He too dangled the spoils of war:

In the midst of his talk about the dangers of Islamic terrorism, Lt.-Gen. Metz abruptly shifts gears and starts talking about America's dependence on oil.

In his southern drawl, the general notes how much oil the U.S. consumes—roughly 25 per cent of the world's consumption, even though Americans make up only 5 per cent of the world's population—and how central this is to the country's high standard of living. To dramatize the importance of energy, the general points out that one can put a pint of gasoline into a chainsaw and then go out and cut a huge amount of wood before the gasoline runs out.

The next day, he says, one could feed a big, strong man an enormous breakfast and send him out to cut wood—and he'd be able to cut only a fraction of what the gasoline-fired chainsaw had been able to cut in far less time. The lesson from this little fable is clear: America needs oil to go on being the rich, advanced society that it enjoys being. Without oil, Americans would be like that big strong man with the big breakfast—with only a tiny pile of wood to show for it.

The general's little discourse on the importance of energy to America is certainly interesting. But what is it doing in a speech about military threats to the United States', The connection between America's voracious oil consumption and the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism are never explicitly stated by Lt.-Gen. Metz; he simply notes that the Islamic world has a lot of oil and what happens there has an impact on energy markets. But an important element has clearly been added to the picture: the U.S. needs what lies under the ground and in the Islamic world if Americans are to go on living the bounteous life that lies at the heart of the American dream—a life that has them devouring the lion's share of the world's energy. (McQuaig, Doubleday, Pg. 68-69)

Of course later, this sentiment shifted a bit as the U.S. began sounding the alarm over what would happen if the 'enemy' got hold of all that oil, making this a mission of defense, not aggression fueled by greed.

So what of that threat suggesting that the Islamic world is trying to convert the entire planet to Islam? That notion has been sounded from many pulpits across the west. Is there any truth to that?

I don't believe there is. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true.

As far back as Desert Storm, Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, had to put a halt to plans to send 30,000 Arabic language Bibles to U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. The intention here is pretty clear and the general knew that this action would put his soldiers at greater risk.

But George Bush had no such reservations, and he quickly vested the wars with a holy purpose; and once Stephen Harper got involved, we had us a modern day crusade.

Journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, sounded the alarm:

Does the military have a Christian missionary agenda in Afghanistan

"More alarming still is a book called Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel, by an air-force lieutenant colonel named William McCoy (another Fort Hood alumni) , publicity for which describes the separation of church and state as a “twisted idea.” Nor is this the book’s only publicity: it comes—with its direct call for a religion-based military—with an endorsement from General David Petraeus.

... I found I had been sent a near-incredible video clip from the Al Jazeera network. It had been shot at Bagram Air Force Base last year, and it showed a borderline-hysterical address by one Lieutenant Colonel Gary Hensley, chief of the United States’ military chaplains in Afghanistan. He was telling his evangelical audience, all of them wearing uniforms supplied by the taxpayer, that as followers of Jesus Christ they had a collective responsibility “to be witnesses for him.” Heating up this theme, Lieutenant Colonel Hensley went on: “The Special Forces guys, they hunt men, basically. We do the same things, as Christians. We hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them in the kingdom. Right? That’s what we do, that’s our business.”

The comparison to the Special Forces would seem to suggest that the objects of this hunting and hounding are Afghans rather than Americans. But it’s difficult to be certain, and indeed I am invited to Colorado Springs partly because chaplains there have been known to employ taxpayer dollars to turn the hounds of heaven loose on their own students and fellow citizens. As the Bagram tape goes on, however, it becomes obvious that Afghans are the targets in this case. Stacks of Bibles are on display, in the Dari and Pashto tongues that are the main languages in Afghanistan. A certain Sergeant James Watt, a candidate for a military chaplaincy, is shown giving thanks for the work of his back-home church, which subscribed the dough. “I also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan.

... In another segment, those present show quite clearly that they understand they are in danger of violating General Order Number One of the U.S. Central Command, which explicitly prohibits “proselytizing of any religion, faith, or practice.” A gathering of chaplains, all of them fed from the public trough, is addressed by Captain Emmit Furner, a military cleric who seems half in love with his own light-footed moral dexterity. “Do we know what it means to proselytize?” he asks his audience. A voice from the audience is heard to say, “It is General Order Number One.” To this Sergeant Watt replies: “You can’t proselytize but you can give gifts.… I bought a carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business.”

But now as Dennis Gruending recently pointed out:

Coded biblical inscriptions have been found on the telescopic sights of rifles used by soldiers from several nations, including Canada, who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company that supplied the inscribed weapons initially defended its actions unapologetically, and the response by the American military spokespersons has been under whelming. The inscriptions, placed where they are, represent a betrayal of the Christian scriptures and their central message of peace and reconciliation, although some obviously see this activity as admirable and patriotic. The incident and responses to it raise deeply troubling questions about elements of the American military.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees the dangers of these practices. How difficult is it for actual Islamic extremists to recruit when they too can suggest that their basic religious freedoms are being threatened. Sometimes the only thing people have left is their soul, and few are willing to give that up without a fight.

I wish we had a real Governor General, who would recognize what's happening here and call a halt to this government's actions. But sadly she abandoned her adopted country the day she allowed Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament simply to avoid a fall. Sigh.

Military Conducting Their Own Investigation into Torture, But Will it be Enough?

With Parliament closed down to put a halt to the inquiry into our government's possible complicity in war crimes, the military is conducting their own investigation.

This is essential in some ways, because with Harper hiding behind the troops, they will ultimately be the ones wearing it.

However, this investigation is only on one incident, and will do nothing to explain the countless other transfers.

It's telling that they will release it March 1, just before Parliament resumes. Will this be the way the government will say, OK no more questions? Our own military just gave us the answer so enough is enough.

That rug is getting awful bumpy.

After the Somalia incident, Canada's armed forces took an awful hit in public opinion, and it has only been recently that they have regained their dignity. If this turns out to be just another cover-up, I think we'll see a lot of people scratching those yellow ribbons off their bumpers.

It's a shame too, because they were not to blame.

Harper kept such a tight control on the messaging, that it would often be weeks before any reports were filed, and by then the detainee was lost in the system. And yet he claims he never saw the memos. What a horrible, horrible man.

Military wants answers on Afghan torture report
January 28, 2010
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA—The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.

In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.
A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic. Natynczyk’s deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.

The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after. Diplomat Richard Colvin testified before a special House of Commons committee in November that he repeatedly warned federal officials in 2006 and 2007 that prisoners faced the possibility of torture in Afghan jails.

His warnings were dismissed by the government and the military as vague and unsubstantiated. The June 2006 incident was made public almost two years ago, but the military initially disputed the version of events, saying its soldiers never captured the prisoner in the first place.

Natynczyk’s admission that Canadians had indeed been the ones to detain the suspect caused shock waves on Parliament Hill and prompted accusations of a coverup.