Stephen Harper comments on death of 134 Canadian soldier in Afghanistan

SH: It's really unfortunate for his family, and we would like to send our sincere condolences.

GIR: Prime minister Harper, do you feel at all responsible for soldiers returning home dead?

SH: Not really. You know, that's part of waging a war against terrorists. There's lots of bad guys out there, and, unfortunately, the family of this last soldier has to deal with the consequences of him volunteering. Besides, this happened thousands of miles away, and, as far as I can tell, no Canadians were involved in the killing itself.

GIR: But the soldier is Canadian...

SH: yes, yes, but we feel very sorry but it's really not my problem.

GIR: Isn't that a bit insensitive?

SH: ...

GIR: Prime minister...?

SH: Sorry, I got distracted by some emails from Peter...

GIR: Peter?

SH: You know, Peter MacKay. He's asking how to mark emails as "unread", any ideas?

GIR: No, I don't. Prime Minister, don't you think that when you say that the death of a Canadian soldier is "not my problem", that such a statement can be regarded as a tad insensitive?

SH: Oh yes, of course, don't write this stuff down! This is not for publication, is it?

Why didn't Stephen Harper fire Richard Colvin back in 2006 when Colvin made his ludicrous allegations?

Because Steve LLOOOOVVEEEESS torture! He always did and always will! Torture is cool, as long as nobody knows about it.

Better keep Colvin quiet and don't get your hands dirty.

Blogging Tory: "O'Connor's gotta go"

Yes, even conservative circles seem to have enough of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. Dark Blue Tory's reasoning is of interest.

His posting starts off with an article in the Toronto Sun:

We agree with Harper (and the previous Liberal government) that our mission in Afghanistan is vital to [defend Canada's security]. However, Canadians do need to be shown that it has a demonstrable chance of success, both in its war-fighting and reconstruction components.

Dark Blue Tory comments:

Unfortunately, Gordon O'Conner hasn't been relaying that message to Canadians. [...] He has misunderstood the facts and has been unable to articulate the possible success of the [Afghanistan] mission effectively to Canadians.

So because he wasn't able to relay the message, he's got to go? Not exactly, there's more:

[Defence Minister O'Connor] made stories up on the fly and has completely undermined his position to the point of no return.

Indeed. And these two wrongs don't make a right. Did it occur to anyone that these wrongs are not really at an even footing? It's clear to me that a lying minister creates a problem for the Harper government. But how does the inability to "relay the message" fit in? Which one is worse?

Well, the two wrongs are actually more or less the same thing. Sticking to "the message" Conservative style is nothing more than using "the facts [...] to articulate the possible success [...] effectively to Canadians". But O'Connor, being unable to twist the facts to his advantage, felt forced to lie. Eventually this appeared to be the wrong decision; it started a chain reaction of lies by Conservatives desperate to keep "the message" (Conservatives are on top of things, the mission in Afghanistan is a possible success") straight.

The American's got their War in Iraq, we've got our own Afghanistan to deal with. Both wars are lasting a lot longer as planned and the increasing and enduring "insurgencies" have been undermining any possibility of success.

But it's all good; God bless the Conservatives.

- Dark Blue Tory
- Big Lie
- Gorden O'Connor

(video) Afghanistan through the eyes of children - Aljazeera English

For the children of Afghanistan things haven't really changed all that much over the last thirty years.

Children of Conflict - Afghanistan - Part 1 (video)


Children of Conflict - Afghanistan - Part 2 (video)


- You can subscribe to the Aljazeera Channel by signing up with YouTube. Search for "AljazeeraEnglish" and press subscribe.

Canada's Torture by Proxy

This doesn't look good, does it?

"His tormentors were the Afghan police, he said, but the Canadian soldiers who visited him between beatings had surely heard his screams."

- Is Canada's defence minister a war criminal?
- Torture by Proxy

video: "New Government" linked to torture

It looks like the new government support for the torture of "detainees" has reached new levels. Did I hear "war crimes"? Some professors don't seem so amused:



More to follow:



In case you missed what this is about, then watch this first:

War in Afghanistan; also lost?

The world loves America, sort of:

Thousands of angry demonstrators took to the streets in Afghanistan yesterday after US forces were involved in a panicked shooting which left 16 civilians dead and 23 injured.

Local people as well as a number of Afghan officials accused the American marines of opening fire indiscriminately following a suicide bomb attack on their convoy in Nangarhar province.

With protests continuing to grow, and the police coming under attack from stone- throwing crowds, the US military maintained that the casualties were the victims of a "complex ambush" in which gunmen had carried out a synchronised attack following the blast in which a marine was injured.

US propaganda machine; it get's so tiring...

But Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar district, where the deaths took place, insisted that they "treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker" as they attempted to speed away from the scene of the explosion.

Abdul Ghafour and Noor Agha Zwak, speaking on behalf of the Nangarhar police and government, and Zemeri Bashary, the Interior Ministry spokesman in Kabul, also claimed the deaths and injuries were due to American fire.

Ahah, so who do we believe? Afghan officials or, the occupiers?

Four months ago, British Royal Marines were also accused of shooting bystanders after their convoy had been hit by a roadside bomb in Kandahar. On that occasion the British authorities maintained that most of those shot had been trying to prevent the convoy from leaving the scene.

The killings in Nangarhar came just a few days after a suicide bombing at Bagram airbase, near Kabul, during a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, killing nine people.

Both the Taliban and Nato forces in Afghanistan had said that a comparative lull in fighting during the winter would be followed by renewed campaigning in the spring.

Yesterday, as crowds blocked roads shouting "death to America" and "death to Karzai", some of those who were injured related their version of what had happened.

Yeah, they really love the American "liberators".

"They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15 vehicles passing on the highway," said 38-year-old Tur Gul, who was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." Some said that they were fired upon although they took care to get out of the way of the departing convoy.

Tur Gul complains because he was mistakenly shot in his hand? Shame on him!

Whole artile: Independent