[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You missed out on one of the rules of Islam that actually helps us, whereby when you are in Jihad you must first destroy the enemy on your home turf before fighting on theirs.

I wish you would explain those rules to Al Qaeda, 'cause they don't seem to be following them. Neither did the gonchie bomber.

[EyeBrock]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We will see andy.

In fact I read an article about one of your taxi drivers in London who would take a leave of absence to go fight in Astan for the Taliban, then come back and cheerfully resume his career. Apparently he's one of many. So, if the Taliban were directing terror attacks in the west, they would have already done so. It seems they're still just focused locally.

You missed out on one of the rules of Islam that actually helps us, whereby when you are in Jihad you must first destroy the enemy on your home turf before fighting on theirs.

I'm in agreement with Pen and EBs assessment. However, I hope that CSIS and the RCMP continue to do a good job (they already do much better then they get credit for), and we wont see anything spectacular happen.

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

It seems so when CM makes statements like that. You guys are all trees, no forest.

[EyeBrock]

Stay in yer basement andy. Pen and CM got it covered.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree Pen. The fact that we have trained professionals killing these Jihadi wankers in Afghanistan is much preferable to them coming over here to take up the Jihad. CSIS and the RCMP seem to be doing a half reasonable job of routing out the so called home-grown idiot Jihadis.

Once we, the Yanks, Brits and others doing the actual fighting leave, Afghanistan will collapse once more into little fiefdoms and the Tallies will take over again.

I predict terror strikes in Canada and the US once NATO pulls out.

Sorry, but there's already been lots of attempts - our being in Afghanistan hasn't stopped the shoe-bombers and shampoo terrorists from trying to blow up planes over here since 9/11.

Thanks to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations they have failed every time since 9/11 (in North America anyways).

I support our being in Afghanistan, but I don't believe that our troops over there have made a difference in Al-Qaeda's efforts. What they have done is try and eradicate a dictatorial theocratic regime that brutalized its citizens. That's an admirable task, but replacing the Taliban with Karzai hasn't stopped Al Qaeda from trying to launch terror attacks one bit.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two very different groups and while I do not for one second agree with their belief system or set of laws, they are a group trying to free their homeland from what they perceive as invaders, while Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a terrorist leech trying to unite the Muslim world against the West.

I'm sure if the Taliban get back into power, they will not make the same foolish mistake they did when Dubya demanded Bin Laden and all the rest in 2001. should Al-Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) operate from Afghani soil (assuming the Taliban even lets them), they will be handed over on a silver platter abotu 10 minutes after their next big attack.

Of course, that does absolutely nothing for the victims of said attack and most definitely doesn't justify abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban one bit. But war weariness is a factor politicians have to take into account, whether or not the military likes it, especially because this conflict isn't like WW2, which was a war of extermination. Al Qaeda lacks the means to occupy us and change us in the same fashion the Nazis or Japanese would have had they won WW2.


edit - hit submit instead of preview...

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree Pen. The fact that we have trained professionals killing these Jihadi wankers in Afghanistan is much preferable to them coming over here to take up the Jihad. CSIS and the RCMP seem to be doing a half reasonable job of routing out the so called home-grown idiot Jihadis.

Once we, the Yanks, Brits and others doing the actual fighting leave, Afghanistan will collapse once more into little fiefdoms and the Tallies will take over again.

I predict terror strikes in Canada and the US once NATO pulls out.

Sorry, but there's already been lots of attempts - our being in Afghanistan hasn't stopped the shoe-bombers and shampoo terrorists from trying to blow up planes over here since 9/11.

Thanks to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations they have failed every time since 9/11 (in North America anyways).

And none of those had the remotest connection to the Taliban. The Taliban just want to create an Islamic version of communist Albania - go away and leave us alone.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree Pen. The fact that we have trained professionals killing these Jihadi wankers in Afghanistan is much preferable to them coming over here to take up the Jihad. CSIS and the RCMP seem to be doing a half reasonable job of routing out the so called home-grown idiot Jihadis.

Once we, the Yanks, Brits and others doing the actual fighting leave, Afghanistan will collapse once more into little fiefdoms and the Tallies will take over again.

I predict terror strikes in Canada and the US once NATO pulls out.

Sorry, but there's already been lots of attempts - our being in Afghanistan hasn't stopped the shoe-bombers and shampoo terrorists from trying to blow up planes over here since 9/11.

Thanks to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations they have failed every time since 9/11 (in North America anyways).

Agreed Boots, but Afghanistan is the lightning rod that draws many Jihadis from the Third World as they tackle the infidel. Also there have been some 'home-grown' wankers who have made their way out there as we all know.

My view is that while Afghanistan’s warlords and the Tallies are recruiting in the mosques of Manchester and Luton, Chechnya and Pakistan to fight our professional armies, they 'aint bombing our buildings.

Sure our security services are uncovering plots here but I believe (as do Pen and CM) that once the jihad in Afghanistan is over and NATO pull out, we will see a rise in attacks on civilian targets in the West.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

I'll give them respect and credit for going over there and fighting the Taliban, but unless either one is a senior officer (Colonel or above), I don't see them necessarily having any more knowledge than anyone else here does.

Just because they were on the frontlines fighting doesn't mean that they either understand or are aware of the strategy that NATO and the US is using. It's akin to saying a plumber knows more about city planning than you do because of his stronger knowledge of pipes or the guy in the mailroom understands the direction Bill Gates is planning on taking Microsoft in the next decade.

Shooting a C-7 or driving a tank, while incredibly dangerous and very necessary, doesn't qualify either one as an expert on everything to do with Afghanistan - aside from perhaps the operational side of things (such as rules of engagement and tribal diplomacy in their patrol area). They may also have insights into Afghan geography, culture, languages, etc - but none of that makes them experts on a global terrorist organization run/financed by someone from Saudi Arabia.

And Andy shouldn't take this as defacto support of his side of the argument either, especially given his comment that the West invaded Iran on the first page.

andyt andyt:

2. Al Qaeda did that, and GWB served to strengthen Al Qaeda by invading Iran.

While he will probably attribute it to a typo, it's this lack of accurateness that makes me think he might be talking out his ass.

All in all, my point is that because someone does job A, that doesn't necessarily make them experts on topic B. Sadly, these blanket types of generalizations are the norm here on CKA, instead of the exception.

[Guy_Fawkes]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

I'll give them respect and credit for going over there and fighting the Taliban, but unless either one is a senior officer (Colonel or above), I don't see them necessarily having any more knowledge than anyone else here does.

Just because they were on the frontlines fighting doesn't mean that they either understand or are aware of the strategy that NATO and the US is using. It's akin to saying a plumber knows more about city planning than you do because of his stronger knowledge of pipes or the guy in the mailroom understands the direction Bill Gates is planning on taking Microsoft in the next decade.

Shooting a C-7 or driving a tank, while incredibly dangerous and very necessary, doesn't qualify either one as an expert on everything to do with Afghanistan - aside from perhaps the operational side of things (such as rules of engagement and tribal diplomacy in their patrol area). They may also have insights into Afghan geography, culture, languages, etc - but none of that makes them experts on a global terrorist organization run/financed by someone from Saudi Arabia.

And Andy shouldn't take this as defacto support of his side of the argument either, especially given his comment that the West invaded Iran on the first page.

andyt andyt:

2. Al Qaeda did that, and GWB served to strengthen Al Qaeda by invading Iran.

While he will probably attribute it to a typo, it's this lack of accurateness that makes me think he might be talking out his ass.

All in all, my point is that because someone does job A, that doesn't necessarily make them experts on topic B. Sadly, these blanket types of generalizations are the norm here on CKA, instead of the exception.

CF soldiers are given a plethora of information about tactics of the enemy. So yes I do think most soldiers (especially Sgt and above) would have insight into what to expect after the CF and NATO leaves the theater.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Boots, but Afghanistan is the lightning rod that draws many Jihadis from the Third World as they tackle the infidel. Also there have been some 'home-grown' wankers who have made their way out there as we all know.

My view is that while Afghanistan’s warlords and the Tallies are recruiting in the mosques of Manchester and Luton, Chechnya and Pakistan to fight our professional armies, they 'aint bombing our buildings.

Sure our security services are uncovering plots here but I believe (as do Pen and CM) that once the jihad in Afghanistan is over and NATO pull out, we will see a rise in attacks on civilian targets in the West.

As far as I'm concerned, the only difference since 9/11 is that Western security organizations have successfully found and eliminated most terror attacks Al Qaeda has planned in the past nine years (excepting Bali, London and Madrid perhaps).

I don't remember near annual attacks prior to 9/11, yet it seems like every Christmas (and most summers) for the past several years we have been treated to warnings that Al Qaeda might strike - usually followed by high profile arrests of people at mosques or planning on using shoe bombs or shampoo bottles filled with explosives.

[2Cdo]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

I'll give them respect and credit for going over there and fighting the Taliban, but unless either one is a senior officer (Colonel or above), I don't see them necessarily having any more knowledge than anyone else here does.

Just because they were on the frontlines fighting doesn't mean that they either understand or are aware of the strategy that NATO and the US is using. It's akin to saying a plumber knows more about city planning than you do because of his stronger knowledge of pipes or the guy in the mailroom understands the direction Bill Gates is planning on taking Microsoft in the next decade.

Shooting a C-7 or driving a tank, while incredibly dangerous and very necessary, doesn't qualify either one as an expert on everything to do with Afghanistan - aside from perhaps the operational side of things (such as rules of engagement and tribal diplomacy in their patrol area). They may also have insights into Afghan geography, culture, languages, etc - but none of that makes them experts on a global terrorist organization run/financed by someone from Saudi Arabia.

And Andy shouldn't take this as defacto support of his side of the argument either, especially given his comment that the West invaded Iran on the first page.

andyt andyt:

2. Al Qaeda did that, and GWB served to strengthen Al Qaeda by invading Iran.

While he will probably attribute it to a typo, it's this lack of accurateness that makes me think he might be talking out his ass.

All in all, my point is that because someone does job A, that doesn't necessarily make them experts on topic B. Sadly, these blanket types of generalizations are the norm here on CKA, instead of the exception.

CF soldiers are given a plethora of information about tactics of the enemy. So yes I do think most soldiers (especially Sgt and above) would have insight into what to expect after the CF and NATO leaves the theater.

That's impossible, only senior officers have any brains. Enlisted men are just in the army because they couldn't get a real job.

Just beating the anti-military crowd to the punch.

[bootlegga]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

CF soldiers are given a plethora of information about tactics of the enemy. So yes I do think most soldiers (especially Sgt and above) would have insight into what to expect after the CF and NATO leaves the theater.

Thank you for proving my point.

As I said, lower ranked CF troops will have excellent knowledge of the operational side of the conflict in Afghanistan (tactics), but will probably not have access to the same sorts of intel that the general running the war in Afghanistan has (or the sort that Harper, Obama or any other world leader might).

Please tell me the last time that CF troops engaged Taliban/Al Qaeda forces in Canada. You can't because it has never happened (God forbid it does), but that's why knowing how to drive a tank or shoot a C-7 might be irrelevant to this conversation.

Please enlighten me (without using Google) how NATO is strengthening Karzai domestically, or how they are convincing NATO nations to leave troops in Afghanistan (as Canada so recently agreed to) or on any other STRATEGY matter regarding Afghanistan - or Al Qaeda.

As I said, they have limited (or no) knowledge of the strategy side of the conflict. I'm not saying that Andy or EB or even myself has that knowledge, but generalizations that a person here has worked in Kabul/Kandahar as a tank driver (or cook, or supply guy or anything else) gives them more knowledge of the strategy behind the conflict is BS.

My problem isn't with EB calling out Andy, it's with giving blanket generalizations about CF troops that they are some sort of all-knowing immortals on the topic of Afghanistan when in reality they might not be.

CF troops are awesome on the battlefield - but that doesn't make every single one experts on the Middle East an global terrorism.

[bootlegga]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

That's impossible, only senior officers have any brains. Enlisted men are just in the army because they couldn't get a real job.

Just beating the anti-military crowd to the punch.

Nope, officers can be as dumb as posts, especially low ranking ones.

That's why god created sergeants!

[2Cdo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

My problem isn't with EB calling out Andy, it's with giving blanket generalizations about CF troops that they are some sort of all-knowing immortals on the topic of Afghanistan when in reality they might not be.

I didn't read his post that way. But I will trust someones opinion who has been there versus someone who hasn't left the safety of their home.

$1:

CF troops are awesome on the battlefield - but that doesn't make every single one experts on the Middle East an global terrorism.

No one said they were. But you implied that only senior officers were capable of understanding the strategic side of the house when there are plenty of NCO's and lower ranks who also "might" have a similar understanding.

[Canadian_Mind]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CM. What would you and Pen know about it? You only did combat tours in Afghanistan.

andy is an expert.

I'll give them respect and credit for going over there and fighting the Taliban, but unless either one is a senior officer (Colonel or above), I don't see them necessarily having any more knowledge than anyone else here does.

Just because they were on the frontlines fighting doesn't mean that they either understand or are aware of the strategy that NATO and the US is using. It's akin to saying a plumber knows more about city planning than you do because of his stronger knowledge of pipes or the guy in the mailroom understands the direction Bill Gates is planning on taking Microsoft in the next decade.

Shooting a C-7 or driving a tank, while incredibly dangerous and very necessary, doesn't qualify either one as an expert on everything to do with Afghanistan - aside from perhaps the operational side of things (such as rules of engagement and tribal diplomacy in their patrol area). They may also have insights into Afghan geography, culture, languages, etc - but none of that makes them experts on a global terrorist organization run/financed by someone from Saudi Arabia.

And Andy shouldn't take this as defacto support of his side of the argument either, especially given his comment that the West invaded Iran on the first page.

andyt andyt:

2. Al Qaeda did that, and GWB served to strengthen Al Qaeda by invading Iran.

While he will probably attribute it to a typo, it's this lack of accurateness that makes me think he might be talking out his ass.

All in all, my point is that because someone does job A, that doesn't necessarily make them experts on topic B. Sadly, these blanket types of generalizations are the norm here on CKA, instead of the exception.

CF soldiers are given a plethora of information about tactics of the enemy. So yes I do think most soldiers (especially Sgt and above) would have insight into what to expect after the CF and NATO leaves the theater.

Workup training was almost 11 months for my unit, 1 1/2 the length of my tour. And a large portion of it, more than half, was bookwork and lectures on everything from Afghan and Islamic culture to the reasons for war, the consequences from it, etc. Might be weird hearing it from one of the lower ranks, but I actually found it quite interesting and I learned a lot about the area and it's history.

Needless to say, the CF didn't send us over there stupid.