# Are you angry yet?



## Reccesoldier (13 Jun 2007)

This will do it.


----------



## kobeedog (13 Jun 2007)

What a cynical article...


----------



## seamus (13 Jun 2007)

Another reporter going for the headlines not the story, the common thread of the downfall of the modern press.


----------



## herseyjh (13 Jun 2007)

The link is missing.  Could you please re-post it?


----------



## cavalryman (13 Jun 2007)

Susan Riley is well known as having a distinct anti-Afghan mission agenda, as well as a distinct anti-Conservative agenda, etc..... one of the Ottawa Citizen's resident unreconstructed marxists.  Taliban Jack is too right wing for her, no doubt.  I can't ever recall her doing a balanced piece.  Why she hasn't yet been relegated to the Sunday lifestyles section doing poof pieces like the other Ottawa Citizen's raving marxist, Janice Kennedy, is beyond me.


----------



## Wookilar (13 Jun 2007)

As I am not normally an Ottawa Citizen reader, can someone tell me if this tripe is standard fare for this arm of the Canwest family?

And just how do we do it? What are Ms Riley's qualifications in international politics and/or security issues? Is this another TV critic spouting off about issues they have no grasp of or does the author actually have some experience that makes this oped piece relevent?

It sounds to me like all she did was watch Frontline one night and looks for comments from Ministers to be taken out of context.

And what the hell was that crack about the Afghan police liking the paycheck more than their flag? Obviously, she has no connection to her own flag or maybe she would understand the power that such symbols can have. I'm not saying they don't appreciate the check or the authority the get to wield, but the risks these guys take just by wearing that uniform tell me that many of them do it for more than just the money.To insult and belittle their efforts serves no purpose whatsoever.

edit: cavalryman: thanks for the additional info. My skies are much clearer now.

Wook


----------



## Teflon (13 Jun 2007)

> The link is missing.  Could you please re-post it?



The word "This" in his post is the link


----------



## slowmode (13 Jun 2007)

You Know I can see how everyone has different opinoins but I believe this is a totally wrong way of looking at the Mission in Afghan. We as a democratic and peacefull country have the duty to make sure others around the world can live as well as we do. So far in afghanistan we lost 57 Soldiers. They lost their lives doing whats right for Afghan and defending Canadian Values and Interests. We went in their to get a job done, we lost 57 Men doing so.  To honour those brave men who have fallen we should finish the mission.

WHen Has Canada EVER pulled out of a mission? Were not known for retreating but for finishing the job. Thats what we should do, finish the job we were asked to take on.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2007)

Some of you guys who have been there may want to email her regarding this specific comment:



> They understand that however noble our ambitions for that battered country, however idealistic our soldiers (another of whom died yesterday) and diplomats, *this is a war the West will never win. The best we can hope for is a lull in hostilities lasting long enough to allow NATO to declare victory and get the heck out.*



Specifically, has she ever been there to make such an assessment?

I'm guessing "no".....



Matthew.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jun 2007)

Ms Riley is always like that, and loves linking the PM and Bush.  However the _Citizen_ balances her (and a couple of other lefties) with very conservative columnists John Robson, Brigitte Pellerin (John's wife),  and David Warren.
http://thejohnrobson.com/
http://www.brigittepellerin.com/
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## medaid (13 Jun 2007)

I say stick her in the middle of a patrol without a LAV, Coyote, Nayala or G-Wagen. Stick her on the pointy end with the res of the troops, and ask HER to win hearts and minds. I think the first question I'd ask her is:

"Ms.Riley, do you speak Pashto or Dari? No? So you didn't understand a thing that the village elders just said to us? Well then. SHUT the #$@$ UP!" 

Or words to that effect... but then being a supposed 'officer and gentleman' I shall refrain from such comments directly at her...


----------



## safeboy43 (13 Jun 2007)

*Step 1*

Rid the county of insurgants who will disrupt the rebuilding efforts. Help when needed

*Step 2*

Make the CF's primary job to rebuild and assist the people of Afghanistan. 


Two steps that will take years of hard work. Do them in reverse and we are doomed to fail.  Very simple, really. Some people just have no perspective in real life.  :


----------



## GUNS (13 Jun 2007)

During the "Burn the bra" era, it would have been nice if she was still wearing hers. ;D


----------



## 48 highlander (13 Jun 2007)

Twitch said:
			
		

> *Step 1*
> 
> Rid the county of insurgants who will disrupt the rebuilding efforts. Help when needed
> 
> ...




Its not even that simple IMHO.
We have to do both at the same time. I mean, how much easier would it be if we could just "close with the destroy" the country, *THEN* go in with food, meds and other goodies. I think this is what most people don't get, these 2 components are not separate.


----------



## Exarecr (13 Jun 2007)

I caught the last half of the program in question, and the only confusion or friction I observed  was between a PRT team and the Infantry dudes that were I presume there for protection. You could sense a tension between the PRT leader,a female Captain I believe,sporting a logistics cap badge, and the troops which seemed to appear on a philosophical as well as operational level. As for the snafus in getting equipment delivered any where on time to it,s proper location,well, this  is to be expected in a system of transportation as antiquated as Afghanistan's.


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Jun 2007)

I saw the frontline episode they are speaking of.  The impression I got was that our people are getting the short end of the stick.  Take some villages water pumps for repairs in the spring.  Call them back to pick them up and find out only 2 of many arrive back in the fall.  These pumps were to get them through the winter.  Another incindent they were to drive out and deliver supplies and medical aid and I can't remember why they couldn't go them selves but the people were told to come (walk many miles) to them.  They didn't have anywhere close to the quantity needed for these people to get by.  If your going to win harts and minds you need the goods.  At the very least be organized and tell the people what you have and what you can do so they don't get disappointed.


----------



## Wootan 9 (13 Jun 2007)

Here's a draft OpEd that I sent to the "Citizen"...

Afghanistan: It’s About the People!
Colonel Mike Capstick (Canadian Forces, Retired)

Commentary such as Susan Riley’s recent column on Afghanistan (“Afghan Tragedy and Farce”, 13 June) is one of the major reasons that Canadians have come to believe that Afghanistan is “un-winnable.”

It is a simplistic (and probably politically motivated) misrepresentation of the real situation in Afghanistan.  Even worse, it demonstrates a total lack of both understanding and respect for the Afghan people.  Sadly, these criticisms apply equally to most of the commentary that emanates from the Toronto – Ottawa media elites.

In the first place, Afghanistan is not NATO’s to “win or lose.”  Let there be no doubt, the future of Afghanistan will be determined by Afghans.  It may be fashionable for uninformed commentators to scoff at the elected President and Parliament but I visited polling stations on the 18th of September 2005 and witnessed Afghans – men and women, Pasthun, Tajik and Hezara, urban and rural, Sunni and Shia – defy the insurgents to exercise their right to determine the future of their country.

NATO’s task is to assist the Afghan security forces stabilize the situation enough so that substantive development can progress and the mechanisms of good governance can be put in place.  It is the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, supported by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the sixty plus donor nations who are actually doing the development work and supporting the governance effort.  Although Canadians wouldn’t know it from reading their daily newspapers, significant progress in these areas has been made in about 75% of the country where the security situation is stable. 

For a year I led a team of Canadians that worked very closely with Afghan leaders, working level civil servants, members of civil society groups and entrepreneurs.  Some of these Afghans had returned from Canada, the US and Europe.  Others had remained in the region and worked with NGOs during Afghanistan’s darkest days.  Still others had fought the Soviets, the Taliban and each other.  Despite their differences, all of these men and women have two things in common – they share a national identity and love of Afghanistan and they care enough about the future of their country and its people to take the kinds of risks necessary to rebuild a shattered society.

The unspoken but crucial assumption that guides commentary like Riley’s is that Afghans are somehow incapable of meeting the challenge of rebuilding their state and their society.  Snide remarks about “human rights workshops” and “gourmet cooking classes for Afghan women” are indicative of the level of ignorance that exists concerning this ancient, proud and complex society.

The reality is that Afghans are seizing control of their future.  Yes, progress is slow and there have been setbacks.  However, I’m not sure why Canadians would expect anything else.  Afghanistan was shattered by three decades of coups, invasions and civil war.  Its people are at or near the bottom of every single UN Human Development Indicator.  Repairing infrastructure, building roads and opening airports destroyed by war is difficult.  Rehabilitating irrigation systems, digging wells and even acquiring spark plugs can seem challenging.  Despite the difficulties, all of these things are being done on a day-to-day basis throughout the country.

These physical tasks are simple in comparison to the challenge of repairing the social fabric of a devastated nation.  Establishing the rule of law, building an understanding and respect for human rights and eliminating corruption in a society that has been regulated by the AK 47 for over three decades will take time and patience.

Only people who are totally disconnected from the Afghan reality would expect that Afghans will succeed in meeting these challenges without robust military support to stabilize the security situation and without the long-term commitment of the international community, both to development and the establishment of good governance.

This is what Canada is doing in Afghanistan.  The real tragedy is the politicization of the mission for partisan advantage.  The real farce is the way that supposedly well-informed commentators have concluded that the people of Afghanistan no longer deserve Canada’s support.

_Mike Capstick retired from the Canadian Armed Forces (Regular) in late 2006 after 32 years of service.  His final appointment was as Commander of the first deployment of the CF Strategic Advisory Team – Afghanistan from August 2005 until August 2006.  This unique unit, a mixed military – civilian team, provided strategic planning advice and capacity building to development related ministries and agencies of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. In 2007 he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for his leadership of that team.  Currently he is an Associate of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary._


----------



## safeboy43 (13 Jun 2007)

48 highlander said:
			
		

> Its not even that simple IMHO.
> We have to do both at the same time. I mean, how much easier would it be if we could just "close with the destroy" the country, *THEN* go in with food, meds and other goodies. I think this is what most people don't get, these 2 components are not separate.


You are right, we must do both at the same time. Note when I said "Help when needed." However, the Taliban will do everything in their power to stop us from gaining the Afghan's trust. That is why we must focus most of our efforts on suppression of the Taliban. It is also why people complain about most of the reconstruction money not being spent.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Jun 2007)

48 highlander said:
			
		

> Its not even that simple IMHO.
> We have to do both at the same time. I mean, how much easier would it be if we could just "close with the destroy" the country, *THEN* go in with food, meds and other goodies. I think this is what most people don't get, these 2 components are not separate.



+1  Concurrent Activity... It's not just for PLQ anymore!


----------



## jaawod (13 Jun 2007)

Wootan 9 said:
			
		

> Here's a draft OpEd that I sent to the "Citizen"...
> 
> Afghanistan: It’s About the People!
> Colonel Mike Capstick (Canadian Forces, Retired)
> ...



Very well-spoken article.  It's a real shame that people who have no idea of the actual situation over there are writing articles designed to sway public opinion against our cause.   I really hope the paper wll print this response.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Jun 2007)

Excellent article sir...thank you for this I enjoyed it a lot and I hope a lot of people get to read it in newspapers across the land.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jun 2007)

Wootan 9: Brilliant.  I mean it.  

Whereas we have essentially partisan political jerkettes and jerks blathering on in our media.  Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jun 2007)

Well written, Sir.  

Is this an Op-Ed that will be published, or is it a letter to the editor that you hope gets published?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2007)

Outstanding....I hope you send it to as many newspapers as you have time to, and then subsequently send to as many major Canadian political blogs as you have time to.

Absolutely wonderful writing....


Matthew.


----------



## deedster (13 Jun 2007)

Nicely done Wootan 9


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jun 2007)

>this is a war the West will never win. The best we can hope for is a lull in hostilities lasting long enough to allow NATO to declare victory and get the heck out.

Sounds familiar.

There is enough print space in the online media for each columnist who cares to comment on such matters to set out as a permanent record an article describing exactly what sort of commitment to conflict she would support - aims, means, duration, etc.  Then for each columnist we could measure his subsequent comments against the statement of principles and decide whether he is arguing from his principles or just stirring pointless sh!t.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Jun 2007)

Wootan 9 said:
			
		

> Here's a draft OpEd that I sent to the "Citizen"...



Well done, sir.    
I certainly enjoyed the times I got to visit you guys in Kabul.   By the way, do you know if they ever got that ROWPU?


----------



## DualCore (14 Jun 2007)

I think this also points out the horrendous lack of war reporting.  What scintilla of factual basis for this editorial comes from a British journalist re-run on an American network.  We have an hysterical leap from a one paragraph recollection (by the editorialist) of a film that almost no-one saw, about an incident for which there is virtually no other information.  

There was no particular victory here, so it is not something the Military is going to publish in a press release, but 100(?) Canadian soldiers build a base, operate it for some time, try to bring some civilization to a dark dangerous corner of wretched country, then shutdown and go back to the main base ... is an event worthy of some journalism -- if the billions we hand out in salaries, subsidies, and monopoly profits to Canadian news organizations does not buy us that journalism, then we need to earmark that money specifically.  Whether hiring British film-makers to tag along with Canadian units, or creating some kind of independent journalist role within the Canadian military, or just instructing the CBC that their mandate includes reporting on Canadian wars -- as shocking as that might be to the gang in the hair-and-makeup room in Toronto.

There is also some debate about the specific facts of the case -- there is some discussion at this link, although the video will not arrive until July 9 -- maybe they are holding out to see if anyone in Canada might be willing to buy and broadcast it.  

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/afghanistan604/video_index.html


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (17 Jun 2007)

Great read Wootan.


----------



## atlas (19 Jun 2007)

I agree with the article.  

I read today that 7 boys were killed in a NATO bombing raid.  If those boys have any family members who are stll alive, then I suspect we created dozens of more insurgents today.  If it were my son or brother, I wouldn't give two hoots about NATO's "good intentions".  So the cycle continues and violence begets violence.

Ironically, I've read and heard that development workers and organizations had a better time working in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. (Doctors with Borders, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, UN, etc)  These groups now say their work has become alot more difficult because of the war and their association with the NATO presence in the eyes of locals, so they try to distance themselves now.

This mission is about counter-insurgency.  There are millions of Afghans who oppose our presence.  We may disagree with their dislike of our presence, but it's their country after all, so we should stick to traditional forms of development work in places like Afghanistan. The way things are going, Canadians will demand a pulllout before 2009.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jun 2007)

Atlas-

Well now, we would not want to inconvenience the NGO's, now would we?  After all, who gives a rat's arse about the 30 million actual Afghan citizens living under a brutal 12th century theocracy so long as a couple hundred MSF and Amnesty International types can "get along" with the Taliban...

 :


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jun 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ...By the way, do you know if they ever got that ROWPU?



Yup.  Thanks, Moe.  Wootan especially liked the fresher water.

Boss, good words.  Hope they hit the mainstream.

G2G


----------



## Greymatters (19 Jun 2007)

Ive read worse... she's merely one among thousands out there...


----------



## atlas (20 Jun 2007)

Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.

NGOs have improved the standards of living in most countries around the world without resorting to warmaking. That's probably why you don't like them, because of the fact their day to day activities destroys the military's non-sensical argument that war is necessary for development and the flourishing of democracy.  

NGO members have been risking their own lives in foreign places, without weapons, for years and at a great sacrifice to themselves.  If you don't believe it, consider the fact that more journalists (many of whom work for NGOs) have died in Iraq than Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.  Consider that people like Mother Theresa spent her life in disease-infested slums just to care for and feed hungry children.  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.  All of these people made a difference through non-violence.  If you look at any of the other 194 countries around the world, most of them have much increased standards of living and democratizaton despite the fact that their governments are corrpt, incompetent or just plain callous.  You can thank NGOs for this.


----------



## McG (20 Jun 2007)

Well, here was the AI call to push ahead with the expansion of ISAF to where it is now:  http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/0/5c9f31193e89cbb2c1256e66002efe81?OpenDocument&Click=

Also of note:





> Last month, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the Taliban of "war crimes" for targeting civilians, or making no effort to avoid civilian casualties in attacking military targets.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2211823c-e0bb-445e-bfae-357f8a670cb7


----------



## Greymatters (20 Jun 2007)

atlas said:
			
		

> Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.



First, we knew about that for decades, but its kind of dangerous to go there under the old regime's when your not invited.  You tend to get killed.

Second, just like everywhere else, Amnesty International is not perfect.  For every shining examples theyve got a moron, for every saint theyve got a corrupt bugger exploiting the locals.  

And for your information, NGOs do not 'improve the standard of living'.  Most of them are fund-raisers and campaingers who encourage other organizations to go out ther and help local populations. 

Example:  La Ceiba, Honduras 1999, 500+ Canandian troops, plus helis and water-purification machines. Number of missionary's = 6.  Number of NGO's? Zero.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jun 2007)

Atlas, 

NGOs such as Amnesty International and Medicins Sans Frontiers, etc... most definitely have their place in making the quality of life better in many places around the world, just as do the armed forces of international organizations such as the UN or NATO to reinforce the rule of international law, and facilitate meaningful development for the benefit of the disadvantaged.  Just as there is a range of attitudes between and within the ranks of NGOs, so to will you find that of the components of security or stabilizing forces.  Some may have a more confrontational approach (this is equally applicable to military, GOs and NGOs) and others may have a more participative approach...the intent is always the same, however, to achieve the results that their respective organizations have undertaken to achieve.

I'll gladly give NGOs fair credit for the work they do, so long as you don't tell me that I should not have been on the ground in Afghanistan talking to the locals and working with government and NGOs alike to assist Afghans rebuild their country when conditions did not permit unrestricted, safe access to developers. :tsktsk:


G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jun 2007)

Atlas-

The tone and content of your original email made it fairly clear to me that you were more concerned about how easily a few hundred NGOs could cooperate with a government (the Taliban), than what that particular government was doing to it's 30 million countrymen, which therefore neccesitated that need for NGOs.  I got it, loud and clear...


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Jun 2007)

atlas said:
			
		

> Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.
> 
> NGOs have improved the standards of living in most countries around the world without resorting to warmaking. That's probably why you don't like them, because of the fact their day to day activities destroys the military's non-sensical argument that war is necessary for development and the flourishing of democracy.
> 
> NGO members have been risking their own lives in foreign places, without weapons, for years and at a great sacrifice to themselves.  If you don't believe it, consider the fact that more journalists (many of whom work for NGOs) have died in Iraq than Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.  Consider that people like Mother Theresa spent her life in disease-infested slums just to care for and feed hungry children.  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.  All of these people made a difference through non-violence.  If you look at any of the other 194 countries around the world, most of them have much increased standards of living and democratizaton despite the fact that their governments are corrpt, incompetent or just plain callous.  You can thank NGOs for this.



You know what, you stunned little idiot?  I've had it with you.  I've BEEN to places (ever hear of Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq) where the NGOs were nobly TRYING to bring their aid (all the while sneering at us armed types).  

Who PROTECTED them in their mission???  I'll give you a hint - it wasn't a war protester.  They (they NGOs) could only practice their non-violent belief  because of the protection afforded them by reluctantly violent men (including me).

Save me your platitudes, you self-absorbed little idiot, and go spread some aid somewhere (I don't care where - Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq) - hell, the world's PLEADING for your intervention - according to you).  

And by the way - when you DO get into trouble, don't bother calling me - I'm retired and I am no longer professionally obligated to give a damn what happens to you.

Good luck to you - call me in twenty years when you've actually DONE something (like Mother Theresa, or Mahatma Ghandi) instead of just parroting what your (equally inexperienced) professors have told you.

Stop talking about it - start DOING what you're all fired up about.  And may God have mercy on your murdered soul - because I sure as hell won't.

Roy


----------



## DG-41 (21 Jun 2007)

> I read today that 7 boys were killed in a NATO bombing raid.  If those boys have any family members who are stll alive, then I suspect we created dozens of more insurgents today.  If it were my son or brother, I wouldn't give two hoots about NATO's "good intentions".  So the cycle continues and violence begets violence.



Atlas, you are quite correct to point this out as a problem, but you've followed this line of reasoning to the wrong conclusions.

Armies, like everything else (including NGOs) are human institutions. As such, they make mistakes. And it takes time and effort to recognize mistakes for what they are , to come up with workable plans and procedures to avoid repeating these mistakes, and to get those new plans and procedures implemented in the field.   

The solution is not to decry the use of all force and demand a pullout, but instead to trust the professionals who employ force to tune their tactics to avoid the problem.

Just because you smack your thumb with a hammer doesn't mean nails are no longer effective construction fasteners or that hammers are evil. The trick is employing the tool properly, and the use of force is just such a tool.



> Ironically, I've read and heard that development workers and organizations had a better time working in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. (Doctors with Borders, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, UN, etc)  These groups now say their work has become alot more difficult because of the war and their association with the NATO presence in the eyes of locals, so they try to distance themselves now.



Perhaps this is true. But it was also true that the Taliban allowed Al-Quaida free operation in their country as well, the direct result being the smashing of occupied civilian passenger aircraft into the World Trade Centre. Life is full of tradeoffs.



> This mission is about counter-insurgency.  There are millions of Afghans who oppose our presence.  We may disagree with their dislike of our presence, but it's their country after all, so we should stick to traditional forms of development work in places like Afghanistan.



This is not a zero-sum problem. It is not "security OR development" but "security AND development". There is a place for both, and development is entirely dependent on security.

Like it or not, the NGOs cannot operate in the country without security. That means the military mission must continue. The true issue is teaching the NGOs how to better co-operate with the military, and teaching the military how to better provide security without inflicting collateral damage (although I think you'll find that the military is already very much aware of the problem and is working hard on it)

I think the root problem here is the adversarial attitude between the advocates  of reconstruction and the military. Like it or not, we are partners and teammates, and the sooner you learn to deal with that and adapt to it, the better for the people of Afghanistan.



> The way things are going, Canadians will demand a pulllout before 2009.



I have more faith in my countrymen, thanks.

DG


----------



## GAP (21 Jun 2007)

> read today that 7 boys were killed in a NATO bombing raid.  If those boys have any family members who are stll alive, then I suspect we created dozens of more insurgents today.  If it were my son or brother, I wouldn't give two hoots about NATO's "good intentions".  So the cycle continues and violence begets violence.



Did you read in the news quotes that states that the Taliban hiding in the building beat the children whenever they tried to leave? They knew they were under observation and kept the children in the school to avoid being attacked...

Article Link



> Coalition troops had "surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside, said Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman. He accused the militants of not letting the children leave the compound.
> 
> "If we knew that there were children inside the building, there was no way that that airstrike would have occurred," said Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch, another coalition spokesman.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2007)

atlas said:
			
		

> ........  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.



I see that you are a Revisionist.  Someone who rewrites history to fit their picture of how they think it should have gone.  Your statement carries little merit.  Ghandhi had little to do with the English leaving India.  They were tiring of the troubles there, mostly Muslim uprisings against the Hindu populace.  It was Lord Mountbatten who had succeeded in persuading the Congress leaders to accept Jinnah's insistent demand for the partition of India as a condition precedent for British withdrawal.


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Jun 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see that you are a Revisionist.  Someone who rewrites history to fit their picture of how they think it should have gone.  Your statement carries little merit.  Ghandhi had little to do with the English leaving India.  They were tiring of the troubles there, mostly Muslim uprisings against the Hindu populace.  It was Lord Mountbatten who had succeeded in persuading the Congress leaders to accept Jinnah's insistent demand for the partition of India as a condition precedent for British withdrawal.


To paraphrase another of atlas' ilk


> the obsession with "facts" vs. "opinion", what's with that?


 :rofl: It still kills me.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

Quote from: atlas on June 19, 2007, 23:41:46
........  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.  
                                         l                                                                                                               l
                                     Fact                                                                                                          Opinion

Hence the continued obsession.....


----------

