# Taliban Tells CBC to Stop "destructive and inhumane mission"



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Canada must withdraw from 'inhumane' war: Taliban spokesman*
CBC.ca, 13 Jun 08, 0529 ET
Article link - .pdf version

A Taliban spokesman is urging Canadians to pressure their government to pull its troops out of war-torn Afghanistan.

In an interview with CBC News, Qari Yousef Ahmadi said the only reason Canadians are involved in the war is because the United States influenced them to join.

"I ask the Canadian people to ask their government to stop their destructive and inhumane mission and withdraw your troops," said Ahmadi, speaking on his cellphone from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan.

"Our war will continue as long as your occupation forces are in our land."

Ahmadi, considered by Western media outlets to be a legitimate representative of the Taliban central council, said the Taliban will continue to fight occupation forces until they are driven out of the country, just as the Afghan mujahideen resistance continued to fight Russian troops until they withdrew in the 1980s.

Ahmadi said if the public knew the truth about the Afghan war, they would be horrified.

He said NATO countries are hiding the true number of casualties they've had since the mission began in 2001.
Killing more civilians

He also argued that while NATO accuses the Taliban of killing more civilians than soldiers with its suicide bombing, the United States is killing even more civilians when it bombs villages and towns.

"I invite you to contact these people in the villages; you can find out for yourself," he said.

Canadian military analyst Sunil Ram said Ahmadi's points are not completely off base. Ram said independent studies show that the American military has underestimated the number U.S. soldiers killed and wounded.

Ram, a former officer in the Canadian Forces who teaches at the American Military University in Charlestown, W.Va., said Canada's tally of dead soldiers is accurate — a total of 85 soldiers have been killed since Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in February, 2002.

But Ram noted that the number of wounded has never been made clear.

He also agrees that the U.S. has done widespread bombings during the mission.

"The Americans will come in and flatten a village," he said. "It's standard tactic."
Eradication of poppies 'secondary'

Ahmadi also touched on the Afghan drug trade in his interview with CBC News, denying the allegations that the Taliban is funded by profits from poppy crops and the heroin trade.

He said that while Taliban is against the drug trade, because it is Islamic, the organization is not focused on eradicating Afghanistan's numerous poppy fields.

"Our priority is to expel the foreign soldiers who have invaded our countries," he said. "At the moment, eradication of the poppies is a secondary issue."


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jun 2008)

I have less issue with the Taliban exploiting a propaganda opportunity than with a _Canadian_ "analyst" aiding them in doing so.  Does Ram honestly believe that the US military has no idea how many of its soldiers have been killed?  Or that it deliberately "flattens" villages?  Or that the CF hides the number of WIA?

For shame...  Why do the media continue to quote people like this as "experts" when they are clearly not?


----------



## cavalryman (13 Jun 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> For shame...  Why do the media continue to quote people like this as "experts" when they are clearly not?



Because the media is not looking for expertise, it is looking for quotes to support its biases from people who appear experts to the unwashed masses.  The MSM has long since decided that the war in Afghanistan was evil and illegal, so any "evidence" to support that point of view is gleefully published.  Being able to bash the Americans at the same time is a bonus.


----------



## geo (13 Jun 2008)

Well... the Taliban is doing what the IRA & the Vietminh did before them.....
Presenting a "spin" that shows them as being the righteous ones & everyone else are the baddies.


----------



## Jungle (13 Jun 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> He said NATO countries are hiding the true number of casualties they've had since the mission began in 2001.





			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> He also agrees that the U.S. has done widespread bombings during the mission.
> 
> "The Americans will come in and flatten a village," he said. "It's standard tactic."


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Jun 2008)

Well the point that Canada has never truely released consolidated WIA numbers is true.  What is accurate in doing though is releasing the number of WIA's per incident. meaning that if a reporter wanted to know, it would be simple to reasearch the number by going through the archives of those incidents.

As for the rest well Jungle said it best!

Edit: added a word for clarity


----------



## 48 highlander (13 Jun 2008)

well, i dont know about you guys but im sick and tired of only talking about our casualties over there. I would be less then eager to start publishing WIA numbers, just because theres so much more goin on, more important things IMHO, that the media is ignoring already. The information is probably available if those so called journalists cared to find it.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Well the point that Canada has never truely released consolidated WIA numbers is true.  What is accurate in doing though is releasing the number of WIA's per incident. meaning that if a reporter wanted to it would be simple to reasearch the number by going through the archives of those incidents.
> 
> As for the rest well Jungle said it best!



Perhaps, kind of accurate anyway. Some soldiers may account for a "stated WIA in an incident" ... themselves more than once. They'll spin this in an attempt to get a "detailed & accurate" (ie list of pers names and specific injury, injury date) ... sometimes I really think anything without those deatils would be considered by loonies to be "inaccurate". So, I hope we never even go there, because if we do ... they'll just keep demanding more and more. Twits.

Let's face it though, some wouldn't be happy with any number of WIA listed; some of them might even expect the CS taking the contact report to "report" his papercut suffered while logging the TIC as an "in action" item for their tally -- it'd just make their spin all that much better on the public and their inflated "toll" upon soldiers look that much more dire in the eyes of the uninformed and average Canadian.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jun 2008)

> "I ask the Canadian people to ask their government to stop their destructive and inhumane mission and withdraw your troops," said Ahmadi, speaking on his cellphone from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan...
> 
> If you DON'T stop your desrtructive inhumane mission we will continue to indiscriminately use IEDs which mainly kill Afghan men women and children just going about their daily lives.
> Oh hold a second I have another call.
> Listen I have to cut this interview short we just found out a teacher in the next village over was teaching math and suggesting women were human beings-were going to go burn down the school with them inside.



There fixed that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jun 2008)

+1 Flawed.   ;D


----------



## Red 6 (13 Jun 2008)

If the Taliban are so confident they're going to win, why is this guy speaking on a cell phone from "an undisclosed location?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> If the Taliban are so confident they're going to win, why is this guy speaking on a cell phone from "an undisclosed location?"



Well, as far as we know, undisclosed ONLY to the reporter.....  

+100 FlawedDesign


----------



## johnnycanuck (13 Jun 2008)

cbc ...5th estate or 5th COLOUMN ..next story" YELLOWJACK LAYTON FOR LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD" and it certainly would be free 'if a liitle black spider came down beside her' said BOO and frightened Miss Layton away


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jun 2008)

Since Mr. Ram posts on this site, I would be interested to see his primary sources for his accusations, particularly the one that states "flattening a village" is a "standard "tactic and those that show that the US military has "underestimated" casualties in Afghanistan.

I would also be interested in hearing which "wounded" casualties he would count as part of an overall tally, how he would release that information without contravening the Privacy Act (as the tally would surely have to refer to specific instances to provide an overall view and context) and what yardstick he would use to differentiate between combat and non-combat injuries...


----------



## Bane (13 Jun 2008)

"In a related story: Government sources say that the Taliban spokes person has been located and that a warm response has been sent via something called the Joint Delivery-Air Mail system"


----------



## Franko (13 Jun 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Canadian military analyst Sunil Ram said Ahmadi's points are not completely off base. Ram said independent studies show that the American military has underestimated the number U.S. soldiers killed and wounded.
> 
> Ram, a former officer in the Canadian Forces who teaches at the American Military University in Charlestown, W.Va., said Canada's tally of dead soldiers is accurate — a total of 85 soldiers have been killed since Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in February, 2002.
> 
> ...



Alright Mr. Ram, enlighten me will you?

Which villages have been flattened and can you back up your statements with any facts? Can you show anyone where in the Operation Enduring Freedom ROEs (the ROEs that the US use in theater if they are not part of ISAF) that state specifically where it is allowed to flatten villages?

Having actually used them I don't seem to recall that clause.

Your statement is nothing more than conjecture and speculation with a liberal sprinkling of your own prejudiced, anti-American opinion and nothing more. Makes for a great sound bite on the news though doesn't it?

As for the wounded, why do you want numbers? Do you want numbers of how many have been repatriated due to PTSD? How about personal family issues?

How about sprained ankles?

I, along with many serving members of the CF, grow tired of your and Mr Staples' rantings.

Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2008)

I want to know how he can teach at the American Military University in Charlestown, W.Va., and get away with this kind of rhetoric. 

Of course then his beloved Taliban blows up the main prison, in Kandahar, and lets all the criminals out.


----------



## khawk006 (14 Jun 2008)

The Taliban can feel free to surrender if it's too "destructive and inhumane" for them.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (16 Jun 2008)

What Mr. Ram fails to report  on is the "atrocities" the Taliban advocated against the Afghan people while they were in power. Killing and torturing women, killing children or anyone who didn't agree or abide by their twisted philosophy. Call them what they are "terrorists"!

Mr. Ram I would brush up on your history before you go and shoot your fool mouth off or give any credence to an organization who by the way the world has labeled "terrorists and have committed heinous crimes against humanity. It would be no different if you were to have interviewed Hitler and came back with a lopsided story of why he justified killed so many Jews in WWII. Get your head out of your ass! 

We already know what the taliban want, they want to start up again were they left of and go back to terrorizing the Afghan people into submission and your helping to make that happen with your garbage.


----------



## tabernac (16 Jun 2008)

> Taliban Tells CBC to Stop "*destructive and inhumane* mission"



Is that so?
How about pot calling the kettle black? Just in this case the kettle is the one in the "right."


----------



## oldlineman (23 Jun 2008)

I am as always stunned by the stupidity of some of you. Ignornace of reality is no excuse to be abusive--- it just illustrates your own ignornace.

As a clarification, the CBC.ca story is actually based on a interview on CBC radio --- for the record the CBC.ca types took the key statements out of context.

As to the casualty issues much of what I said was based on confidential reports written a few years back. But for the record here are some open sources written by me below, plus the 2008 RAND Report (the link is below)

read my article (I don't think there is a version on the Internet), “A Question of Truth: Accounting for American Casualties in Iraq,” Bulletin, Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies Quarterly News Magazine, Summer (Aug-Sept) 2004, Vol.17, No. 2, pp. 4-5.
***note this article is dated and does not account for TBI injuries 


In addition in 2007 (Oct 10) Toronto- I presented an analysis “The Sword of the Prophet: The Strategic Implications of the IED War” at the Royal Canadian Military Institute, which provided a more current look at the casualty issue from the view of the IED war.

An April 2008 RAND Corp. study, "Invisible Wounds of War -- Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery," justifies a tenfold jump in the U.S. casualty count versus the figure of 33,000 American dead and wounded used by the Pentagon.

RAND researchers extrapolated from a survey they conducted of 1,965 veterans to conclude that nearly 300,000 service members and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan wars are suffering from post-traumatic stress or major depression. 320,000 individuals suffered TBI during deployment. Filner told the pair of researchers, who had summarized their findings for his committee, that their work probably understates the problem. Here is the report http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG720/

So in summation this is not about what I think, but how our comrades in arms are being treated, and to a great extent this is about being lied to about the reality of these wars. Lying about casulaties is possibly the worse thing any military can do, for it will ultimately undermine moral and in the long-run can never be hidden.

As to the issue of the US using airstike and arty when faced with resistence from insurgents in built-up areas, the below is part of a confidential report I wrote in 2005 (sorry the footnotes did not embed)

The daily barrage of complaints from ordinary Iraqi citizens who initially had welcomed coalition forces is a clear indication that the coalition has been unable to create a stable environment for the reestablishment of civil society in Iraq. Iraq Body Count (IBC), an Anglo-American research group that has been tracking casualties through media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq, has noticed the dramatic rise in violent crime since the outbreak of the war. Just in Baghdad alone between April 14th to 31st August, 2,846 violent deaths were recorded by the city morgue. When IBC adjusted for pre-war death rates in the city, there was an excess of at least 1,519 violent deaths. This excess can be directly linked to the overall breakdown of law and order in the city. There had been almost a tripling of violent deaths in Baghdad since mid-April 2003. Of these, 60 percent have gunshot wounds. IBC indicates that this trend is being mirrored in other Iraqi cities. 
IBC notes that the majority of deaths are the result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence, however there were also many incidents where deaths were caused by US military fire. Evidence indicates that these deaths were often caused by the use of indiscriminate firepower, and in turn there had been an increasing failure to report such incidents by coalition troops or the incidents were simply unacknowledged.  Furthermore, the growing list of casualties amongst American and other coalition forces is starting to wear down the troops; making them even less inclined to work with the Iraqi people or authorities. The Iraqi populous is more and more seeing the coalition forces as occupiers rather than liberators. 
	This impression on the Iraqis has been further amplified by the nature of the reporting that had occurred during the war and in the post-war period. The “CNN factor” created stories that in many cases were not true or certainly were not the way they were reported by the military to the imbedded media. Now some of this may have been created deliberately by the military within the greater rubric of psychological operations (PSYOPS), as part of a media disinformation campaign to throw off Saddam or it just might have been a classic case of the “fog of war.” But, the problem that remains is the Iraqi people did not see it this way, and for that matter neither did many people in the west, especially after more information came out. The whole Jessica Lynch story is even now still shrouded in controversy. Appendix A reviews key events during the military campaign and how they were reported, readers can come to their own conclusions, what is clear is that the US did not help its case in respects to the Iraqi people by denying, lying about or providing misleading information in regard to military operations.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (23 Jun 2008)

And you've apparently extrapolated this data to Afghanistan.  Perhaps you could share your methodology for doing so?  Moreover, can you please provide the source that indicates that deliberate targeting of civilian villages and towns is an accepted warfighting practice for US (and, by extension, coalition) forces in Afghanistan?  Or has CBC taken your quote out of context?



> I am as always stunned by the stupidity of some of you. Ignornace of reality is no excuse to be abusive--- it just illustrates your own ignornace.



Pot, this is kettle, over...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2008)

I just hate "Post 'N Runs".  It is just plain "Ignornace".   :  Ignorance.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jun 2008)

oldlineman said:
			
		

> So in summation this is not about what I think, but how our comrades in arms are being treated, and to a great extent this is about being lied to about the reality of these wars. Lying about casulaties is possibly the worse thing any military can do, for it will ultimately undermine moral and in the long-run can never be hidden.



Mr Ram,

Lying about casualties?? PTSD?? I suggest you should brush up some more on that injury.

Casualty counts go up as time passes -- PTSD has the uncanny ability to creep up on you when you are least expecting it - sometimes years later. To spin this as if the government is deliberately lying about casualty counts is just so far of base ... *is crazy itself*.

The reality of Afghanistan is that there are a lot of psychological injuries occuring. To suggest a cover-up of that is absolutely 200% assinine.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080306/PTSD_military_080306?s_name=&no_ads=

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/11/1357

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0720-e.htm

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080229/ptsd_soldiers_080229?s_name=&no_ads=

All open source, widely available and actually related to ... Afghanistan (vice Iraq, and you talk to us about taking things out of context!!??); go figure.

Geez, even American citizens are well aware of PTSD ...

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/06/20/the-debate-over-a-medal-for-ptsd.aspx

yeah, big cover-up happening.  :


----------



## RCDtpr (23 Jun 2008)

Since I'm not forum savvy and can't figure out how to copy and paste one line from a post I'll just say this.

Oldlineman I notice the first thing out of you're mouth is that we are stupid and ignorant. Then you go on to spout off on your so called "confidential reports."  Not to mention the fact that in your interview with CBC, you pretty much seemed content to undermine everything we do to the viewers, listeners, readers or whatever.

But what really grinded my gears was that one line where you say and I quote "our comrades in arms" end quote.  I don't necessarily speak for everyone here but I definitely speak for myself.  YOU are not a comrade in arms to me.  YOU (in my opinion) are nothing more than a person who thinks he's in the know, and is using this so called knowledge to further yourself pretty much at the expense of us.

Yes lots of guys are getting hurt and coming back not so right in the head.  But in my opinion that's an internal problem that we will deal with with our family.  Both personal and the CF.  Since you are not a member of either to me, or anyone else who has been hurt overseas, I really don't think that it's any of your business.  

So the next time the CBC talks to you to get your so called "expert" opinion....... why don't you do us all a favour and keep it to yourself.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jun 2008)

Yes,  I have agree with Teddy R.  but to be more blunt. WTF does your babble about what may or may not in fact be happening or have happened in Iraq have to do with Afghanistan?  Ahem...  Two different locations, military operations and countries forces involved.  Don't hack up a lung tootin your own horn buddy.  But I fail to see any tangible evidence in your post to back up your accusations of flattening villages in Afghanistan.  Sounds like BS to me that must go down well in some circles, but I'm happy to stay ignorant and unconvinced of your arguement.

RCDtpr +1


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jun 2008)

Funny I am just reading a book that covers Iraq’s modern history and Saddam’s rise to power. Throughout each overthrow, there was significant civilian causalities and a large number of injured, jailed, tortured and psychologically damaged people. Each one of these events was extremely violent. (the book was written by an Iraqi doctor)
Now it would be interesting to graph those causalities of these historical events and compare them to the 2003 invasion and the occupation, adjusting for population of course. I suspect that numbers of killed and injured would not be out of line with historical events, considering the sectarian and Tribal tension that pre-existed in Iraq. 

As for comparing Iraq and Afghanistan, well apples and oranges is the nicest thing I can say.


----------



## oldlineman (24 Jun 2008)

It always amazes me how uninformed most of you actually are. Also the fact that the majority of you always try and find fault-- grow up, this is more important than your egos this is about how our soldiers will be treated after this war is over for Canada. And like all wars it will end.

Someone questioned the methodology... all open source data from government sources and press statements made by officials. That is in my published works. Confidential information comes from various private intelligence sources in theatre plus my own work in the Iraq region. 

If casualty figures are hidden now--- how can veterans get what is due to them. Incredibly in the US, wounded vets (many who have lost limbs) are being asked to return part of their signing bonuses because they did not fulfil their contracts! Look back at how our veterans were mistreated by DND after the Balkans....  remember CDS's come and go but the institutional memory of DND stays with the civilian bean counters... and they do not care about us! 

As to my previous post the data comes from US DOD figures (as I said the footnotes did not embed). Another source is-
The July 20, 2006, document titled "Compensation and Pension Benefit Activity Among Veterans of the Global War on Terrorism," which shows that 152,669 veterans filed disability claims after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the more than 100,000 claims granted, Veterans Administration records show at least 1,502 veterans have been compensated as 100 percent disabled. 

Current US DOD figures put the casualties at approx 33,000--- so how come there are 100,000 claims granted????

The critical aspect is that US DOD has changed the criteria for how they define a casualty (we are not talking about fatalities here)- this is covered in detail in my CISS article, thus on paper reducing casualty numbers. This has been covered in the US press (but has been limited due to White House interference). The same issues arise with the CF in regards to TBI and PTSD... unless someone knows where to find this data (without a freedom of information request that is) best guess estimates are the CF probably has 100 times more walking wounded than has been indicated (see the stories you were all whining about last summer in the Toronto Star and CBC TV and Radio) - based on extrapolation of known US figures (which are now incontrovertible). This of course if based on the statistically high casualty rates we have suffered (DND public statements). So my guess is that we have over 3,000 wounded--- and I think that is low based on US figures. 

As to Iraq-Afghan link-- US doctrine and policies are the same, go look them up for yourselves.

What bothers me the most is the fact that this is about soldiers who are injured and not getting treatment... because they are not being acknowledged by sites like this... for a bunch of so called soldiers and "patriots" most of you spend a lot of time complaining about my statements, while towing the party line like a bunch of mindless drones rather than actually doing some fact finding of your own. Sadly, the Taliban have picked up on this point... but their statements are not directed at us, but rather for their own constituency-- our own arrogance trips us up here as our HUM INT is pathetic in theatre.

As to the CF linkage... can anyone tell me the exact number of CF casualties????
General Hiller on CBC Radio (Cross Country Check UP as I recall) when asked this exact question last year said he did not know. In fact the media and CF Public Affairs have made a massive deal about our dead, but almost nothing is told about the number of wounded, other than brief reports when an incident occurs. But there has been no actual accounting of how many wounded... given the relative small size of the Army, this is a very important fact, it begs the question of mission sustainability, unit burn out, individual solider burn out, and of course cost.

And I should point out that a casualty by traditional definition is anyone, for any reason that has to be replaced in the theatre of war from combat or noncombat related wounds or injuries or sickness- this is now inclusive of PTSD and TBI. You have all been conditioned by the media and the DND spin machine to believe that a casualty is only someone who has been wounded in combat...!

Read my published stuff before you make silly comments. If you cannot find it I will see if I can get an electronic version.

Anyway this is my last comment on this topic, feel free to blast away as most of you always do... 
THIS IS ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS not us. 
cheers
Sunil


----------



## Kiwi99 (24 Jun 2008)

Sunil, if this is about th soldiers, then it is about us, which makes it fine for us too comment.  You, Sir, are a clown.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jun 2008)

oldlineman said:
			
		

> It always amazes me how uninformed most of you actually are.




None of you "credentials" make you any more informed than anyone here.





			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Read my published stuff before you make silly comments. If you cannot find it I will see if I can get an electronic version.



I have indeed read most of your "work" and i find it to wrong and biased on every single issue. You are no more a military "expert" than my grandmother.


> Anyway this is my last comment on this topic, feel free to blast away as most of you always do...



There you go with the superiority thing again.....Its fine, i know you will comment on here again, you can't help it.



> THIS IS ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS not us.



I'm going to do my best to say this clearly........I AM a soldier so this is indeed about me, and everyone here on this site who serves.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Jun 2008)

OK, I was a planner in theatre - first hand experience - and worked very, very closely with the US on a daily basis.  _Never_, not once, did I see a policy of deliberately "flattening" civilian villages.  You hint at "sources" and at "confidential reports", yet provide no primary sources to back up some extremely inflamatory statements.

Moreover, I asked in my first post how you'd define "wounded" and what casualties you'd like to see reported.  I can assure you that the CF knows _exactly_ how many wounded have come out of Afghanistan and that this number is tracked on an hourly basis.  Again, you've extrapolated data from a foreign Army in a different theatre to CF operations - a very dangerous and intellectually dishonest practice.

Your arrogance is breathtaking.  You claim that posters here have a lack of knowledge, when many, including myself, are speaking from first-hand experience, sometimes in Command roles.  You cite "unpublished" and "confidential" reports, claim "classified" military service and make ridiculous remarks in the open press.  Yet you accuse posters here, some of whom are writing from theatre, of not caring about soldiers or casualties.

Put on a uniform, Mr. Ram, and serve on operations.  Until you do, I for one will brook no arrogance from you.

TR


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jun 2008)

Well Mr. Ram, if you are going to shut your trap and cease flapping your gate it will be none too soon for this sailor.  You, seem unable to provide any proof of your accusations still.  Not one peep about village flattening by western forces.  And you Mr. Ram, are not one of us.  We serve and a great many of us have served there.  So, speaking as a serving member I do not welcome your outbursts on my behalf and I am sure that the others share these feelings.  I believe that you and the other self proclaimed experts who trumpet from the bleachers do not have a grip on current conditions and are full of BS.  Bugger off!


----------



## Sigger (24 Jun 2008)

Why is it that you dodge the actual questions and pull out the "soldiers who are injured " card? 
You need to stand accountable for the 'expertise' you give to the media.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jun 2008)

oldlineman said:
			
		

> It always amazes me how uninformed most of you actually are.



The more of your writing that I read, Mr Ram, the more I think that you are in the wrong line of work. George Carlin's death leaves a great vacancy. While I do not think that you are that funny, you've managed to convince some media types that you have some real knowledge of military matters so who knows what other talents you can convince them that you have.

Considering that there are many, many people on this site who have served for many years, at probably all rank levels, and that a fair number of us have spent several years of our lives overseas in various places, and some even have multiple tours in Afghanistan, telling us that we are "uninformed" is highly amusing.

While we can speak from direct experience, from coal face to head office, you put forth pieces that _*you*_ wrote in an attempt to convince us of your position.

I do not recall anybody else here ever using their _*own*_ quotes to back their statements up - "It's true, because I said soit in my post in x thread on xx/xx/xx". There has _*got*_ to be a name for this sort of thing.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Also the fact that the majority of you always try and find fault



No _*trying*_ is required, Mr Ram. You provide us with easy targets.

We are _*not*_ gullible journalists, and we are *not* the pleasant but equally gullible older ladies at RCMI.

Yes, I've watched them, and had a good giggle.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> grow up,



Snort.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> this is more important than your egos



"Egos"? Us?

Do you, Sir, own a mirror?



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> this is about how our soldiers will be treated after this war is over for Canada.



That, as several have already pointed out, would be us, here, and our friends and colleagues.

We are quite capable of looking after our own interests, thank you very much, without others being so presumptious as to try and do it for us.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Someone questioned the methodology... all open source data from government sources and press statements made by officials. That is in my published works. Confidential information comes from various private intelligence sources in theatre plus my own work in the Iraq region.



Firstly, few of us here are concerned about Iraq, which is not our fight. You claimed that it was US policy to "flatten" Afghan villages. Stick to Afghanistan. What "official" or "private intelligence sources" told you that one? Provide a reference for this claim, and provide documentation of a pattern of flattenings to back this absurdity up, or publically retract it.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> If casualty figures are hidden now



They're not. They are not given great publicity, however, and that seems to be fine with us.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> how can veterans get what is due to them.



How many veterans - Canadian, that is - are _*not*_ getting what is "due them"? I see amazingly little complaint.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Incredibly in the US,



Which is were most of us on this site are not.

I realize that it is difficult for you to remain relevant, because you have so little to go on, but _*please*_ make an effort.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Look back at how our veterans were mistreated by DND after the Balkans....



Different government.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> and they do not care about us!



"Us"...?



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> As to my previous post the data comes from US DOD figures (as I said the footnotes did not embed). Another source is-
> The July 20, 2006, document titled "Compensation and Pension Benefit Activity Among Veterans of the Global War on Terrorism," which shows that 152,669 veterans filed disability claims after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the more than 100,000 claims granted, Veterans Administration records show at least 1,502 veterans have been compensated as 100 percent disabled.
> 
> Current US DOD figures put the casualties at approx 33,000--- so how come there are 100,000 claims granted????
> ...



Irrelevant.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> best guess estimates



Emphasis on "guess", which is not an "estimate", and whose "best"?



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> see the stories you were all whining about



You will find precious few of us who "whine", Mr Ram.

Had we any respect for you, you'd have lost it right there.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> As to Iraq-Afghan link-- US doctrine and policies are the same, go look them up for yourselves.



_*You're*_ making the spurious claims, _*you*_ go and look them up - and provide us with the references.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> What bothers me the most is the fact that this is about soldiers who are injured and not getting treatment... because they are not being acknowledged by sites like this...



Oh, please...

There are soldiers (and sailors, and airmen) on this site who have _*actually*_ been injured/wounded, cared for/assisted/supported wounded colleagues and friends, and otherwise know many of them.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> for a bunch of so called soldiers and "patriots"



Nothing "so-called" about it, Buddy.

Just the real deal.

And sailors and airmen, too.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> most of you spend a lot of time complaining about my statements,



For good and valid reason.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> while towing the party line like a bunch of mindless drones



Now I'm absolutely howling.

I may have been wrong earlier. Your sense of humour is definitely not the same as Mr Carlin, but you do have your moments.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> rather than actually doing some fact finding of your own.



We are awash in facts, Mr Ram. We live in a very factual world. Get the facts wrong, and we may die. We cannot afford to misinterpret and/or misrepresent facts, or create fantasies. We have a very real incentive to stick to facts, real ones that is, and hence have developed considerable talents for discerning fact from fallacy.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> our own arrogance



Speak for yourself.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> as our HUM INT is pathetic in theatre.



Speak for yourself.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> our own arrogance trips us up here as our HUM INT is pathetic in theatre.
> 
> As to the CF linkage... can anyone tell me the exact number of CF casualties????
> You have all been conditioned by the media and the DND spin machine to believe that a casualty is only someone who has been wounded in combat...!



We have, have we?



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Read my published stuff before you make silly comments.



'Tis not us making "silly comments".



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> I will see if I can get an electronic version.



I'd rather you spent your time finding references to support your claim that "flattening" villages is a "standard (US) tactic".



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> Anyway this is my last comment on this topic,



I doubt it.



			
				oldlineman said:
			
		

> THIS IS ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS not us.



What was that about "silly comments"?

"OUR SOLDIERS" (and sailors, and airmen), Mr Ram, _*are*_ "us".

Most real "experts", Mr Ram, have some credibility among those whom they claim to be expert about. You, Sir, have none.

If it quacks like a poseur...


----------



## armyvern (24 Jun 2008)

oldlineman said:
			
		

> It always amazes me how uninformed most of you actually are. Also the fact that the majority of you always try and find fault-- grow up, this is more important than your egos this is about how our soldiers will be treated after this war is over for Canada. And like all wars it will end.
> 
> Someone questioned the methodology... all open source data from government sources and press statements made by officials. That is in my published works. Confidential information comes from various private intelligence sources in theatre plus my own work in the Iraq region.
> 
> ...



Four points:

1) This is CANADA, not the US of A;
2) WE are in Afghanistan, not Irag;
3) WE are not in the Balkans anymore Mr Ram - those days are gone;
4) Casualty counts change daily based upon PTSD being diagnosed at any time after an injury ... NOT necessarily the day an incident occurs (as already pointed out to you).

So, Mr. Ram ...

You've ranted and raved in your usual manner above, noting again our "ignorance", noting Iraq, the US DoD etc etc. But really, I could quite do without your outstanding arrogance.

I'll ask again because you've been asked before:

What is your methodology for citing "super-secret-known-only-unto-you reports", *US DoD * data, and *Iraq War * statistics and making them indicative of "proof according to the expert" that the Canadian government is "lying" about casualty counts in Afghanistan? Simply put Sir, US DoD statistics, IRAQ statistics, American info and Balkans data are absolutely 200% irrelevant to the topic at hand "Canadians and the Taliban in Afghanistan." 

Again, you'd best read up on PTSD Sir ... if you want to be tossing about even more silly statements accusing the CDS of not being able to ante up "exact casualty counts" on CBC radio and claim that as "evidence of the government lying about casualty counts" ... you've obviously NO idea how PTSD works or is diagnosed. It's an ongoing thing. Those members diagnosed with it ... changes daily. 

You, and your bias', and your failure to grasp the reality of PTSD and it's ongoing and constant effect upon casualty counts does little to prove to me that you're an expert; in fact - it firmly debunks that status.

I am a soldier. This IS about me and my comrades in arms. 

And, on behalf of my allied comrades south of the border -- Mr Ram, where is that source reference material again for the "flattening of villages by US airstrikes as a matter of routine?" Or is that more info that is so super-secret that only you are aware of it?

Give me a break.


----------



## Armymedic (24 Jun 2008)

oldlineman said:
			
		

> If casualty figures are hidden now--- how can veterans get what is due to them. Incredibly in the US, wounded vets (many who have lost limbs) are being asked to return part of their signing bonuses because they did not fulfil their contracts! Look back at how our veterans were mistreated by DND after the Balkans....  remember CDS's come and go but the institutional memory of DND stays with the civilian bean counters... and they do not care about us!
> 
> And I should point out that a casualty by traditional definition is anyone, for any reason that has to be replaced in the theatre of war from combat or noncombat related wounds or injuries or sickness- this is now inclusive of PTSD and TBI. You have all been conditioned by the media and the DND spin machine to believe that a casualty is only someone who has been wounded in combat...!



Sir,
As you are not longer in the system, you are not entitled to know a lot of things that go on in the CF medical system. Patient confidentiality and patient trust have become major issues for the CF health system. To the point where Unit CO's are only entitled to know employment restrictions. Not what is wrong with the patient. There is a cell that is solely dedicated to tracking and recording all casualties on deployed operations. They include all causalities regardless of wounding, injury and illness. Those numbers are not for public consumption.

How would the Cdn public deal with the knowledge that on one 6 month mission tour 100% of personnel on that mission were casualties due to injury and/or illness? Somehow I don't think that would pass the "globe and mail test"

My point- just because you don't know about it, does not mean it is not happening.

p.s.- People like me don't like being called ignorant, esp by someone who gets paid to tell everyone what they think they know.


----------



## McG (26 Jun 2008)

Normally, this is where I would join a thread to remind people against ad hominem.  It is always better to attack the message than to attack the messenger.  However, in this case the messenger has hung the message on his own credibility.  There are no facts presented to support his argument.  Instead we are told of "Secret" and "Confidential" reports (some of which were authored by Mr Ram)  that we must just accept contain the indisputable proof that Mr Ram is correct in his public statements.   We are also told that we can review Mr Ram's published works for some of the "proof" but there is not one single publicly available source cited (aside from Mr Ram himself).  Mr Ram's thesis would fail an academic literature review.

We are starting to get a small line up of pers ready to dispute Mr Ram based on first hand observations and involvement with the issues of discussion.  I will add myself to the list of pers who have served in Afghanistan & observed that there was absolutely no "village flattening" by any nation of ISAF or OEF.  It becomes very difficult to accept the accuracy (or perhaps even the existence) of "Confidential" reports that we cannot see.

In the absence of separately verifiable facts supporting his view of operations in Afghanistan, we are forced to take Mr Ram at his word based on his status as an academic & "military expert."  Arguments of appeal to authority are logical fallacies and particularly so if the relevance of the authority is questionable.  Therefore, in the absence of separately verifiable facts, our arguments will unavoidably gravitate toward the validity of Mr Ram's authority on this topic (which, by reading the other thread, is also largely based on things too secret for us commoners to know).

I like to keep things a little organized, so I have unlocked the older thread in which we may resolve the issue of the relevance of Mr Ram's authority.   In this thread, we will await Mr Ram's relevant & separately verifiable facts supporting his position (this means not "Confidential" and not authored by Mr Ram).  In the absence of such, I can only assume that he has (for whatever reasons) fabricated such things as the carpet bombing of villages in Afghanistan.


----------

