• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Is the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

George Wallace said:
The MSM is sometimes not always giving us the facts.  Sometimes they will, perhaps, convieniently omit things so as not to prejudice their agenda/views.  This link just came to my attention and it raises many questions as to what responsibilities the MSM hold and where they may also be failing in their responsibilites.  You be the judge.

AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage

And this is one of the ways the Taliban helps keep reporters on side, too.  In addition to the tradition of "never betraying sources", reporters must know that if one of them shares info with the Coalition forces:
1)  the Taliban aren't big into litigious solutions to such whistleblowing, and
2)  other reporters would be treated as potential informers, meaning cutting off access (or worse).
 
milnews.ca said:
And this is one of the ways the Taliban helps keep reporters on side, too.  In addition to the tradition of "never betraying sources", reporters must know that if one of them shares info with the Coalition forces:
1)  the Taliban aren't big into litigious solutions to such whistleblowing, and
2)  other reporters would be treated as potential informers, meaning cutting off access (or worse).

Or worse like this??

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/asia/12afghan.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,184179,00.html

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/demands_unmet_the_taliban_take.php

So they tend to play their game ...
 
The Globe and Mail is happy to use second-hand Taliban sources, virtually uncritically:

Inside the Taliban's deadly ambush
Using heaviest weapons in their arsenal, a specially recruited squad lay in wait for Canadians near site of fearsome 2006 battle

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wafghan05/BNStory/National/

The ambush that killed three Canadians this week was a carefully planned trap, using an elite team of Taliban fighters and the insurgents' most powerful weapon to strike in a symbolic location near the scene of Canada's bloodiest battles of the mission.

This detailed account of the attack, from a well-informed Afghan government official in Kandahar with strong Taliban contacts, suggests the insurgents were frighteningly organized for the Sept. 3 ambush.

While some parts of his story were confirmed by military sources, other information could not be checked.

The official said the attack was planned by Mullah Mohibullah, an insurgent leader who also serves as chief judge for the parallel Taliban legal system in a cluster of villages known as Nalgham, about 35 kilometres west of Kandahar city.

It is not known whether any senior insurgents ordered Mr. Mohibullah to organize the attack, but he is a long-time friend of Mullah Obaidullah, the former defence minister for the Taliban regime, who has been repeatedly arrested by Pakistan but who is now believed to be living freely in the borderlands and is one of the Taliban's leading figures in the southern insurgency.

Instead of relying on his own men for the attack, Mr. Mohibullah apparently circulated a request among Taliban groups in the region, asking each of them to donate two or three of their best fighters and equip them for a dangerous mission.

"He asked for only the strongest fighters, for a big attack on a convoy," the official said. "In total, he got about 45 fighters with good weapons, like 82-millimetre guns, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
At the risk of going nuts again, and I had just calmed down after my last rant, how by all that's holy can we trust a journalist who is in contact with the enemy with details of current and future operations? Sure, that's a rhetorical question and they will claim they are neutral and objective, but unlike this lot, Charles Lynch, Matthew Halton, Ross Munro et al had no problems reporting dirt and all the rest, and still knowing who the enemy was.
 
Old Sweat said:
At the risk of going nuts again, and I had just calmed down after my last rant, how by all that's holy can we trust a journalist who is in contact with the enemy with details of current and future operations? Sure, that's a rhetorical question and they will claim they are neutral and objective, but unlike this lot, Charles Lynch, Matthew Halton, Ross Munro et al had no problems reporting dirt and all the rest, and still knowing who the enemy was.

Well, he actually says its coming from a Government official who has "contacts,' as any Government official worth his salt does.  The journalist certainly isn't chatting up the Taiban himself.

Of course the report is still Afghan RUMINT and total fantasy, but people are hungry for details and they'll latch onto the first source willing to provide them.
 
It may be bitterness speaking here, BUT

Any Western journalist who hangs out with the Taliban or A-Q.....well some things are better left unsaid...know what I mean??? :skull:
 
T.I.M. said:
Of course the report is still Afghan RUMINT and total fantasy, but people are hungry for details and they'll latch onto the first source willing to provide them.

Especially those willing to provide more details in an environment where in some cases, details can kill.

OldSolduer said:
Any Western journalist who hangs out with the Taliban or A-Q.....well some things are better left unsaid...know what I mean??? :skull:

I hear ya.  Sometimes, we just gotta believe both the weiners AND the keeners in this world end up getting what they deserve in the end - even if there are still too many times when the keeners get what the weiners have coming to them.

Take care, OS...
 
So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique
 
gun runner said:
So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique

OPSEC allows us (the CF) to maintain security and freedom of action. It is an OPSEC violation as soon as it divulges any information on the dispositions, capabilities and intentions of CF and friendly forces.

Most  commonly known as "loose lips sink ships".

A deliberate leaking of the above info to our enemy, or making such info public so that it is available and can be used against us by our enemy --- could certainly be defined as "treason."
 
There's a lot of grey area as to what is 'OPSEC' and what is not, and the confusion is neverending.  The source and classification of the information is the most important.  What makes it more confusing is when our political and military figures make statements about our dispositions, capabilities and intentions that we are taught should be treated as OPSEC.  In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).



 
Greymatters said:
  In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).

Having said that I will put on my Moderator hat and say that sometimes even though "stuff" has found its way onto the web we will still pull it from army.ca.

If it leaks, it won't be from this site.
 
   
  There's a lot of grey area as to what is 'OPSEC' and what is not, and the confusion is neverending.  The source and classification of the information is the most important.  What makes it more confusing is when our political and military figures make statements about our dispositions, capabilities and intentions that we are taught should be treated as OPSEC.  In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).     

  Au contraire.

  Classified is CLASSIFIED!
  OPSEC is a methodology that denies critical information to an adversary. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified information, OPSEC measures identify, control, and protect generally unclassified evidence that is associated with sensitive operations and activities.

  The vast majority of OPSEC violations comes via the public realm.

  On both of my OPSEC courses we had an int analyst who showed us how, with some basic knowledge and some digging, you could turn up a whole host of info.

   
 
gun runner said:
So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique

Well, given that the above story that sparked this discussion is total fabrication on someone's part, I'd say it counts as disinformation rather than opsec. . .

 
45 fighters with heavy weapons in Afghan math means 4 guys with an RPG and 2 rounds.
 
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  Link in article title.

Time to quit Afghanistan
Canada's $22-billion little war must give way to a negotiated peace settlement

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Last Updated: 5th October 2008, 6:35am

At last, a faint glimmer of light at the end of the Afghan tunnel.

Last week, the U.S.-installed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, revealed he had asked

Saudi Arabia to broker peace talks with the alliance of tribal and political groups resisting western occupation collectively known as Taliban.

Taliban leader Mullah Omar quickly rejected Karzai's offer and claimed the U.S. was headed toward the same kind of catastrophic defeat in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union met. The ongoing financial panic in North America lent a certain credence to his words.

Meanwhile, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, urgently called for at least 10,000 more troops but, significantly, also proposed political talks with the Taliban. U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are increasingly on the defensive, hard pressed to defend vulnerable supply lines in spite of massive fire power and total control of the air.

I recently asked Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's former senior adviser, how this seemingly impossible war could be won. His eyes dancing with imperial hubris, Rove replied, "More Predators (missile armed drones) and helicopters!" Which reminded me of poet Hilaire Belloc's wonderful line about British imperialism, "Whatever happens/we have got/the Maxim gun (machine gun)/and they have not."

Though Karzai's olive branch was rejected, the fact he made it public is very important. By doing so, he broke the simple-minded western taboo against negotiations with the Taliban and its allies.

Drug fighters

The Taliban was founded as an Islamic religious movement dedicated to fighting communism and the drug trade. It received U.S. funding until May 2001. But western war propaganda has so demonized the Taliban that few politicians have the courage to propose the obvious and inevitable: A negotiated settlement to this pointless seven-year war. Even NATO's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said the war could only be ended by negotiations, not military means.

The Taliban and its allies are mostly Pashtuns (or Pathans), who comprise half of Afghanistan's population. They have been largely excluded from political power by the U.S.-backed Kabul regime, which relies on Tajik and Uzbek ethnic minorities, chiefs of the old Afghan Communist Party, and the nation's leading drug lords.

Canada, which lacks funds for modern medical care, has spent a staggering $22 billion to support its little war against the Pashtun tribes. It's a war which Canada's defence minister actually claimed is necessary so that Canadian delegates would be "taken seriously" at international meetings. A better path to credibility might be to not plagiarize from other right wing leader's speeches.

Ottawa and Washington should listen to Karzai who, despite being a U.S.-installed "asset," is also a decent man who cares about his nation. In fact, Ottawa should remember Canada's venerable position as an international peacemaker, a role that has made it one of the world's most respected nations.

Mr. Harper's role model, George W. Bush, is probably the most disliked man on earth and certainly America's worst president in history, who has led his nation from disaster to calamity. Only 22% of Americans support Bush. Half of them believe Elvis is still alive.

The Taliban are not "terrorists." The movement had nothing to do with 9/11 though it did shelter Osama bin Laden, a national hero of the war against the Soviets. Only a handful of al-Qaida are left in Afghanistan.

The current war is not really about al-Qaida and "terrorism," but about opening a secure corridor through Pashtun tribal territory to export the oil and gas riches of the Caspian Basin to the West. Canada and the rest of NATO have no business being pipeline protection troops. Canada's military intervention in Afghanistan has jeopardized its national security by putting it on the map as an anti-Muslim nation joined at the hip with Bush and his ruinous policies.

As the great Benjamin Franklin said, "there is no good war, and no bad peace."

I hope Ottawa will have the courage to admit it was wrong about Afghanistan and bring its troops home -- now.
 
Eric Margolis...and his never-ending oil/conspiracy theories...he's more than a bit
of a Jack-a_s.Biased "journalism" at its' very best. :mad:
 
George Wallace said:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  Link in article title.

Time to quit Afghanistan

"Throughout the 12th century royal power was systematically consolidated by David I (1124-53), Malcolm IV (1153-65). and William the Lion (1165-1214).  The south west of Scotland was brought under effective government."  The History of Ayr:John Strawhorn 1989.

The area in question is roughly 100 km North-South (Heads of Ayr to Mull of Galloway) by 150 km (The Rhinns to Liddesdale).  The land is largely like the Eastern Slopes with low rolling hills and the occasional crag.  In times gone by it was  heavily forested in places.  The time frame was 1124-1214 or 90 years.  Effective Government is apparently loosely defined because Carrick, Galloway and the Borders were the lands of Wallace, the Bruce, Border Reivers and Covenanters.  It could be argued that "Effective Government" of that area didn't happen until 1689 and a Dutchman became King of Scots.

The Brigadier was right.  This "War" can't be won.  Because it isn't a "War".  It is an ongoing process of cultivation.  Watering the plants and culling the weeds.  As Edward and others keep saying.....this is all about teaching the Afghans how to tend their own garden and helping them with the spade work until they can handle it themselves.
 
A post at The Torch:

Kabul under siege? The Globe and Mail weighs in
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/kabul-under-seige-globe-and-mail-weighs.html

See esp. the last part for a great example of committing journalism.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I find it incredible, as an aside, that some of our citizens, act as if we are somehow shielded from foreign attacks. I don't mean physical attacks, but economic, information, and using our nation as a base to further their terrorist or criminal cause.
And SOME of our political leaders appear with them to garner votes. If there is a "fifth column" at work, it's the political advisors to some of our political leaders.
 
A post by Babbling Brooks at The Torch:

What was that I was saying about biases shining through?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-was-that-i-was-saying-about-biases.html

Horrible Heather without the outright malice.  It's the attitude...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top