EnMasse

thwap · Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Staying the Course in Afghanistan

My local rag, the Hamilton Spectator, ran an editorial by one Bob Bergen of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute. Bergen’s essay supporting our policies in Afghanistan is typical of the frustratingly vague, over-generalized defences of this controversial mission. It’s also full of the distortions and innuendos that pro-war writers feel they need to use to make their case.

Bergen begins by saying that CF and others know that we’re winning in Afghanistan.

Are we winning the battle against the insurgents in Afghanistan?
Almost any Canadian soldier, diplomat or NATO official asked that question invariably answers: Yes, we are, but there is still a long way to go.

If we’re winning, then I’d hate to see what losing looks like. In all the years we’ve been fighting them, the Taliban have increased in numbers and have often increased the area of land under their control. If you hire an exterminator to get rid of mice in your home and five years later there are even more mice, you might question whether the exterminator is "winning" in his battle with the mice.

Bergen then follows up with an insult to critics of the war, describing us as ignorant dupes, ... the victims of simplistic “Canada-centric,” news sources, and unable to comprehend or care about the people of Afghanistan and their needs.

Well, no. I suppose that I'm as guilty as the next person of talking-past my ideological opponents on Afghanistan, but those times when I've actually bothered to read some pro-war writer or watch some patriotic propaganda masquerading as journalism, it's been shallow, vague stuff that constructs a crude strawman for the peace movement's positions. The reasons why ordinary Canadians don't support the mission in Afghanistan, and the reasons informing the active opponents of the war are simple and have been clearly stated for some time now:

The war is an imperialistic venture
The war was entered into as a means to support the United States
The reconstruction of the country has been a failure
The drug-eradication program has devastated the lives of Afghan farmers
The Karzai government is brutal and corrupt
The warlords in the Karzai government are monsters
Canadian soldiers are dying
Canadian soldiers are turning over prisoners (some of them teenagers) to torturers
The airwar has killed more Afghans than has the Taliban
The enemy is not always Taliban fundamentalist extremists but victims of the Karzai/Warlord government

To ordinary Canadians, this combination of problems meets up with feel-good stories about bags of candy, primary schools, women's rights, and assertions that we're "winning," produces an overall sense of confusion and a lack of enthusiasm for continued participation in the conflict.

And when defenders of Canada's participation come up with lacklustre, irrelevant arguments, it doesn't increase Canadians' confusion and disillusionment.

Bergen spends much of his article talking about the importance of building up the Afghan armed forces so that they'll be able to fight independently after we've left. We've obviously heard this before, in Vietnam, in Iraq, and now Afghanistan. Time and time again, we construct militaries to defend unpopular puppet governments against an organized, oftentimes popular, resistance, and we wonder why they fail to fight. They generally don't want to fight because they're in the army for a paycheque to support their families, and this entire plan hinges on their staying alive. They don't fight because they're corrupt, and they intend to use their weapons and power for extortion and self-aggrandizement. They don't fight because they don't like their own government or its foreign masters. They don't fight because they're actually with the resistance, and are using their presence to funnel arms and information to the resistance.

Ah, no matter, Bergen can tell us about Operation Tereh Toora:

About a week before Christmas, Canadian and British troops backed by NATO air power supported the Afghan army in Operation Tereh Toora against insurgent pockets in the Zhari District in southern Afghanistan. The importance of that mission, which killed 40 insurgents, was twofold, Laroche explained.

The first was that the NATO and Afghan troops have the initiative and decide where and when they want to go.

Uh-huh. So, great. The Afghan army is becoming an effective fighting force because they assisted in an operation with NATO. And they can decide where and when they want to attack, at least so long as they're with NATO forces and all their mobile resources, which means not a whole heck of a lot at the end of the day. Are they an effective defender of our man in Kabul or not? (And is that even a good thing?)

As well:

The second key point, Laroche said, was that: "We (NATO) are not here to fight the Taliban, the only ones who can defeat the Taliban are the Afghans."

Um, right. And this is relevant to your thesis that we're winning and we have to stay the course, how exactly? Aside from the fact that the Taliban are also Afghans, and aside from the fact that support for the Taliban has increased, not decreased, in the five years that we've been propping up an unpopular government and bombing villages to pieces, ... only the Afghans can fight other Afghans, if our plans to control the country are ever going to succeed. And we will succeed in creating this loyal and effective fighting force because, uh, ... because they've tagged along on missions with us and only they can really defeat their fellow countrymen.

Perhaps sensing that his article was on the short side, Bergen decided to close by quoting at length from one Dr. Mohammad Haider Rez, who oversees the removal of landmines in Afghanistan with the United Nations Mine Action Centre. Supposedly, unless we continue to bomb villages and destroy farmers' poppy crops with no compensation, this work will not be able to continue. Dr. M. Haider Rez is quoted, sometimes with good reason, but generally inexplicably:

As a surgeon, Reza survived the Russian occupation; the mujahedeen resistance; the Taliban and al-Qaeda; the devastating post-9/11 U.S. air strikes and invasion; and now the NATO mission.

"There were nights with my wife and six kids, I didn't know if we were going to wake up in one piece. It's true that we now have these pockets of resistance, but if we compare today with 10 years ago, I'm very positive for a brighter future," he said.

Well, that's something obviously. But speaking as one who didn't like the Taliban before 2001, I'm prepared to concede that life in Afghanistan is a little bit better for most since their downfall. But given that the US-financed wars in Afghanistan created the conditions for the Taliban's seizure of power, lets not pat ourselves on the back too strenuously. The article is about "staying the course," that is, continuing to focus on fighting the resistance, training a client army, and is this working to even the satisfaction of Western imperialists.

What else does Dr. M. Haider Rez have to say?

"Whether it is the British, the Dutch, the Canadians or the Americans, they are very helpful, but being the recipient of aid packages, there is no dignity and pride in that."

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like it has much to do with Bergen's argument.

"The idea that Afghanistan is the highest producer of opium; it is a sad problem our farmers are faced with. But, we have to take responsibility to get our people out of this crisis. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves. It is important that we do not disappoint you, the international community."

Yes! Obviously! Anyone can see that we're winning now! The Afghan military will soon be able to act independently, because, ... because, ... it's too bad that Afghanistan produces so much opium and because the people of Afghanistan have the responsibility to get themselves out of this crisis. Wha???

Bergen concludes:

Parliamentarians would do well to remember that when they debate whether or not Canada should remain in Afghanistan past February 2009.

To which I can only once again exclaim; Wha??????

_________________
I thought she was going to marry that snooty rich guy!

thwap · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject:

Gearing up for something big in Afghanistan:

sending in the marines
_________________
I thought she was going to marry that snooty rich guy!

Coyote · Fulltime enMasse Member Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 157

Oh, Lordy.
_________________
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire." - Gustav Mahler

Factotum · Fulltime enMasse Member Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Posts: 238

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject:

thwap

thwap · Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:27 am Post subject:

more stuff for fuctotum to chaw on

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject:

We're against the Taliban because of stuff like this, right?

Factotum · Fulltime enMasse Member Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Posts: 238

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:

Whatever; I'm off the hook because I'm not a Progressive, therefore this source can be trusted...this time.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs

radiorahim · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject:

The PBS "Frontline" investigative journalism series did a very interesting documentary called "Return of the Taliban" that you can watch online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Afghanistan and western Pakistan are such an absolutely incredible mess...thanks to the British, the Soviet Union, Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the CIA and the U.S. government and now NATO forces that I can come to no other conclusion other than that all of the foreign troops should just get out.

Then perhaps in a generation or two Afghanistan might have a chance to recover.

All of the "rah rah team" stuff we're being fed is just a pile of crap.
_________________
Free software, Free society

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject:

And CBC's source for that article is the associated press, which has a pretty good reputation.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

sparqui · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject:

One thing we don't hear much about are the economic opportunities to be gained by western participants in the occupation of Afghanistan.

Here is an assessment of Afghanistan's natural resources (lots of gas and mineral opportunities for exploitatio):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060314231913.htm

It seems that the Karzai puppet government has very "liberal" foreign investment, ownership and taxation policies in place. It's amazing how difficult it is to find this kind of information but here is a link to Afghanistan's Law on Domestic and Foreign Private Investment:

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/bus_climate/afinvlaw_101102.html

Some highlights:

thwap · Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject:

To some extent, international investors will need a lot of coaxing to come to Afghanistan. But the space between providing incentives and allowing plundering is actually pretty large.

Enforcing decent behaviour on the part of the energy companies (HAH! The very thought of oil companies policing themselves!) should be the job of both the Karzai government (which has the nominal politicial power) and the NATO countries (that sustain him aside from the warlords).

Something tells me that very little oversight and enforcement is going on.
_________________
I thought she was going to marry that snooty rich guy!

Maestro · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:20 am Post subject:

FACTOTUM:

Where were you when Jimmy Carter, then Ronald Reagan, then George Bush, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush were suppporting the Islamic fundamentalist groups with huge infusions of cash, and materiel?

Where were you when Canada, the United States, and other refused to take part in the Olympics because the Soviet Union had 'invaded' Afghanistan?

Where were you when an unholy alliance of Maggie Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Zia al-Haq, and the House of Saud set up worldwide recruitment for Islamic fighters to come to Afghanistan and engage in a terminal battle with the officially atheistic Soviet Union?

Where were you when the left was warning that this policy of developing and funding (mostly with heroin sales) groups of fundamentalist Muslims could have far reaching consequences?

In today's Globe & Mail there was an editorial cartoon showing Jack Layton as a Taliban wind-up doll, carrying a 'Troops Out Now!" sign.

You, like that cartoonist seem bent on blaming the left for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Let me tell you something. Al-Qaeda and the various fundamentalist Islamic groups that now plague central and northern Asia, and are chiefly responsible for tearing Yugoslavia apart, were always a project of American foriegn policy. A project which they still supported after 9/11!

You don't like the Taliban? Don't like al-Qaeda? Don't like the Afghani heroin trade? Put the blame where it squarely lies. On an 'end justifies the means' group of extreme right-wing leaders who thought it would be great idea to destroy the Soviet Union.

Now as that same group of neo-fascists demonize their own creation, we are supposed to be cowed into going along with the prevailing strategy of bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age.

The only way to neutralize these groups is to clearly show their roots in US foreign policy. All other attempts will surely fail, with consequences that will reverberate for the next 100 years.

You want to help end this scourge? You could start by working with others to bring the criminals who inflicted this on the world to justice. The premier group consists of successive administrations of the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

If that is done, there is a chance to to bring peace and stability to central Asia. Otherwise, the killing will continue ad infinitum.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive

thwap · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:14 am Post subject:

Factotum took the trouble to give a point-by-point reply to a post of mine and I returned the favour, meeting his/her challenge on them. T'would appear that Factotum has no come-back to this demolition of "the mission" (tm) and so, simply chooses to ignore it.

Which makes Factotum a dishonest debator.
_________________
I thought she was going to marry that snooty rich guy!

Tehanu · Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject:

Hillier says that if Canada stays in Afghanistan, it has to be in a combat role. Hmm, does he want to pull out completely, then, I wonder? Somehow I doubt it.

Oh, and he also says that he and Harper are buddy-buddy.

sparqui · Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject:

The sound bite I heard is that he supports the Manley Report fully, especially the part about more NATO troops. (I often wonder if Hillier is just itching for another "great war" that involves large scale commitment of troops and equipment.)
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”

-- Gilles Duceppe

Red T shirt · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject:

There are approximately 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan now, will 1,000 more make any difference at all? Of course not, this is a sop to the Canadian public who may be feeling that Canadian troops are taking on too much of the fighting while other NATO allies sit out the fighting in relatively quiet portions of the country.
1,000 more troops, shifting the emphasis to reconstruction and other conditions of the Manley report are pure bullshit. Bowling pins set up to be easily knocked over as conditions to continue the killing for at least 2 more years.
To date we have spent 9 out of 10 dollars on the fighting. Reconstruction has been a joke and the only thing with a real priority has been road construction (necessary to move troops and military hardware around the country quickly and efficiently).

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject:

This is something that I've always found curious about the Afghanistan mission: if our job there is "reconstruction," wouldn't we be sending over carpenters, not soldiers?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs

elmateo · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject:

I don't completely agree with Rory Stewart, but if we are going to be Afghanistan we need less Harper/MacKay/Hillier and more people like Rory Stewart who want to understand the local population. On TVO they had a speech he did in October in Ottawa and he was very critical of how the mission has been constructed (state builders wanted to use Dubai and Singapore as examples of the state for Afghanistan) and the military - that an offensive posture is not effective.

And he is really critical of the attitude of the westerns in Afghanistan (at the end of this video clip you can sorta see where he is going) and the lofty goals that have been setup that are not realistic (he has said "law and order" is a lofty goal, that reconstruction has to be focused on very basic things that aren't trying to destroy Afghani culture/political structures but work with these things).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm9xR8G76kI

Its an interesting perspective - lots to disagree with but at least he is advocating a mission that works with Afghanis and doesn't treat them as idiots who need to be corralled into Western democracy, and he puts his actions where his ideas are.

anne cameron · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject:

Isn't it dam near time for Hillier to retire?

I hear him and I think "Dr Strangelove"...

TS. · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:

"Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

Sounds like Hillier to me.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Jingles · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:09 am Post subject:

I'm hearing how it's vital that NATO troops need to be there to train the Afghan army for "security". No western media seems to question the wisdom or the utility of using a standing army for domestic security operations. Such uses of the military is the hallmark of military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes.

Apparently, our media and government are untroubled by the consequences of using the military to keep the civilian population under control. No doubt, such a violation of democracy has great appeal for the Harpers and Hilliers whom have assumed power here. It also puts lie to the claim that the military's purpose is to defend democracy and freedom when their expressed mission is to train other militarys to fight their own people.
_________________
V V V

sparqui · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:21 am Post subject:

For those of us on Facebook, there is now a group called: "Don't Extend It. End It. (Canada's War in Afghanistan)". I encourage everyone with a Facebook account to sign up, since there have been a number of trolls by lately with the usual "cut and run" and "but, but, but TERRORISM!!" type stuff going on.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

DTA · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject:

Hillier should shut up . He is just harpers mouth piece. It has been 6.5 years and it is the same old same old over there and will be for many years to come. Did NATO/Canada/USA not learn anything from the Russians? Or previous outsiders that tried to invade Afghanistan?

Wasn't Gangis Khan the last one in the 1200's that successfully conquered what we now know as Afghanistan? Or was their one since? But I do know it has been tried more than a few times without any real success.

But the libs or Conservatives in power won't make any difference, they both intend on staying their.

Politics in this country is really at almost an all time low, no wonder people don't care and I bet a lower voter turnout next time. Dion is harpers 'yes man' people don't trust the NDP for some reason...we almost need a revolution to get our country back...

elmateo · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject:

Hillier is disgusting. We live in a supposed democracy, not a military dictatorship. His "opinion" does not matter, in fact it is down right offensive for someone in his position to be using his position to pressure politicians. And everyone just bobs their head in acceptance that this is okay behaviour for the military. We don't like in 1970s-1980s Chile. Take a seat Hillier - your job is to follow government policy not to influence it. You can give your advice in private, but when it comes to public opinion we don't want to hear about your desire to kill people.

More specifically, he disgusts me by pretending that having a public debate endangers soldiers lives. Not having that debate endangers soldiers lives - the "Taliban" gain by dumb ass military leaders manipulating politics because it demonstrates the lies of western democracy that we are supposedly bringing. His "I don't want to say it does endanger lives, but I can't say that it doesn't", uh huh. WTF does that mean? It means you are saying it does but know that you should shut up, Mr Hillier. Listen to your own common sense and recognize that military leaders should not be trying to manipulate public opinion in favour of war in a democracy.

unionist · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject:

It would be a scary prospect for any politician given the fawning of the media over Hillier and the "support the troops" racket. There is more rotten with this Hillier story than just Hillier unfortunately.

munroe · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject:

Where's Svend Robinson when you need him!
_________________
Out of Afghanistan, NOW!

Hephaestion · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject:

22 Minutes did a short skit the other night where they had a segment of "Politics Now" (hosted by Cathy Jones) where they were discussing/debating Afghanistan and "the mission", but in three minutes the host and her two guests never got past the "I support the troops"; "Oh yeah, well I support your support of the troops"; "And I am very supportive of the support you have for the support of supporters of the supportive troops, and I support the supportion of the supportation of the..."

It was funny, in a sad, pathetic and sickening way.
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

Raos · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:29 am Post subject:

sparqui · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:45 am Post subject:

Me too. Thanks for the heads up TS.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”

-- Gilles Duceppe

TS. · Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject:

No problem! Smile

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject:

Careful...

Afghan journalist for CTV labelled 'unlawful enemy combatant'

DTA · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:00 am Post subject:

Linda McQuaig wrote an interesting piece on this. I thought it was a good read.

Dion caves, Harper raves

thwap · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:39 am Post subject:

That McQuaig article was pretty chilling.
_________________
I thought she was going to marry that snooty rich guy!

anne cameron · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject:

Well, the guy is a journalist. I guess there are some people who are so used to the kind of lap dog castratii who pass themselves off as journalists that they don't recognize a real one when they stumble over him. The guy is a journalist in an area where there are strong divisions of thought, does it not stand to reason that in order to give a balanced account he would want to have access to both or even all sides?

Jeebus, he has phone numbers! Any of us can get phone numbers. You could even make up numbers and say they were phone numbers. It does not necessarily follow that having a phone number which would possibly put you in touch with an interview subject means you are working on behalf of the Very Debbil Hisself.

How many other people are being held in black holes simply because they came to the attention of some twit or other?

As for Hillier... he needs to have it explained to him that he is supposed to obey government, not tell the government what to do. Any time you have generals twitching the strings of the puppets you can be pretty sure bullets are going to fly. It's what they are trained to do, it's what they are hired to do, and it is what they do. If ever peace were to break out the generals would be unemployed. The last thing they want is peace. They might have to get a real job if we had peace!

Hillier doesn't want the troops brought home, it would reduce his chance of having the opportunity to strut and bluster.

The man, in my opinion, is not mentally balanced. He is a human bomb just itching for the chance to blow up and take as many others with him as possible. Another of the crowd who will fight to the very last drop of everybody else's blood.

He should be dismissed because Queen's Rule and Regulations actually forbid members of the military from publicly discussing politics. They are to be the servants, not the masters.

The guy is a total disgrace to his uniform, his country, and himself. Just a total blustering disgrace.

HAHL · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject:

Well the votes are in, the numbers tallied and the result: 198-77 for the motion to extend the afghan mission to 2011 (The NDP and Block voted against)!

So here we go, barring embarrassing/unforeseen circumstances (like not being able to get the 1000 troop support from other NATO members) we shall be at WAR for another 3 years! (Not that most Canadians have noticed)

The other interesting bit from the article in the grope n'flail is that the Afghan Adventure (tm) is not being funded as separate budget items, in the same way ww1, ww2 and korea were! Therefore it is difficult to get accurate figures as to the cost because it is intermeshed with DND's operating budget!

Here's the article:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080313.wafghan...

elmateo · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:03 am Post subject:

The longer it goes on the easier it has been for the media to ignore. The sensationalism of the conflict has dropped off for entertainment style news and therefore public perception of the war has changed significantly. It isn't that it has gotten any better, it has gotten worse in actual fact, but I imagine that Canadians think it is a better situation than 4 years ago.

This kind of blaise attitude will run its course I imagine, but for the present it has allowed this particular extension to pass without much outrage.

HAHL · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:20 am Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:29 am Post subject:

"Mission" suggests that we have some sort of goals besides killing the opposition, so we do not have to think about who we are killing and why - all that is important to know is that they stand in the way of the mission. The rest is hardly articulated and because of a media that is itself too accepting of a discussion based upon talking points (this talking point is better than this one, therefore we must be making progress!) we are left with a discussion debased of reality.

And the politicians (assuming some of them actually themselves know more than talking points) have exploited this to no end in the past year.

Canadians die because we are in a war - the only legitimiate debate is whether we call it a "civil war" or a "war of occupation" (I am not saying that I would argue it isn't a war of occupation, I am just saying what a debate SHOULD look like). That is not happening.

HAHL · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:31 am Post subject:

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:24 am Post subject:

HAHL · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:43 am Post subject:

Al Q, that last quote, well it is so, well it's so Orwellian, now all we need is Kafka to walk in and metamorph into an 'Ungeheuer'.

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:45 am Post subject:

Maher Arar could tell us a few things about Kafka.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs

TS. · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:58 am Post subject:

al-Qa'bong · Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:56 am Post subject:

Chill, TS. I think HAHL's use of italics shows he is quite aware of the source.

Psst, by the way; the title is Nineteen Eighty-Four, not 1984 anyway.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs