Get In The Game Jack

So I was reading this interview of Jack Layton for the Simon Fraser University newspaper. The interviewer is the owner of the right wing Filibuster Cartoons website which I frequent because I generally like his work. I thought the interview was pretty good for the interviewee and the interviewer. Jack had some pretty interesting remarks- you can tell he is mulling over announcing a plan to put our natural resources (i.e. oil and gas) under public ownership again. But I think he just slipped one question- this one was asked as a follow-up to a previous Afghanistan question:

OP: But don’t you think that the people who are attacking would oppose the
presence of any foreigners at all? For terrorists, they don’t see it as a matter
of soldiers versus humanitarian workers, they just see it as foreigners, and
foreigners have to be blown up and killed. So regardless of whether or not we
are fighting or just building hospitals or whatever, the people who want to kill
them will continue to attack, so long as any foreigners of any sort- no matter
how well-intentioned- are in their country.

Jack goes on to say he disagrees with this and talks about how complex Afghanistan is and ends up with some point about the Russians. Weak Sauce!!!! weak sauce Jackie boy. Ok so here the interviewer sees a bunch maniacal frantic terrorists who hate us for our freedoms in Afghanistan. Its pretty easy to demolish this misconception with one well placed counter example:
Médecins Sans Frontières have never pulled out of a country before. In fact they were in Afghanistan during the brutal 10 year Soviet occupation, and the slightly less brutal 10 year civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. This was at time (if you follow logic cause the Taliban controlled 90% of the country) when evil Taliban terrorists were the most numerous and powerful. And there was no problem. Because humanitarian organizations don’t pick sides but then when the US army rolled in they started changing the rules:

“The violence directed against humanitarian aid workers has come in a context
in which the United States-backed coalition has consistently sought to use
humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political ambitions. MSF
denounces the coalition's attempts to co-opt humanitarian aid and use it to "win
hearts and minds." By doing so, providing aid is no longer seen as an impartial
and neutral act, endangering the lives of humanitarian volunteers and
jeopardizing the aid to people in need. Only recently, on May 12, 2004, MSF
publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in
southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing
information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the
delivery of aid to continue.”

In the same press release they annouce that they are leaving Afghanistan after five of their colleagues were in a clearly marked van and executed by Taliban. This never happened before but you think it would if the Taliban were crazily bent on killing every white person they saw. And it seems the Taliban's justification for the murders would further prove MSF's contention that having the US military coflating themselves with humanitarian organizations does no good-

"Organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières work for American interests and are
therefore targets for us."