Four Canadian Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

[DaMaN]

Didn't see it posted here, so I thought I would give yet another thing for people to argue over:

Four Canadian soldiers have been killed and nine others wounded, one seriously, during a ground assault on an insurgent position as part of a major NATO offensive in southern Afghanistan.

...

Canada has more than 2,200 troops in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In Operation Medusa, which is being led by the Canadians, most of the force's combat units have been fighting alongside troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. and Britain.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/09/03/afghanistan-taliban.html


And, to really stir the pot and (i'm sure) provoke some red-hot discussion, here is the callout for a picket by the Antiwar group Mobilization Against War and Occupation that work in my city:

On Sunday September 3, 2006, four Canadian soldiers
were killed during a massive NATO offensive,
“OPERATION MEDUSA”, which includes most of the combat
units among Canada's 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Sunday’s deaths sent the number of Canadian soldiers
killed in Afghanistan to 31. That means that in the
past 30 days alone, 12 Canadian soldiers have died in
the occupation of Afghanistan.

According to CanWest News “The identities of two of
the soldiers were released -- Warrant Officers Richard
Francis Nolan and Frank Robert Mellish of CFB
Petawawa. The other two names were being withheld
temporarily at the request of the families.”

OPERATION MEDUSA was launched on Saturday, September
2nd with the objective of taking control of the
regions of Zhari, Panjwaii and Pashmul. Within 24
hours, spokesmen of the Canadian military reported on
killing over 200 Afghans.

On Thursday September 7th Mobilization Against War and
Occupation (MAWO) will be organizing a protest in
response the deaths of these four soldiers, and to
declare that the occupation of Afghanistan by over
2,300 Canadian troops has brought nothing but death,
suffering, and destruction for the people of
Afghanistan.

In response to the deaths of the four soldiers, and
the wounding of nine others, Brig. Gen. David Fraser
stated “Despite these losses, Operation Medussa will
continue,"

He continued on to say that “Canada is committed to
helping the people of Afghanistan…We will continue
operations here. We are making good progress."

Mobilization Against War & Occupation (MAWO) acting
secretary Nita Palmer responded to Fraser’s comments,
“What so-called progress is Fraser talking about?
Progress for whom? Canada is at war against the Afghan
people for control over Afghanistan. This war has not
‘liberated’ or ‘helped’ the people of Afghanistan in
any way at all.”

She continued “There has been none of the promised
‘reconstruction’ or ‘development’ for the benefit the
Afghan people. This war and occupation mission has
brought only blood, death, and destruction to the
people of Afghanistan.”

Mobilization Against War & Occupation (MAWO) will also
be calling for an Independent Public Inquiry into the
Canadian War Drive in Afghanistan. As a sign of the
widespread sentiment amongst people in Canada against
the occupation of Afghanistan, MAWO has already
collected over 10, 000 signatures on a petition
calling for an end to the occupation. The Independent
Public Inquiry would serve to open the chance for
people in Canada to stand up and hold the government
accountable for this vicious war, which has already
been handed a military budget of over 25Billion
dollars.

“Canada is part of the problem in Afghanistan – that’s
why we are demanding the immediate withdrawal of all
Canadian forces from Afghanistan now.”, concluded Nita
Palmer.

Since Canada’s announcement of the deployment of 2,000
Canadian troops to Kandahar Afghanistan, MAWO has
organized consistent picket actions in front of the
Canadian Forces Recruitment Centre in Downtown
Vancouver under the call “BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!”

http://WWW.MAWOVANCOUVER.ORG
[email protected]

Agree or don't, I care not. Merely discuss.

 

[CptStern]

dont forget the 5th canadian soldier killed in afghanistan during the same time period by US friendly fire (again)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060905.AFGHAN05SBVIC/TPStory/National

he was a former olympian who competed in barcelona in 92


canada shouldnt be fighting america's dirty little war, but we're not coming home anytime soon ..we're committed til 2009. PM Steven Harper will likely extend that if the conservatives remain in power

 

[Raziaar]

Sucks.

 

[pvtbones]

Am I the only one who wants to hang jack layton up by his eyelids and kick him until he blinks? The man is bloody delusional.

Stern I'm gunna bite. Do you think we should pull out considering we are one of the 3 largest forces (excluding the ANA) that do not suffer from overly restrictive ROEs (Canada, Britain, and the US).

I personally don't and I wouldn't hold that point of view if I wasn't willing to pick up a rifle and do it myself (I plan to enlist as a regular come graduation, or possibly sooner as reserve with a coop program my school is offering with the military and then jump up to regular afterwards.)

If everyone left Afghanistan 2 hours from now what would happen? things would become exponentally worse for the civilians of afghanistan as the taliban would return to power and punish them (women in purticular.)

They deserve the chance are democracy far more than any of us from the west do. To deny them that would criminally negligent. They deserve the rights we enjoy far more than we do.

it is deeply regrettable that these men and women have died but good things often come with a steep price.

Hopefully the soldiers injuried in the friendly fire incident will have a speedy and full recovery.

 

[KoreBolteR]

damnit

 

[Tr0n]

**** dude. **** ****ty **** man **** that ****. That shit's ****ing ****ed.

 

[CptStern]

Am I the only one who wants to hang jack layton up by his eyelids and kick him until he blinks? The man is bloody delusional.

care to elaborate? what exactly are you referring to?

Stern I'm gunna bite. Do you think we should pull out considering we are one of the 3 largest forces (excluding the ANA) that do not suffer from overly restrictive ROEs (Canada, Britain, and the US).

k slow down a bit, try not to use abbrviations; for all I know you could be talking about lobster eggs or record of employment

I personally don't and I wouldn't hold that point of view if I wasn't willing to pick up a rifle and do it myself

do what exactly?

(I plan to enlist as a regular come graduation, or possibly sooner as reserve with a coop program my school is offering with the military and then jump up to regular afterwards.)

so you're interested in the military ...ok

If everyone left Afghanistan 2 hours from now what would happen?

the warlords would fight it out? like what happened before the taliban took over (big warlord)

things would become exponentally worse for the civilians of afghanistan as the taliban would return to power and punish them (women in purticular.)

it's no worse now than with the taliban ..for women too

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15632
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110072005

sooner or later it will revert to pre occupation days ..no matter who holds the reigns of power

They deserve the chance are democracy far more than any of us from the west do. To deny them that would criminally negligent. They deserve the rights we enjoy far more than we do.

who are we to impose anything on them? we're not wanted there, we're certainly not appreciated

the invasion of afghanistan was solely to punish the taliban and get osama ..nothing more. No pretenses to democracy building ..that came after the occupation ..yet the US and it's allies are setting up afghanistan to fail. The US is giving armloads of cash to warlords (regardless of what their ideology is) in order to fight the taliban ..the trade off is that the coalition turns a blind eye to the opium trade ..which incidentily is responsible 92% of the world's share of opium. Once the coalition is gone whomever is the strongest (with a steady influx of revenue from the opium trade reaching over a billion $ annually it shouldnt take too much time for one warlord to exert themselves over another) will run the bulk of the country. Sound familiar?

it is deeply regrettable that these men and women have died but good things often come with a steep price.

what good things? sooner or later it will revert to fundamentalism ..the west has zero chance of "winning" afghanistan ..we're just a stop gap till the next warlord takes over ..it's inevitable

Hopefully the soldiers injuried in the friendly fire incident will have a speedy and full recovery.

the dead one wasnt so lucky (?)


btw pvtbones ..on the Current this morning they were talking about Canada's involvement ..you should give it a listen

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200609/20060905.html

 

[BirdMan]

No countries ever took down Afghanistan, it's not gonna change now. Bring troops home.

 

[kirovman]

The only nation that beat the Afghans were the Mongols, and that's just because they slaughtered everyone on sight.

 

[delusional]

we need a plan B, i dont support a full retreat just because things will escalate even worse.

 

[kirovman]

Nuke the site from orbit.

Leaked memo from the Oval Office, apparently.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

UNLEASH THE MONGOLS!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[pvtbones]

care to elaborate? what exactly are you referring to?

just his general thoughts on the whole matter (use diplomacy with the taliban, how he seems to be in a world of his own.

an example:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060904.gif

k slow down a bit, try not to use abbrviations; for all I know you could be talking about lobster eggs or record of employment

ROE = Rules of Engagement, Some nations troops may not attack insurgents/taliban/militants/whatever without being fired upon/ asking permission from HQ (or both or more.)
ANA = Afghanistan National Army, afghanistans army fighting along side the coalition.

do what exactly?

go over there and fight, rebuild, help.

so you're interested in the military ...ok

just didn't want to sound like an armchair general who willingly threw our soldiers in harms way without any consideration

the warlords would fight it out? like what happened before the taliban took over (big warlord)

most likely yes, and it would most like repeat over and over and over and over until either A) someone big comes in (taliban for example) or B) they wipe each other out. what a pitiful excuse to call living, if you were in their position wouldn't you want to atleast attempt for something better?

it's no worse now than with the taliban ..for women too

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15632
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110072005

I'm not going to lie and say everything is peachy, we all know better than that and that will have to rectified but changing social habits isn't a easy thing.

sooner or later it will revert to pre occupation days ..no matter who holds the reigns of power

call me an optimist but if given a chance I think Afghanistan could succeed. It just needs time and guidance to get on it's feet, to give it's citizens a taste of something better.

who are we to impose anything on them? we're not wanted there, we're certainly not appreciated

to answer the first part of your question, who better to than us Canucks with our proud history of peacekeeping to help better the lives of others. I mean shouldn't we try to help others? should we just turn inside our boarders and tell the rest of the world to screw off?

as for the second part of your question I think it depends on who you ask. not everyone is going to like us and not everyone hates us.

the invasion of afghanistan was solely to punish the taliban and get osama ..nothing more. No pretenses to democracy building ..that came after the occupation ..yet the US and it's allies are setting up afghanistan to fail. The US is giving armloads of cash to warlords (regardless of what their ideology is) in order to fight the taliban ..the trade off is that the coalition turns a blind eye to the opium trade ..which incidentily is responsible 92% of the world's share of opium. Once the coalition is gone whomever is the strongest (with a steady influx of revenue from the opium trade reaching over a billion $ annually it shouldnt take too much time for one warlord to exert themselves over another) will run the bulk of the country. Sound familiar?

Your right, we did go in there to punish them, but we can make the best of our folly try and make things better. As for the warlords, no one said we have to keep turning a blind eye them after the taliban have fallen/surrendered/left now did we?

I'm sure we all know this quote:

“Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.”

what good things? sooner or later it will revert to fundamentalism ..the west has zero chance of "winning" afghanistan ..we're just a stop gap till the next warlord takes over ..it's inevitable

I don't think either of us can answer this question, only the the future history(oxymoron?) books can.

the dead one wasnt so lucky (?)

no he wasn't unfortunately, all we can do for him now is hope he is in a better place, give him a funeral fitting for an individual such as himself.

btw pvtbones ..on the Current this morning they were talking about Canada's involvement ..you should give it a listen

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200609/20060905.html

thank you for the link, I'll give it a listen.

 

[CptStern]

just his general thoughts on the whole matter (use diplomacy with the taliban, how he seems to be in a world of his own.

an example:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060904.gif

I dont see what's so wrong with that ..the US negotiated with the taliban/mujahideen several times ..even to go so far as to describe the mujahideen as "freedom fighters"

gotta love this headline

U.S. AID FOR AFGHAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS OVERDUE

Afghan resistance [old word for "terrorist" - stern] leaders remain disappointed by the insignificant trickle of foreign--particularly American--aid for their cause. The Afghans have no realistic chance of frustrating Soviet designs on their country unless they receive the military tools they need to force Moscow into meaningful negotiations.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/EM44.cfm

so you see it's all relative ..heroes one day spawn of satan the next

ROE = Rules of Engagement, Some nations troops may not attack insurgents/taliban/militants/whatever without being fired upon/ asking permission from HQ (or both or more.)

which traditionally is what we would have done ...back when we were peacekeepers

ANA = Afghanistan National Army, afghanistans army fighting along side the coalition.

you mean former mujahideen/taliban/militants

go over there and fight, rebuild, help.

somalia needs us much more ..so does ethiopia, the congo and dozen other places a lot worse than afghanistan ..but since canada pulled it's troops to beef it's presence in afghanistan there's no help to be had

just didn't want to sound like an armchair general who willingly threw our soldiers in harms way without any consideration

yes but this is the first time in my entire life that canadian troops are on the offensive ..we're peacekeepers not occupiers ..reprecussions for our involvement will surely reach our shores ..and for what? to cozy up to the americans?

most likely yes, and it would most like repeat over and over and over and over until either A) someone big comes in (taliban for example) or B) they wipe each other out. what a pitiful excuse to call living, if you were in their position wouldn't you want to atleast attempt for something better?

it doesnt matter what I want, it matters what they want ..but they have no voice ..their voices are the warlords bank roled by the US

I'm not going to lie and say everything is peachy, we all know better than that and that will have to rectified but changing social habits isn't a easy thing.

it will take generations ..how many soldiers will we have lost by then? how many terrorist attacks on coalition countries will have occured by then? there is no silver lining in afghanistan

call me an optimist but if given a chance I think Afghanistan could succeed. It just needs time and guidance to get on it's feet, to give it's citizens a taste of something better.

I've been around long enough to see afghanistan go through 3 major upheavals ..and not one made the situation better

to answer the first part of your question, who better to than us Canucks with our proud history of peacekeeping to help better the lives of others.

we're not peacekeepers in afghanistan ..we're part of the occupation under the banner of the Americans ..operation enduring freedom

I mean shouldn't we try to help others? should we just turn inside our boarders and tell the rest of the world to screw off?

well then, lets peacekeep instead of occupying ..there's whole whack of nations that could genuinely use our help

as for the second part of your question I think it depends on who you ask. not everyone is going to like us and not everyone hates us.

regardless we will always been seen as occupiers

Your right, we did go in there to punish them, but we can make the best of our folly try and make things better. As for the warlords, no one said we have to keep turning a blind eye them after the taliban have fallen/surrendered/left now did we?

we're already turing a blind eye ..opium is back up to pre-taliban days, women's rights havent advanced a single bit ..except instead of being beaten imprisoned for breaking tradition they face rape or worse

I'm sure we all know this quote

so our years of peacekeeping were for naught

I don't think either of us can answer this question, only the the future history(oxymoron?) books can.

the history books already show how others have failed time and again ..this will be no different

thank you for the link, I'll give it a listen.

that's all I ask ..it's not one sided as the minister of defense has his say

 

[pvtbones]

I dont see what's so wrong with that ..the US negotiated with the taliban/mujahideen several times ..even to go so far as to describe the mujahideen as "freedom fighters"

gotta love this headline




http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/EM44.cfm

so you see it's all relative ..heroes one day spawn of satan the next

as you said they negotiated, a few years later look what happened. do you think you could negotiate with them knowing what happened in the past? although I do agree it's all relative.

which traditionally is what we would have done ...back when we were peacekeepers

which puts soldiers under in even more harms way and more stress (meaning higher chance of Post Traumatic Stress Peacekeeping too passive for peace of mind, says psychiatrist The article doesn't load for me but I quote the article here if you want)

Ask any member of the Canadian forces what he is, a soldier or a peacekeeper. They are soldiers sent on Peacekeeping missions.

you mean former mujahideen/taliban/militants

civilians/expatraites/etc.

somalia needs us much more ..so does ethiopia, the congo and dozen other places a lot worse than afghanistan ..but since canada pulled it's troops to beef it's presence in afghanistan there's no help to be had

theres alot of places that need help. I'm not exactly sure what point your trying to make. are you saying we should spread our military throughout the world to various hotspots where they will be given overly restrictive ROEs with cloudy objectives and generally being forced to sit on their hands?

yes but this is the first time in my entire life that canadian troops are on the offensive ..we're peacekeepers not occupiers ..reprecussions for our involvement will surely reach our shores ..and for what? to cozy up to the americans?

This hasn't been the first time canadian troops have engaged in combat since WW2. Theres the world Korean war, Canadians who went south to fight in vietnam, The Battle of Medak Pocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medak_Pocket

it doesnt matter what I want, it matters what they want ..but they have no voice ..their voices are the warlords bank roled by the US

so these people are less entitled to the rights you and I share? your right though, what you and I want don't matter. It's making sure they have a voice so they can tell us what they want. If they tell us to gtfo or to stay (IE: referendum)

it will take generations ..how many soldiers will we have lost by then? how many terrorist attacks on coalition countries will have occured by then? there is no silver lining in afghanistan

Again predicting the future is useless unless your privy something generals and politicians aren't (if you are you should tell them, such information would be invaluable.)

I've been around long enough to see afghanistan go through 3 major upheavals ..and not one made the situation better

4th times the charm?

we're not peacekeepers in afghanistan ..we're part of the occupation under the banner of the Americans ..operation enduring freedom

What good would peacekeeping be if the taliban just blew up the school the moment after you built it? the UN doesn't have the will to use armed force to ensure the peace is kept.

well then, lets peacekeep instead of occupying ..there's whole whack of nations that could genuinely use our help

What happens when the two parties are interested in having Blue helmets (like in current day Sudan)?

regardless we will always been seen as occupiers

Maybe , I'm not in a position to say what will happen in the future.

we're already turing a blind eye ..opium is back up to pre-taliban days, women's rights havent advanced a single bit ..except instead of being beaten imprisoned for breaking tradition they face rape or worse

perhaps I didn't not make myself clear on the warlord section, yes we are turning our eyes are the moment, but there may be a point in the future where we do no have to (through whatever means).

so our years of peacekeeping were for naught

No they weren't, they showed the world we were proficient mediators in addition to being Proficient warriors. I am not suggesting we stop peacekeeping but I am suggesting we realize those years we damaged our military's abilities almost to the point of no return.

the history books already show how others have failed time and again ..this will be no different

the future is a difficult thing to predict. I see little point are asking me to provide an answer to question I cannot possibly answer without breaking the laws of physics.

that's all I ask ..it's not one sided as the minister of defense has his say

it never is it's all shades of grey.

 

[DaMaN]

I wanted to address a few points brought up:

Ask any member of the Canadian forces what he is, a soldier or a peacekeeper. They are soldiers sent on Peacekeeping missions.

Firstly, Canada is no longer a peace-keeper. On July 14, 2005, Gen Rick Hillier announced that Canadian troops deployed to Afghanistan will target “detestable murderers and scumbags”. He stated, “They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.” Gen Hillier also told media that the Canadian Military is “not the public service of Canada” and “not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.”

These racist and derogatory comments are fairly indicative of the fact that Canada is no longer peace-keeping. (People in Afghanistan are people. They are not "detestable murderers and scumbags" any more than you or I. They do not "detest our freedoms", nor do they "detest our society or liberties". Talk to any person you meet and ask them if they would like Basic Human Rights ( http://www.udhr.org/ ) and they will say yes. Period. Simple logic. People in Afghanistan want the same thing you or I do.)

It can also be seen on the Canadian Forces website:

Canada is in Afghanistan today to:

• defend our national interests;
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and
• help Afghanistan rebuild.

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Despite the fact that Canadians have "re-built" only a small fraction of Khandahar with the most expensive hotels and restauraunts, as well as a mall and a Tim Hortons, (of which almost none of the Afghani people can afford), the remaining points are quite accurate. Canada is there for it's own purposes, NOT for peace-keeping.


There also seems to be some sort of misconception that if troops withdraw the place will become infested with Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, who will mercilessly oppress the Afghani people. Yes, there probably will be some instability, but seeing as the Afghani people have been able to govern and hold themselves together for thousands of years, who are we to be "The Stabilizing Force"? Especially when it turns out that we are most assuredly the DE-Stabilizing force:

"Operation Enduring Freedom" began over four years ago.
Canada has deployed a total of 14,000 military personnel to Afghanistan since October 2001.
Between 25 and 60 thousand people may have died at occupation forces hands (exact number not known, as no body counts were ever taken)
Possibly the largest concentration of land mines on earth and other unexploded ordinance
Just a few facts about CURRENT Afghanistan:
Median Age: 17 years
78% unemployment rate
1 in 5 children die before Kindergarten
1 woman dies during a pregnancy every 30 seconds
50,000 Widows est. from a population of 1/300 women is a widow
Life expectancy has dropped 4.5 years (since the occupation) to just 42 years.
9% of girls outside Kabul attend school
Over 60% illiteracy
Indeed, Afghanistan, who was the first country to build a University, now has the "worst education system in the world" as rated by the UN.

Some of the past statistics of Afghanistan are listed here (2000 est): http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2001/10/sh0110.html and here: http://www.photius.com/wfb2000/countries/afghanistan/afghanistan_economy.html
And the present statistics are listed here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html
Compare:
Past // Present
Infant Mortality: 147/1,000 live births // 163.07/1,000 live births
Unemployment Rates: 8% // 40%
Life Expectancy: 45.88 years // 42.9 years
Birth Rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population // 47.02 births/1,000 population
Death Rate (excluding military conflict): 18.01 deaths/1,000 population // 20.75 deaths/1,000 population

I don't claim to be a prophet, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that further occupation is not going to make this any prettier.

Troops Out Now.

 

[pvtbones]

Firstly, Canada is no longer a peace-keeper. On July 14, 2005, Gen Rick Hillier announced that Canadian troops deployed to Afghanistan will target “detestable murderers and scumbags”. He stated, “They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.” Gen Hillier also told media that the Canadian Military is “not the public service of Canada” and “not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.”

These racist and derogatory comments are fairly indicative of the fact that Canada is no longer peace-keeping. (People in Afghanistan are people. They are not "detestable murderers and scumbags" any more than you or I. They do not "detest our freedoms", nor do they "detest our society or liberties". Talk to any person you meet and ask them if they would like Basic Human Rights ( http://www.udhr.org/ ) and they will say yes. Period. Simple logic. People in Afghanistan want the same thing you or I do.)

Funny I don't see where General Rick Hillier said afghan Civilians. lets look through it one more time:

On July 14, 2005, Gen Rick Hillier announced that Canadian troops deployed to Afghanistan will target“detestable murderers and scumbags”. He stated, “They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”

nope I don't see Afghan citizens in there, lets continue looking.

Gen Hillier also told media that the Canadian Military is “not the public service of Canada” and “not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.”

nope I don't see him saying anything about the afghan Civilians in this section. All I see him saying is that the Canadian forces are ment to defend Canada and it's interest.

Scumbags, murderers know no nationality.

Troops stay in Afghanistan.


(PS: You can't blame him for being blunt, he's from New Foundland )

*edit* decided to add some more and lose a little sleep.

It can be difficult to rebuild when people are shooting at you, blowing you/themselves up. I'd love to see you rebuild faster.

Also how many of the insurgents, militants, whatever you want to call them are actual resident Afghanis? why do the attacks lull in the winter and then intenstify more when spring comes and the snow in mountains along the pakistan/afghanistan boarder melt?

 

[ktimekiller]

the lines after lines after lines of quotes hurt my eyes.

 

[pvtbones]

your not the only one :x

 

[DaMaN]

the lines after lines after lines of quotes hurt my eyes.

Agreed. But it's a good way of referring to which points you are arguing. (Heh, psychological warfare!)

Funny I don't see where General Rick Hillier said afghan Civilians. lets look through it one more time:
nope I don't see Afghan citizens in there, lets continue looking.
nope I don't see him saying anything about the afghan Civilians in this section. All I see him saying is that the Canadian forces are ment to defend Canada and it's interest.

Hmm... funny, I don't see where you've taken into account the fact that over 25,000 Afghan civilians have died from occupation hands so far. (Please note this is the absolute minimum estimate, the fact that the military is not keeping track of the number of deaths is a clear indication that they do not think of them as people, but as "detestable murderers and scumbags"). Canada is not defending itself, Canada is not defending it's interests. Canada's government and ruling class are defending their interests.

It may be that they are killing some genuine Taliban, but after speaking to a Canadian Soldier previously stationed in Afghanistan, I found out there are two "criteria" for a suspect to be deemed "Taliban":
Either:
1. If the suspect has a pointed beard or
2. If the suspect has a weapon in his/her hands

1 is obviously a kook, I mean, walk down the road and count how many people have beards, and count how many are pointed, then go up to the pointed-beards and ask if they are a Taliban. Honestly, if that was the sole 'badge' of a Taliban they would tuck it under their clothes! It's preposterous!
2 is just as rediculous, as anyone could be wielding a weapon, especially if their family/friends/loved ones were just bombed by Canada! People have a right to defend themselves on their own land, and that is exactly what a large amount of these people are doing. Think about it: a foreign country comes into your land and starts shooting shells every-which-way. One in twenty of them speak your language, they conduct night raids of your villages, and murder your children. What are you going to do? Praise them for being there? Shower them with gifts and praise while you starve with nothing to eat or drink? No, you're going to fight back. Therefore, a large number of supposed "Taliban" are likely to be civilians who are pissed the hell off.

Scumbags, murderers know no nationality.

Indeed, just look at the government of Canada.

It can be difficult to rebuild when people are shooting at you, blowing you/themselves up. I'd love to see you rebuild faster.

It can be difficult to live when your schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, canals, women, children, men, and even culture are being targeted by Canadian or U.S. bombs.

Troops. Out. Now.

 

[pvtbones]

It's a shame the Insurgents don't keep a kill count either I'd love to see what theres is at.

as for not defending Canada or it's interest, I doubt you'll listen but I might aswell try. Your idea of interests and the governments idea of interests vary deeply thats fine not going to try and sway you either way but extremism is a thread to us all, not a terribly big one in canada yet but where theres seed there will eventually be a flower. Is Islam the problem in and of it'self? no it's the people that twist it and warp it to convince them that "the man" is out to get them and it's all his fault (usually "the man" is the US and not the local/national government which are often masters of diverting trouble away from themselves.)

for point #1:
You forget that beards hold a different social effect in Middle East Countries often more "traditional" beliefs installed by the Taliban government, Sharia Law (spelling?) are all Afghans with beards, of course not but subtle things like the way the act, dress, etc give off clue soldiers need to know if the individual may be suspect. Do you remember what happened what happened to Lt. Trevor Greene who was nearly beheaded by a axe attack? the women and children were removed from the room before the attack. the soldiers lost situational awareness and it nearly cost them a man. You can't trust anyone but your fellow soldiers when you leave the wire, no matter how much you may like them.
A article on the attack

for point #2:
would you not be wary of an individual with a gun that is in full public view? again soldiers need to have constant situational awareness that man with a gun can quickly turn into a combatant wouldn't you keep and eye on him?

also do you think Canadian soldiers just fire off shoots are random strangers with the intent to kill because of the above criteria? they wait until they have proof that they are a risk to them and their comrades.

for you remark about the government. thats your opinion and your entitled to it, it is not my place to try and change your view because that it is your right to hate them without fear of reprecussion.

 

[DaMaN]

It's a shame the Insurgents don't keep a kill count either I'd love to see what theres is at.

Are you referring to against Canadians or against other Afghans? Canadians it's around 32 killed, but that's our own count. Though I don't see why "insurgents" would keep a kill count, as they aren't an "official" organisation, they don't have "club meetings", and with little to no communication lines or other ways to communicate said kill count effectively. Besides, I don't really think that people who are having their country invaded and occupied are going to be worried about how many of their enemy they kill, as long as the enemy gets out.

as for not defending Canada or it's interest, I doubt you'll listen but I might aswell try. Your idea of interests and the governments idea of interests vary deeply thats fine not going to try and sway you either way but extremism is a thread to us all, not a terribly big one in canada yet but where theres seed there will eventually be a flower. Is Islam the problem in and of it'self? no it's the people that twist it and warp it to convince them that "the man" is out to get them and it's all his fault (usually "the man" is the US and not the local/national government which are often masters of diverting trouble away from themselves.)

Correct, my idea of interests and the governments idea of interests are very different. I didn't vote for them, and they most certainly don't represent me, nor do they a large amount of Canadians. (Is there a non-white / first nations / female / student / senator that is under the age of 50? Nope. No representation on any of those fronts.)

Also, you've hit todays buzz-word!! Extremism!

You win, an explanation!

(Sorry for being flippant)

Extremism is a term used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity. It is usually considered by those to whom it is applied to be a pejorative term. It is typically used in reference to political and social ideologies seen as irrational, counterproductive, unjustifiable, or otherwise unacceptable to a civil society. The term connotes the illegitimacy of certain ideas or methods.

The terms "extremism" or "extremist" are almost always exonymic —ie. applied by others rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves "extremist", those labeled as such tend to see the need for militant ideas or actions in a particular situation. For example, there is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist," and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "Extremism."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

Is it extremism to demand that you have a right to self-determination?

Is it extremism to fight against an invading and occupying army?

Is it extremism to want to walk through the streets without getting bombed?



The only reason these people are labeled "extremists" is because (as the definition goes), they are used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society. Currently, the percieved political center of our society as portrayed by the media states that: to want self-determination, to want foreign troops out of your country, to think that this imperialist war drive is wrong, and to demand justice for all people, is extremism.

While it may not be all the "man's" fault, and it may not be that the "man" is out to get the people of Islam, it's not too difficult to see that point of view. The "man" or U.S.'s/UK's/Canada's aggression is the cause of one hell of a lot of problems for people living in the Middle East. And it's not difficult to see that people are pissed about it.

for point #1:
You forget that beards hold a different social effect in Middle East Countries often more "traditional" beliefs installed by the Taliban government, Sharia Law (spelling?) are all Afghans with beards, of course not but subtle things like the way the act, dress, etc give off clue soldiers need to know if the individual may be suspect. Do you remember what happened what happened to Lt. Trevor Greene who was nearly beheaded by a axe attack? the women and children were removed from the room before the attack. the soldiers lost situational awareness and it nearly cost them a man. You can't trust anyone but your fellow soldiers when you leave the wire, no matter how much you may like them.
A article on the attack

If these "subtle things like the way they act, dress, etc" give off clues, the people doing the attacking certainly aren't going to match these clues. It's common sense. If, "traditionally", a member of the Taliban wears a red cloth on their arm (for example), and Canadian soldiers start killing people wearing red cloth on their arm, do you really think that the Taliban are going to continue with that fassion statment? It's guerilla tactics, people who are fighting against the occupation will blend in with civilians, both because it's the only way they can actually do any damage, and because a lot of civilians themselves are fighting against the occupation.

Plus, how are you supposed to identify a so-called "Taliban" (like the 300 killed last weekend) from the cockpit of the helicopter or fighter you are bombing them from?


And yes, I do remember what happened to Lt. Trevor Greene. The women and children were removed from the room before the attack. Hence, they knew what was coming. Hence, they supported trying to kill these people who were invading their land, by any means neccesarry.

As Schumuhn said:

"We were completely vulnerable to them, and they took complete advantage of that. There was a lot of people who knew what was about to happen."

Well, duh. Let's see, we have tanks, kevlar, helmets, guns, planes, bombs, rockets, more tanks, hum-vee's, APCs, satellite communications, more guns, warships, and a 24 billion dollar military budget.

And they have an axe.

So how do you think they're going to fight back?

for point #2:
would you not be wary of an individual with a gun that is in full public view? again soldiers need to have constant situational awareness that man with a gun can quickly turn into a combatant wouldn't you keep and eye on him?

Would you not be wary of a tank that rolls into your villiage in full public view one day after the hospital and school has been bombed and your son has been killed? Would you not be wary of soldiers occupying your town in full public view? If that was happening in your home town, would you not grab a gun?

also do you think Canadian soldiers just fire off shoots are random strangers with the intent to kill because of the above criteria? they wait until they have proof that they are a risk to them and their comrades.

No, I don't think Canadian soldiers just fire off shots randomly. I know they fire shots off randomly.

As I said before, how are you supposed to identify a so-called "Taliban" (like the 300 killed last weekend) from the cockpit of the helicopter or fighter you are bombing them from? You can't.
It's guerilla tactics, people who are fighting against the occupation will blend in with civilians, both because it's the only way they can actually do any damage, and because a lot of civilians themselves are fighting against the occupation.

The Taliban are not an official organisation. They don't have club cards. They don't have weekly meetings. They don't have banners. They don't have tatoos. Hence, there is no possible way to discriminate between a Taliban/insurgent/someone who wants revenge for the killing of his brother and a civilian.

So, if there's no way for Canadian soldiers to know who is a civilian and who is not, that makes the people Canada kills pretty damn random.


Just look at what happened just over a month ago, where a ten year old boy was shot and killed as he rode his motorcycle: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2967.aspx
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_troops_kill_boy_in_Afghanistan,_brace_for_backlash

for you remark about the government. thats your opinion and your entitled to it, it is not my place to try and change your view because that it is your right to hate them without fear of reprecussion.

Damn straight. Just as it's the Afghani people's right to defend themselves and their country from foreign intervention.

Democracy is not democracy if people can't have their opinion and try to make a difference.

---

However, while it is not your place to try and change my view because it is my right, it IS your place to discuss, and a very good discussion it has been so far :E

 

[Tr0n]

Make it end! MEIN EYES

 

[pvtbones]

Are you referring to against Canadians or against other Afghans? Canadians it's around 32 killed, but that's our own count. Though I don't see why "insurgents" would keep a kill count, as they aren't an "official" organisation, they don't have "club meetings", and with little to no communication lines or other ways to communicate said kill count effectively. Besides, I don't really think that people who are having their country invaded and occupied are going to be worried about how many of their enemy they kill, as long as the enemy gets out.

so because they are not an official government entity (aside from the fact the Taliban did indeed run afghanistan since round the end of the soviet invasion of afghanistan so they can be considered a government entity there-by official.) they are allowed to to blow parked cars, hide amongst crowds of people and then detonate themselves, etc while killing civilians and military forces without regard of the safety of the people their trying to liberate? really sounds like they care about their fellow man.

Correct, my idea of interests and the governments idea of interests are very different. I didn't vote for them, and they most certainly don't represent me, nor do they a large amount of Canadians. (Is there a non-white / first nations / female / student / senator that is under the age of 50? Nope. No representation on any of those fronts.)

Also, you've hit todays buzz-word!! Extremism!

You win, an explanation!

(Sorry for being flippant)


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

part 1:
Black Senators:
Anne Cools, First female Black Senator
Donald Oliver, First black Senator from Nova Scotia
Calvin Ruck, Black Senator (Died October 14, 2004)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=1&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M
Willie Adam, Senator of Nunavut
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=2794&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M
Micheal Fortier, he's 44.

*quick edit* Canada's Senator System is one for life basically. Mr. Harper is trying to implement a 8 year term system instead of the current one.

ok what word would you describe individuals who are willing to blow themselves up (often with civilians near-by). I would say they are a little extreme in their actions? wouldn't you?

Is it extremism to demand that you have a right to self-determination?

funny, considering the taliban imposed their view of things and laws on the people of afghanistan, many not being allowed to make decisions on their own (ie: women).

Is it extremism to fight against an invading and occupying army?

to blow your self up when civilians are nearby and will most likely be injuried or killed in the blast, yes thats pretty damn extreme.

Is it extremism to want to walk through the streets without getting bombed?

maybe you should talk to the suicide bombers and those who set IEDs...

The only reason these people are labeled "extremists" is because (as the definition goes), they are used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society. Currently, the percieved political center of our society as portrayed by the media states that: to want self-determination, to want foreign troops out of your country, to think that this imperialist war drive is wrong, and to demand justice for all people, is extremism.

I'd say they have earned the label extremist their tactics considered.(see previous points)

While it may not be all the "man's" fault, and it may not be that the "man" is out to get the people of Islam, it's not too difficult to see that point of view. The "man" or U.S.'s/UK's/Canada's aggression is the cause of one hell of a lot of problems for people living in the Middle East. And it's not difficult to see that people are pissed about it.

what about

If these "subtle things like the way they act, dress, etc" give off clues, the people doing the attacking certainly aren't going to match these clues. It's common sense. If, "traditionally", a member of the Taliban wears a red cloth on their arm (for example), and Canadian soldiers start killing people wearing red cloth on their arm, do you really think that the Taliban are going to continue with that fassion statment? It's guerilla tactics, people who are fighting against the occupation will blend in with civilians, both because it's the only way they can actually do any damage, and because a lot of civilians themselves are fighting against the occupation.

Plus, how are you supposed to identify a so-called "Taliban" (like the 300 killed last weekend) from the cockpit of the helicopter or fighter you are bombing them from?

Airsupport is called in by troops on the ground, they don't just circle around looking for groups of people to bomb. if the troops are calling it in theres a pretty damn good reason for it.

here's a rough outline of the process from calling for airsupport to it being delivered.

step 1: ground forces make contact with enemy
Step 2: ground forces engage enemy (they attack/are attacked)
Step 3: if there is sufficient risk to the troops (IE: to risky to enter the building to flush them out personally, are recieve heavy fire.) they will call in an airstrike with coordinates.
Step 4: Canadian radio man will recieve request, request will be sent to Canadian HQ liason officer (name escapes me at the moment). Canadian HQ Liason Officer will talk to the American (or other nationality depending) and request some birds in the sky at XY (since we have no CF-18s in Afghanistan) American (or other nationality) Liason Officer will verify there are planes avialible for said airstrike.(may be elsewhere or being prepped for a larger offensives, etc.)
Step 5: Planes/helicopters are put in the air.
Step 6: Planes verify permission to drop payload.
Step 7: Once premission is given, planes strike target.
Step 8: planes return home, several canadian soldiers lives are saved because they did not have to go into the building.

Hell, I'm sure I missed atleast 3 steps in there.

And yes, I do remember what happened to Lt. Trevor Greene. The women and children were removed from the room before the attack. Hence, they knew what was coming. Hence, they supported trying to kill these people who were invading their land, by any means neccesarry.

As Schumuhn said:

Well, duh. Let's see, we have tanks, kevlar, helmets, guns, planes, bombs, rockets, more tanks, hum-vee's, APCs, satellite communications, more guns, warships, and a 24 billion dollar military budget.

And they have an axe.

So how do you think they're going to fight back?

well they appear to be setting bombs on the sides of roads, suicide cars/vests primarily. They also seem to inflict alot more civillian deaths than military deaths. curious isn't it?

Only recently they seem to just more traditional methods to combat us (see: Operation Medusa) which is really quite dumb. As Major-General (Retired)Lewis Mackenzie said back when the 4 canadians died on the second day of Operation Medusa on a CTV interview. they are acting dumb, amassing in large numbers to combat us (note we have bombs, artilery. thats bad for them, good for us)

(Note: Canadians made sure civilians were informed of the coming Operation, dropping leaflets warning them it was coming and they should leave the area. most likely used speakers during fly-bys aswell.)

Would you not be wary of a tank that rolls into your villiage in full public view one day after the hospital and school has been bombed and your son has been killed? Would you not be wary of soldiers occupying your town in full public view? If that was happening in your home town, would you not grab a gun?

would you not be wary of so called liberators that hung a 70 year-old woman(click) and her 30 yr old son why hung by the taliban because they were suspected of being spies. They who hide in schools and attack military forces from them (not to mention hang teachers of those who teach girls.) You said earlier about self-determination, tell me what is blowing up schools and killing teachers leading to self-determination?

also please provide a link to said bombing of hospitals. I haven't heard anything about such actions (the media would be all over it.)

No, I don't think Canadian soldiers just fire off shots randomly. I know they fire shots off randomly.

shooting into the sky(or over their heads and I mean by a good margin) to disperse a crowd and targetting individuals are two different things, please clarify which you are talking about.

As I said before, how are you supposed to identify a so-called "Taliban" (like the 300 killed last weekend) from the cockpit of the helicopter or fighter you are bombing them from? You can't.
It's guerilla tactics, people who are fighting against the occupation will blend in with civilians, both because it's the only way they can actually do any damage, and because a lot of civilians themselves are fighting against the occupation.

First I'd like to see where your getting your numbers from in consideration to your claim about civilians fighting the occcupation. Second see my rough step by step guide to airstrikes. Third Blending in after you detonated a car bomb killing several civillians isn't fighting to liberate afghanistan, it's purely to kill.

The Taliban are not an official organisation. They don't have club cards. They don't have weekly meetings. They don't have banners. They don't have tatoos. Hence, there is no possible way to discriminate between a Taliban/insurgent/someone who wants revenge for the killing of his brother and a civilian.

They did run Afghanistan for a good while so they must have some sort of organization. They have a hierarchy. so they are infact an organization.

So, if there's no way for Canadian soldiers to know who is a civilian and who is not, that makes the people Canada kills pretty damn random.

Could you please clarify your point I'm not sure exactly what your saying. Are you saying Canadian soldiers are indiscriminately attacking individuals on sight? Some clarification would be nice


Just look at what happened just over a month ago, where a ten year old boy was shot and killed as he rode his motorcycle: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2967.aspx
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_troops_kill_boy_in_Afghanistan,_brace_for_backlash[/QUOTE]
The death of the child is a terrible thing, but unfortunately the blame lays on the driver who did not stop and passed a security checkpoint and ignored several warnings.

Damn straight. Just as it's the Afghani people's right to defend themselves and their country from foreign intervention.

Democracy is not democracy if people can't have their opinion and try to make a difference.

They can't have a democracy if those who seek to oppress them snuff it out before it can stand on it's own two feet. Also who is actually attacking the coalition? as I said in a previous post the attacks intensify when the snow in hte mountains along the pakistan-afghan boarder melts during the spring and the attacks dull when the snow blocks the mountain paths, would that not suggest that the insurgents are not infact from afghanistan but from other nations which then assemble at that boarder?

so if I am correct the afghan people are not defending themselves against the Coalition(I'm sure they are not exactly pleased with our presence) but it is infact another group imposing their views on the afghan people, and they do not wish for democracy to take form in afghanistan at all.

bleh too many words, brain go mush now.

 

[DaMaN]

so because they are not an official government entity (aside from the fact the Taliban did indeed run afghanistan since round the end of the soviet invasion of afghanistan so they can be considered a government entity there-by official.) they are allowed to to blow parked cars, hide amongst crowds of people and then detonate themselves, etc while killing civilians and military forces without regard of the safety of the people their trying to liberate? really sounds like they care about their fellow man.

When I say they are not an official organisation, I mean that when they recruit people, they don't give them badges or other kinds of identification. Hence making them indistinguishable from civilians. Hence Canada can't tell the difference between the two. Hence, when the media claims that over 200 Taliban have been killed, they really don't know whether or not all of them are Taliban.

Oh, and so because the government of Canada/US are "official" organisations they can go into other people's countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people?

I'm not saying the Taliban are all sugar and cookies. In fact, I disagree with a large part of their politics. Their treatment towards women and children is deplorable, and they have many other problems too. My point is, they are resisting the occupation of Afghanistan. And because they are a large force resisting the occupation of Afghanistan that is unpopular here in the west, anyone else who resists the occupation of Afghanistan is therefore classified as Taliban by the military, because it looks better for them than: "Oh, we killed 10 Taliban and 190 civilians-who-grabbed-a-gun-because-they-saw-tanks-and-soldiers-coming-into-their-town."

part 1:
Black Senators:
Anne Cools, First female Black Senator
Donald Oliver, First black Senator from Nova Scotia
Calvin Ruck, Black Senator (Died October 14, 2004)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=1&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M
Willie Adam, Senator of Nunavut
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=2794&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M
Micheal Fortier, he's 44.

*quick edit* Canada's Senator System is one for life basically. Mr. Harper is trying to implement a 8 year term system instead of the current one.

Hmm... so out of 105 possible senators, we have 4 representing minorities. (White Christian Males are not a minority, for anyone who thinks differently).

According to: http://www.indexmundi.com/canada/ethnic_groups.html , Canada's population is made up of British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

Equal representation my ass.

ok what word would you describe individuals who are willing to blow themselves up (often with civilians near-by). I would say they are a little extreme in their actions? wouldn't you?

Did you even read the definition?

Extremism is a term used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.

It is a characterisation, not a classification. It is only used as a buzz-word

Oh, and what word would you use to describe individuals who are willing to invade another country for no reason, invade it illegally, occupy that country and oppress its people, make living conditions hell for them, and blow up over 2,000 of those people in this year alone? And then wonder why some are picking up guns and fighting against them?

More than 2,000 people, most of them militants, along with scores of civilians and aid workers as well as hundreds of Afghan security personnel have been killed so far this year

Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._01_ISL68390_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE.xml

I would say they're fairly extreme in their actions, wouldn't you?

By the definition of extremism, the Afghan people have every right to characterise the Canadian government as extremists.

funny, considering the taliban imposed their view of things and laws on the people of afghanistan, many not being allowed to make decisions on their own (ie: women).

First: considering that the US over-ruled the first election because they didn't agree with the person elected, it certainly sems we don't allow them to make decisions either.

What does this have to do with self-determination? People in Afghanistan were free to take out the Taliban if enough momentum was gathered. Their human rights violations could be taken to the UN which (in theory, though not in fact) is made to deal with things like this. That may not have been a full solution, but it would have been (IMO) better than invading the damn country.

Living conditions under the Taliban were better than they are now. Hard to believe but it's true. (The facts are on the other post I made). The Taliban were certainly not the best leaders, and I'm not even claiming that they were good leaders.

I'm saying that it's illegal and immoral for a nation to go into another country and overthrow their government. It is the people's choice to overthrow their government. Not ours. That's self-determination.

to blow your self up when civilians are nearby and will most likely be injuried or killed in the blast, yes thats pretty damn extreme.

To invade another country for no reason and illegally, occupy that country and oppress its people, make living conditions hell for them, and blow up over 2,000 of those people in this year alone? And then wonder why some are picking up guns and fighting against them? Yea, that's pretty damn extreme.

I agree that blowing yourself up when civilians are nearby is extreme. However, I think that sending our children and young adults to go oppress and kill people in another country is a tad bit more extreme than that.

maybe you should talk to the suicide bombers and those who set IEDs...

Mabye you should talk to the generals who ordered the airstrikes to kill thousands of civilians...
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

I'd say they have earned the label extremist their tactics considered.(see previous points)

I'd say the Canadian/US governments have earned the label extremists, their tactics considered (see previous points). Though of course you really have to read the definition to realise that "extremism" is completely 100% relative.

Airsupport is called in by troops on the ground, they don't just circle around looking for groups of people to bomb. if the troops are calling it in theres a pretty damn good reason for it.

here's a rough outline of the process from calling for airsupport to it being delivered.

step 1: ground forces make contact with enemy
Step 2: ground forces engage enemy (they attack/are attacked)
Step 3: if there is sufficient risk to the troops (IE: to risky to enter the building to flush them out personally, are recieve heavy fire.) they will call in an airstrike with coordinates.
Step 4: Canadian radio man will recieve request, request will be sent to Canadian HQ liason officer (name escapes me at the moment). Canadian HQ Liason Officer will talk to the American (or other nationality depending) and request some birds in the sky at XY (since we have no CF-18s in Afghanistan) American (or other nationality) Liason Officer will verify there are planes avialible for said airstrike.(may be elsewhere or being prepped for a larger offensives, etc.)
Step 5: Planes/helicopters are put in the air.
Step 6: Planes verify permission to drop payload.
Step 7: Once premission is given, planes strike target.
Step 8: planes return home, several canadian soldiers lives are saved because they did not have to go into the building.

Hell, I'm sure I missed atleast 3 steps in there.

First, I've already made it quite clear that troops on the ground can no more distinguish civilians from Taliban than a pilot in a jet can.

Second, while it's not Canadian, it's the exact same principle: http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

well they appear to be setting bombs on the sides of roads, suicide cars/vests primarily. They also seem to inflict alot more civillian deaths than military deaths. curious isn't it?

The Canadian military in Afghanistan has killed tens of thousands of Afghani's (not even a fraction of them could possibly be Taliban) while suffering around 32 casualties of their own. They seem to inflict a lot more civilian deaths than military deaths. curious isn't it?

Only recently they seem to just more traditional methods to combat us (see: Operation Medusa) which is really quite dumb. As Major-General (Retired)Lewis Mackenzie said back when the 4 canadians died on the second day of Operation Medusa on a CTV interview. they are acting dumb, amassing in large numbers to combat us (note we have bombs, artilery. thats bad for them, good for us)

Perhaps these people fighting are not Taliban? Hmm... let's see... they don't fight like Taliban... they don't seem to have much experiance fighting...

Could it possibly be that these are not Taliban?

Could it possibly be that these are civilians, arming themselves in whatever haphazard way they possibly can in a desparate, vain attempt to strike back at foreign troops invading their town and villiage?

(Note: Canadians made sure civilians were informed of the coming Operation, dropping leaflets warning them it was coming and they should leave the area. most likely used speakers during fly-bys aswell.)

Hmm... were these leaflets coded so that only people who weren't Taliban could read them? Were these speakers attuned to only the frequencies of non-Taliban ears? Taliban are going to know that an operation is comming. If there were Taliban there, it seems likely that they would have planned ambush-like attacks. As you already pointed out, these were not the tactics used. As I've pointed out, it is possible that these people were civilians, arming themselves to try and defend their villiage.

Think about it:
You're a peasant, or a farmer, and you are going about your happy/sad/dismal life. You grow crops on what meagre fields you have, and you barter with the people of your small town. You live there all your life.
Now suddenly, leaflets start falling from the sky saying "Leave your town or we'll kill you". Would you leave the town you've known all your life? Would you leave your crops to be burned or blown up by bombs, only to face at least a month without food? I guarentee you those soldiers ain't bringing any.

would you not be wary of so called liberators that hung a 70 year-old woman(click) and her 30 yr old son why hung by the taliban because they were suspected of being spies. They who hide in schools and attack military forces from them (not to mention hang teachers of those who teach girls.) You said earlier about self-determination, tell me what is blowing up schools and killing teachers leading to self-determination?

Would you not be wary of a so-called "free and democratic" nation that arrests 17 young men on allegations of terrorism alone? Slandering their names as terrorists across the front of every newspaper for five days, then declaring a media blackout on the "trial"? Found Guilty before proven Innocent.
https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/antiwar-van/2006-June/001212.html

They hide in offices and cabinets, sending young men and women around the world to get blown up in some foreign country.

If you want to know about self-determination, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

also please provide a link to said bombing of hospitals. I haven't heard anything about such actions (the media would be all over it.)

Gladly:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/570/in4.htm
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/civiDeaths.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/bomb-o23.shtml
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...m.cn/english/200110/23/eng20011023_82941.html

shooting into the sky(or over their heads and I mean by a good margin) to disperse a crowd and targetting individuals are two different things, please clarify which you are talking about.

If it hasn't been clarified already, I am talking about targetting individuals. Canadian soldiers target people with pointy beards, or people with guns. Since they are in a country occupying it illegally, killing men women and children, targeting on these principles seems fairly random to me.

First I'd like to see where your getting your numbers from in consideration to your claim about civilians fighting the occcupation. Second see my rough step by step guide to airstrikes. Third Blending in after you detonated a car bomb killing several civillians isn't fighting to liberate afghanistan, it's purely to kill.

First, civilians are being targeted:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110011997?open&of=ENG-351
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1002-01.htm
Hence, if civilians are being targeted, they are going to be the ones fighting back.

Second, see my response to your step-by-step guide to airstrikes.

Third, yes, it is to kill, but can be fighting to liberate; many of those car-bombs are targeted at foreign troops in their country.

They did run Afghanistan for a good while so they must have some sort of organization. They have a hierarchy. so they are infact an organization.

An organization they may be, but my point was that they have no identifying marks. See above.

Could you please clarify your point I'm not sure exactly what your saying. Are you saying Canadian soldiers are indiscriminately attacking individuals on sight? Some clarification would be nice

Yup.
What I'm saying is:
1. Canadian soldiers cannot identify Taliban by sight in a crowd
2. Hence, Canadian soldiers cannot tell the difference between a Taliban soldier and a civilian
3. Canadian soldiers are killing lots of so-called "Taliban"
4. Hence, since they can't tell the difference between Taliban and civilians, it makes their targeting strategy random.
5. Hence, Canadian soldiers (essentially) fire randomly

Just look at what happened just over a month ago, where a ten year old boy was shot and killed as he rode his motorcycle: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2967.aspx
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_troops_kill_boy_in_Afghanistan,_brace_for_backlash

The death of the child is a terrible thing, but unfortunately the blame lays on the driver who did not stop and passed a security checkpoint and ignored several warnings.

So there's no blame on the military imposing a checkpoint illegally in another country?

(Continued on next post, this one was apparently too long... )

 

[DaMaN]

They can't have a democracy if those who seek to oppress them snuff it out before it can stand on it's own two feet. Also who is actually attacking the coalition? as I said in a previous post the attacks intensify when the snow in hte mountains along the pakistan-afghan boarder melts during the spring and the attacks dull when the snow blocks the mountain paths, would that not suggest that the insurgents are not infact from afghanistan but from other nations which then assemble at that boarder?

They can't have a democracy with over 35,000 foreign troops in their country now can they? Would you like to go to the polls with soldiers from another country who don't speak your language standing around it? And they seemed fairly well on their own two feet until the U.S. decided that it wanted to topple the government (despite the fact that the Taliban had been in place for a good period of time before then, which pretty much debunks the theory that we went in their because of them).

I don't really buy the pakistan thing: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL72538.htm

so if I am correct the afghan people are not defending themselves against the Coalition(I'm sure they are not exactly pleased with our presence) but it is infact another group imposing their views on the afghan people, and they do not wish for democracy to take form in afghanistan at all.

I personally don't think you are correct that the afghan people are not defending themselves. Are you going to sit idly by while foreign troops occupy your land and bomb your women and children?

but it is infact another group imposing their views on the afghan people, and they do not wish for democracy to take form in afghanistan at all.

It certainly seems to me that we are imposing our views on the afghan people by invading their country, overthrowing their government, and putting in place "democracy".

---

What I am saying is that the Afghani people have a right to defend themselves in Afghanistan, and Canada is attacking them.

Conditions are much worse now after 5 years of occupation.

And Canada is no longer a peace-keeper.

bleh too many words, brain go mush now.

Ditto. :bounce:

 

[MjM]

I think it's good NATO, i.e Europe and Canada, are standing up and doing some dirty work. Because i think Europe and the like need to stand up and be heard over the US. It's unfortunate Canadians were killed, and it is unfortunate that Afghani's have been killed, but i think NATO has to make a mark to show they CAN project power, offer a realistic alternative to the US, so European views on the world can more seriously be considered along with those of the United States.

I think the west can offer Afghanistan allot, and it will take soldiers and probably fighting. I dont know about justification, but we are there, and i dont think this will change in the short-term, we may as well try to make the most of it in the least hypocritical fashion possible, by measuring OUR conduct in Afghanistan by the same standards we measure our own or any other western country. I think NATO is in a better moral position than the US, that may not last but its a hope none-the-less.

 

[MjM]

It's not all death and destruction

Why is New Zealand maintaining a presence in Afghanistan?

New Zealand’s deployments in Afghanistan reflect our support for stability and
reconstruction there – and recognition that a failure to stabilise Afghanistan would
have consequences for the global campaign against terrorism. These commitments
are in accordance with a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, and our support
for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The Taliban and elements sympathetic to Al Qaeda continue to provide resistance to
the Afghan authorities and the multinational force, particularly in the south and south
east of Afghanistan and along the border with Pakistan. At the same time, the
competing interests of the warlords (and lack of disarmament) in the northern and
western provinces, as well as the growing influence of opium production and trade,
continue to impede the establishment of strong central government and longer term
nation building objectives.
It is important, particularly at this critical juncture of Afghanistan’s progression
towards a fully representative government (parliamentary and provincial elections are
scheduled for April 2005), that the international community maintain its involvement.
New Zealand is helping the Afghan Transitional Authority to extend its influence
beyond Kabul by promoting stability through the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Page 2

Bamyan Province. New Zealand is also supporting security sector reform (including
the development of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan Police Force) as well
as the role of the United Nations in Afghanistan and the International Security
Assistance Force.

I think there is good being done in Afghanistan as well.

 

[CptStern]

occupying a country isnt the "good thing to do" ..we can sit here and pontificate how it's "good" for afghanistan but we dont live there ..american imperialism isnt affecting us

 

[Kangy]

Ugh, I hate Politics. You're either one way or another here it seems.

The Taleban deserved to be ousted. They were a barbaric government that killed women for the pettiest things and destroyed the rights of civilians. I think anyone who says a government that banned any kind of television media access in order to remain in power was "fairly well". If you'd ignore the plight of those people, well, you obviously don't truly believe in the form of noble society you're supposedly trying to benefit with your constant harping to remove troops from Afghanistan.

Secondly, Afghanistan needs the troops. The US ran one of the shittest, least effective invasions yet. Bin Laden escaped and the Taleban still hold two southern provinces. With those as a base of power, do you really think they won't try and recapture the rest? And even if they can't immediately, do you not think they won't fight a disruptive civil war? Tell me, do you think the NATO security force will kill more civilians than civil war will?

Finally, what the ****? You're making accusations of your own troops killing women and children and being threatening at voting booths without any kind of base. That's complete slander.

 

[DaMaN]

The Taleban deserved to be ousted. They were a barbaric government that killed women for the pettiest things and destroyed the rights of civilians. I think anyone who says a government that banned any kind of television media access in order to remain in power was "fairly well". If you'd ignore the plight of those people, well, you obviously don't truly believe in the form of noble society you're supposedly trying to benefit with your constant harping to remove troops from Afghanistan.

I agree, the Taliban probably deserved to be ousted. However, since the Taliban were in power for years before the US invaded, it is clear to me that the US did not invade to throw out the Taliban merely because they were bad rulers.

The officially-stated purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish the Taliban government in Afghanistan which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda.

The U.S. didn't even demand that Taliban step down when they sent their list of demands off:

+ deliver Al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States
+ release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens [6]
+ protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan
+ close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities".
+ give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure

Those demands, by the way, are completely rediculous, i mean, "Hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to approrpriate authorities". This statement implies that Afghanistan cannot deal with its own problems, and that every person in Afghanistan along with their support structure are not in appropriate authorities at the moment, and that they should be handed over to the U.S. Essentially, the US was demanding Afghanistan itself.

Secondly, Afghanistan needs the troops. The US ran one of the shittest, least effective invasions yet. Bin Laden escaped and the Taleban still hold two southern provinces. With those as a base of power, do you really think they won't try and recapture the rest? And even if they can't immediately, do you not think they won't fight a disruptive civil war? Tell me, do you think the NATO security force will kill more civilians than civil war will?

Afghanistan does not need the troops. It is plain to see that occupation has only worsened the lives of people in Afghanistan:

"Operation Enduring Freedom" began over four years ago.
Canada has deployed a total of 14,000 military personnel to Afghanistan since October 2001.
Between 25 and 60 thousand people may have died at occupation forces hands (exact number not known, as no body counts were ever taken)
Possibly the largest concentration of land mines on earth and other unexploded ordinance
Just a few facts about CURRENT Afghanistan:
Median Age: 17 years
78% unemployment rate
1 in 5 children die before Kindergarten
1 woman dies during a pregnancy every 30 seconds
50,000 Widows est. from a population of 1/300 women is a widow
Life expectancy has dropped 4.5 years (since the occupation) to just 42 years.
9% of girls outside Kabul attend school
Over 60% illiteracy
Indeed, Afghanistan, who was the first country to build a University, now has the "worst education system in the world" as rated by the UN.
Some of the past statistics of Afghanistan are listed here (2000 est): http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2001/10/sh0110.html and here: http://www.photius.com/wfb2000/count...n_economy.html
And the present statistics are listed here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/af.html
Compare:
Past // Present
Infant Mortality: 147/1,000 live births // 163.07/1,000 live births
Unemployment Rates: 8% // 40%
Life Expectancy: 45.88 years // 42.9 years
Birth Rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population // 47.02 births/1,000 population
Death Rate (excluding military conflict): 18.01 deaths/1,000 population // 20.75 deaths/1,000 population

And of course they're going to try and re-capture the rest of their land!! Same as other Afghani civilians will try to recapture their stolen land!

I don't pretend to know what will happen when troops withdraw, but I know that it was wrong/illegal to go in there in the first place, and I know that for the most part they aren't doing any good in there. The Afghan people have been able to govern themselves for over 4,000 years. I don't think they need us to do it for them.

Finally, what the ****? You're making accusations of your own troops killing women and children and being threatening at voting booths without any kind of base. That's complete slander.

It's not slander when it's true.

Look at what happened just over a month ago, where a ten year old boy was shot and killed as he rode his motorcycle: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2967.aspx
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian...e_for_backlash

Other references to civilian targeting in Afghanistan:
http://www.orwelltoday.com/afghanstories.shtml
http://www.orwelltoday.com/waterafghanistan.shtml - Selling Afghani water when lots of Afghanis are dying from thirst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan
http://www.swans.com/library/art7/gowans11.html
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm
In addition, I have already explained that since Canadian soldiers cannot tell the difference between Taliban and civilians, the reported deaths of hundreds of Taliban could too easily include civilians.


And please tell me how soldiers stationed at poll booths are NOT threatening.