babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Canadians killed while assuring Afghans about safety

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadians killed while assuring Afghans about safety
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 September 2006 09:39 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OTTAWA - Four Canadian soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan on Monday while trying to reassure the locals that it was safe to return to their homes, the head of the NATO coalition in the region said.

Source

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 September 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They need to complete an unfinished people's revolution, from Saudi Arabia to Haiti to Canada!

Viva la revolucion!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13136

posted 18 September 2006 10:50 AM      Profile for Tiff     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is only more cannon fodder for both sides of the debate today when the government sits in the House of Commons for the fall session.

Those opposing the war can point to the incident and claim it is not safe even after those and previous deaths. Those supporting the war can simply point to the efforts of the Canadian and NATO forces trying to give gifts of education, peace, love and respect until a homicide bomber put an end to that.


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 18 September 2006 11:00 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They were killed by a Taleban suicide bomber on a bicycle.
So how is it determined that the individual was Taleban. It's not like they all wear uniforms and since he died in the atack its not like they have been able to interrogate him.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 18 September 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those opposing the war can point to the incident and claim it is not safe even after those and previous deaths.

or even less safe ^^ Err... Or would the deaths have even occoured had we not been pushing this stupid agression.


quote:
Those supporting the war can simply point to the efforts of the Canadian and NATO forces trying to give gifts of education, peace, love and respect until a homicide bomber put an end to that.

You know, I find it quite interesting that you can sum up this by saying the attacker was a 'homicidal bomber'. Do you think it's simply homocide or a will to end life that drives people to blow themselves up in the name of their values? Could we possibly think theres a reason why they would be willing to blow themselves up to deter a forieng invader? Naw, tis much easier to justify killing them if we keep thinking they're a bunch of homicidal maniacs without rhyme or reason but to kill for the fun of it.

Though, I'd like to see you give credit to a third possibility... Redefining the mission perhaps? The kill it all or run completely reactions seem to be forcing out a rethink and adapt policy doesn't it?

quote:
So how is it determined that the individual was Taleban.

It's why theres so many more Taleban suddenly. Prior we had only defined a few hundred, mebbe a couple thousand fighters as Taliban. Now we define anything we kill as Taliban, which has seemingly increased their numbers atleast 10 fold. When the entire victory condition that exists is 'Kill all enemys', you'll never achieve victory you'll simply find more enemies.

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 18 September 2006 11:34 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those opposing the war can point to the incident and claim it is not safe even after those and previous deaths.

Of course, anyone that suggests that warring is in any sense of the word "safe" for the individuals involved would be laughed off the stage.

quote:
Those supporting the war can simply point to the efforts of the Canadian and NATO forces trying to give gifts of education, peace, love and respect until a homicide bomber put an end to that.

Whether the weapon of choice by either faction is a bomb or a gun, those that support war are, invariably, far more interested in power and control that any aspects of human rights or human dignity.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 September 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, there is good news for Haliburton which is up .76 cents on the share price.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 September 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So how is it determined that the individual was Taleban. It's not like they all wear uniforms and since he died in the atack its not like they have been able to interrogate him.

They can't, really, although it's a fairly safe assumption that somebody with bomb-making experience wired the kid up to explode. The problem, of course, is that this kid probably looked identitical to any number of kids riding their bikes in any given village of southern Afghanistan. Those young bike-riding Afghans , regardless of whether or not they are wired with explosives, could easily become the targets of Canadian rifles. Kinda like rickshaw driving family men in and around Kabul.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 18 September 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a nasty situation, that's fer sure.

I hate like hell having our troops in harm's way, but at the same time, I support the mission; as long as the majority of Afgans, and their democratically elected gov't, do.


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 September 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
as long as the majority of Afgans, and their democratically elected gov't, do.

And you know they do how? Because the majority Pashtun population has been renamed "Taliban" and they are all terrorists and therefore don't count? Or have you done independent polling?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 September 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I support the mission; as long as the majority of Afgans, and their democratically elected gov't, do.

Of course, we have no idea what the majority of Afghans support. But even so, I will not let Afghans decide what Canadians ought to do.

Our actual interests are no longer being served by the occupation of Afghanistan. That's why we should leave, even if some Afghans want us to do their fighting for them.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 18 September 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Of course, we have no idea what the majority of Afghans support. But even so, I will not let Afghans decide what Canadians ought to do.

Our actual interests are no longer being served by the occupation of Afghanistan. That's why we should leave, even if some Afghans want us to do their fighting for them.


Despite the fact that we've committed to be there until 2010(?) ?

When is it okay to help people who ask for it? Once one has died? A hundred? Thousands?


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 September 2006 02:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Absolutely right! What was Benito to do when dear old Adolph asked for his aid, let him down?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 18 September 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
When is it okay to help people who ask for it? Once one has died? A hundred? Thousands?

But this assumes that our presence is helping instead of making things worse. Many Afghanis are now saying this isn't the case. It's nice to want to help, but if we can't then we should stop pretending to, and getting our soldiers killed in the bargain, just so we can slap our backs and talk about our generous natures.

I've gone back and forth on Afghanistan for a long time, but I've finally reached the point where I believe that our involvement is doing nothing more than giving our politicans "war cred" on the international stage. Nobody should be dying for that.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SUPERSNAKE:

When is it okay to help people who ask for it?

Talking about Generalissimo Karzai?

When they stop supporting the warlords and druglords, and gain enough support of the population to take power and keep it without outside assistance (sort of the way governments come to power in real countries). Then they can ask for foreign aid, reconstruction, whatever, and we can say, "of course".

If you "help" the bastards one minute before that, don't be surprised when the unappreciative population thinks you're one of them and pedals a bike in your direction.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 September 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Absolutely right! What was Benito to do when dear old Adolph asked for his aid, let him down?

Benito would have done well had there not been a war. He opened up Italy like never before, especially in the south. My neighbor has a portrait of the old dictator in the vestibule of his home. Mussolini, like Fidel, looked to the west first for support.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So how is it determined that the individual was Taleban. It's not like they all wear uniforms and since he died in the atack its not like they have been able to interrogate him.

A Taliban spokesperson has now taken credit for the attack, as well as others:

Afghan suicide attacks kill 17

quote:
Suicide bombers have struck in three different parts of Afghanistan, killing at least 17 people, officials say.

The first bomb targeted Nato troops in Kandahar province. Four Canadian troops were killed and about 25 civilians - many of them children - injured.

Later in the capital, Kabul, a man in a car blew himself up as policemen approached, killing three.

In Herat, in western Afghanistan, a third bomber on a motorcycle killed at least 10 people and injured 18. [...]

The Taleban said it carried out the attack. A spokesman, Qari Mohammad Yousuf, said the bomber was a young Afghan from Kandahar and promised more attacks.


Four Canadian soldiers were killed, and 27 people injured. I found it curious that no bystanders were apparently killed. Either they're tougher than the Canadians, or that half-wit Gen. Fraser is a shitty liar when he calls the Taliban "cowardly" for attacking children. Or maybe both.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 20 September 2006 12:27 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Today in the House of Commons, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor accused the Opposition Liberals of not having prepared Canadians for the dangers of the current Afghan mission:
quote:
Mr. Speaker, the previous government put us in Kandahar and committed us to the Kandahar area. It knew what we were going into and yet it held back and did not tell the public what we were going into. We are now faced with combat operations in Kandahar and those people put us in that place.
In fact, it was the Liberal government which took the decision to send troops to Kandahar, where we are now, according to Stephen Harper, engaged in a war:
quote:
"The fact remains we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. We have been for some time but today we are on the front lines of that war," Harper said in an interview with CBC Radio One's The House, to be broadcast today.
Indeed, we have been at war "for some time," perhaps even for a long as three and half months, dating back even as far as May 31, 2006, when Canadians were being told we were not at war in Afghanistan by, well, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, apparently doing his best (unlike those irresponsible Liberals) to prepare Canadians for what lay ahead:
quote:
OTTAWA -- Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday.

"The military has to conduct a range of activities,'' he said under questioning from MPs.

"I don't consider this war.''


At the end of May, there was no war.

Now, in September, it turns out there has been a war for some time.

Is it any wonder, having been and continuing to be misled by their politicians, that fewer and fewer Canadians are supporting the government's policy in Afghanistan?

quote:
Fewer adults in Canada believe their country should be directly involved in the war on terrorism, according to a poll by Ekos Research Associates published in the Toronto Star. 38 per cent of respondents support the military participation in Afghanistan, down 24 points since December 2001.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.



From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 08:36 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

It's worth pointing out that the USA contemptuously rejected the request of the Afghan regime for proof. The USA simply started bombing, and so on. As General Myers put it at the time, "There is no limit to our bombing campaign." Not civilian casualties, not humanitarian considerations, nothing. But it was not only the Taliban who were killed.

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 20 September 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, not only the Taliban.

I haven't seen a recent number, but Marc Herold did a study of the first two months of bombing and estimated that 3,700 Afghan civilians were killed during the initial attacks to overthrow the Taliban.

BBC Link.

That was more than four years ago.

As I say, I haven't seen a recent study, but the number would doubtless be higher today, as civilians do continue to perish in NATO/US operations, despite precautions:

quote:

PANJWAI DISTRICT, AFGHANISTAN -- At least 14 civilians have died in bombings of suspected Taliban compounds as part of the Canadian-led offensive against insurgents in the notorious district of Panjwai, according to local officials and villagers.

The military has touted the extra precautions that went into the month-long planning of Operation Medusa, which was designed to avoid such incidents. Strategists even sacrificed the element of surprise, warning people to leave the district in the days before the foreign troops advanced.


Anyone else seen any recent estimates of overall Afghan civilian casualities?

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those numbers are hard to come by for a variety of reasons:

* NGOs have been driven out of Afghanistan by the presence of NATO troops. The troops put civilians at risk by disguising themselves as NGO staff, for example, blurring the lines between combatants and non-combatants, etc. This means that there are fewer independent observers that can be trusted to verify facts independently;

* areas where there is combat is cut off from the press by the NATO troops;

* the Taliban and locals themselves drag bodies away, making casualty counts more difficult;

* NATO is doing exactly the same thing that the Israelis did in Lebanon; dropping leaflets prior to bombing runs, etc., and justifying the treatment of all subsequent casualties as "Taliban";

and so on.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca