Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

Karlin

#1May 22nd, 2006

Canada's forces apparently didn't take part in the operation where bombs were dropped in civilians areas of Khandahar. I am not sure if that makes me feel less guilty or not... Canada is still supporting and active in that war, so it is spilled blood of civilians that is partly on our hands.

The use of heavy bombing from on high on buildings where Taliban suspects may have been hiding is chicken **** war anyhow. They only do that so ground troops won't have to go and face the suspects and risk getting some resistance, getting shot at, bombed perhaps, killed.

There would be deaths of the troops if we did it on foot, but instead someone CHOSE to bomb the hell out of housing and kill civilians instead. I wonder if our PM Harper had anything to do with that decision, or if he protested it?

These are not civilians that are harbouring terrorists, they had NO CHOICE. Taliban comes running into your home with guns drawn, what can the civilians do about it? nada.These are the civilians that we are there to protect while the Taliban gets ousted from Afghistan. Its not helping to kill the civilians too.

The Taliban are cowards and irresponsible for hiding away in houses and mosques, but the USA is matching that cowardice by using bombs instead of troops to get Taliban out of civilians areas.

I wonder if Canada was not involved because we were demanding that ground troops be used, so as a protest to the USA led bombing, we didn't get involved at all.

Now, if thats true, it should be on the news, and then I would be proud of our forces actions.

On a final note, this war in Afghanistan will be a quagmire just like Iraq. Canada's involvement will bring disgrace and hostility to our nation that was neike by er heard of before. This is one more cost of electing a conservative government, especially one with a nose up the butt of BushCo.

US bombing kills 50 Afghani civilians
http://tinyurl.com/kgqy7

Mogz

Conservative

RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 22nd, 2006

cli·chéd also cliched Audio pronunciation of "cliched" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-shd)
adj.

1. Having become stale or commonplace through overuse; hackneyed
2. Repeated regularly without thought or originality

Johnny Utah

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 22nd, 2006

Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens
The Title of the Thread is misleading! There is no Afghan Occupation! It shows how bias you are..
US bombing kills 50 Afghani civilians
This is the Original Title of the Article, if you can't stick with the original title of the article why bother posting it?

Jersay

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 22nd, 2006

However, you don't get to the point of the civilians being killed by U.S bombs.

Now I am glad the Taliban militants were killed, however, too many civilians were killed in this operation. Collateral damage happens but other means could have been done to capture or kill these militants without so many civilian deaths which will turn some people against America.

darkbeaver

Republican

RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 22nd, 2006

We should cut and run before we do any more murder.

Mogz

Conservative

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 22nd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

We should cut and run before we do any more murder.

Funny the article says point blank that Canadians were no where near the village when this happened. No, I think we'll stay for a while, if only to piss you off because it's funny. Task Force Kandahar 02 is gear up for the fall, we aren't going anywhere so better get used to it.

sanch

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

These types of attacks are cowardly and complicate the entire mission in Afghanistan. If the Taliban seek refuge in a village leave them there. If they stay ask the villagers to leave and send in ground troops during the day.

This is the same kind of terror tactics the Soviets engaged in.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ghanistan/home

BitWhys

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

good cop/bad cap

brilliant

Claudius

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

We see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.

However...

One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.

What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.

I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.

.

Jersay

#10

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

It's just sad that so many civilians were killed because of cowardly Taliban action but the bombing of the Americans as well.

BitWhys

#11

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Claudius

We see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.

However...

One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.

What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.

I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.

.

this is bull****. if coalition forces can't surround and contain the occupants of some village in the sticks they have no fricking business being there.

"sorry about your son ma'am. it was cost efficient. oh by the way, I'm Canadian, gotta love me."

Jersay

#12

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

BitWhys that is harsh. If we had ground forces surround the village and engage in combat hand to hand we would have a dozen or more caskets in Canada. I don't like the killing of civilians anymore than you but a Canadian life is not any less than a Taliban militant.

sanch

#13

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

BitWhys that is harsh. If we had ground forces surround the village and engage in combat hand to hand we would have a dozen or more caskets in Canada. I don't like the killing of civilians anymore than you but a Canadian life is not any less than a Taliban militant.

This is not the reason they take out villages. It is a message not to provide refuge. They do know when they fire missles at villages that innocent lives will be taken.

Jersay

#14

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Funny thing is, when an armed man comes into your house, and that is what occurs, and no one is there to protect you, what are you going to do. Say

"Get the hell out before I call the foreigners?"

They did not harbour the Taliban, the Taliban ran into the homes, appeared to take them hostage or who knows what and America bombed the hell out of all of them.

sanch

#15

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Funny thing is, when an armed man comes into your house, and that is what occurs, and no one is there to protect you, what are you going to do. Say

"Get the hell out before I call the foreigners?"

They did not harbour the Taliban, the Taliban ran into the homes, appeared to take them hostage or who knows what and America bombed the hell out of all of them.

That is what happened in this case. Generally what makes the insurgents so hard to locate and contain is that they are hard to seperate out from the rest of the population. Do you know what the terrain is like around Kandahar? In order for the Taliban to escape detection they need the support of villages. So these bombings are a message not to provide support.

Claudius

#16

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote:

this is bull****. if coalition forces can't surround and contain the occupants of some village in the sticks they have no fricking business being there.

"sorry about your son ma'am. it was cost efficient. oh by the way, I'm Canadian, gotta love me." Evil or Very Mad

Bull****? No it's quite accurate. You attempt to simplify the situation.

Dollar for dollar the airstrike was likely to have been more expensive.

.

Jersay

#17

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote:

That is what happened in this case. Generally what makes the insurgents so hard to locate and contain is that they are hard to seperate out from the rest of the population. Do you know what the terrain is like around Kandahar? In order for the Taliban to escape detection they need the support of villages. So these bombings are a message not to provide support.

I don't think having armed men barging into your house supporting them.

And supposedly it has resulted in a major backlash against Foreign Troops of all kinds and is extremely dangerous because it might provide the Taliban with recruits so that it can survive.

BitWhys

#18

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

BitWhys that is harsh. If we had ground forces surround the village and engage in combat hand to hand we would have a dozen or more caskets in Canada. I don't like the killing of civilians anymore than you but a Canadian life is not any less than a Taliban militant.

they were already engaged in combat. the "intelligence" involved chasing their tails all the way to the village and getting shot at from the roof.

but you probably already knew that, didn't you?

if you think an Afghani civilian's life is less than a Canadian soldier's just ****ing say it instead of talking around it. (too late, btw. modus tollens)

sanch

#19

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

I don't think having armed men barging into your house supporting them.

And supposedly it has resulted in a major backlash against Foreign Troops of all kinds and is extremely dangerous because it might provide the Taliban with recruits so that it can survive.

This case was an exception and you had Taliban seeking refuge. Generally they are well integrated into the population in the areas they operate. This is true for al Queda in the tribal lands as well.

This is not the first time a village has been bombed.

I am not saying that bombing villages even if support is suspected is tolerable. It's not as they are still civilians. It's a very stupid way to try and gain the acceptance from Afghans.

Mogz

Conservative

#20

RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 23rd, 2006

Quote:

his is bull****. if coalition forces can't surround and contain the occupants of some village in the sticks they have no fricking business being there.

Says a civilian. You clearly have no idea how hard it is to send a combat group out in to the middle of no where, support them, supply them, and keep them safe. If you did, you'd not make such a crass comment as this. What were you expecting? That a company or two of PPCLI bombed up, head out for a few hours drive in to the desert, attempt to surround a village, and pray they don't get ambushed? To anyone in the military, your claim is utterly devoid of intellectual thought, and that's not me being rude, that's me being serious. I suggest in the future bitwhys, you leave the soldiering to soldiers and stick to some aspect of posting that you can offer informed opinions on. Just putting that out there.

P.S. In 2005, I did a road move with my call sign and five (5) others to Khowst from Kabul. In all it was about 60 soldeirs in G-wagons and LAV IIIs. That road move was planned for several days, close air support was always on hand, and we didn't stop for anything along the route. This was in the North, where it is a hell of a lot safer than in the South. The amount of planning for a simple road move in the North would pale in comparisson to the planning for a combat engagement aimed at bottling up enemy forces in the South.

Johnny Utah

#21

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Claudius
We see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.

However...

One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.

What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.

I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.

.
this is bull****. if coalition forces can't surround and contain the occupants of some village in the sticks they have no fricking business being there.

"sorry about your son ma'am. it was cost efficient. oh by the way, I'm Canadian, gotta love me."

Monday Morning Quarterbacking..

Claudius

#22

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote:

P.S. In 2005, I did a road move with my call sign and five (5) others to Khowst from Kabul. In all it was about 60 soldeirs in G-wagons and LAV IIIs. That road move was planned for several days, close air support was always on hand, and we didn't stop for anything along the route. This was in the North, where it is a hell of a lot safer than in the South. The amount of planning for a simple road move in the North would pale in comparisson to the planning for a combat engagement aimed at bottling up enemy forces in the South.

The devil is in the details. Especially if you're unaware of them.

"All that was once beneath you speaks to you now"

.

BitWhys

#23

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by ClaudiusWe see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.
However...
One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.
What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.
I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.
Quote has been trimmed

Sunday Night Goofball

Johnny Utah

#24

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny UtahQuote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by ClaudiusWe see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.However...One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.Quote has been trimmedSunday Night Goofball
Quote has been trimmed

Childish comments are all you have..

BitWhys

#25

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

Quote: his is bull****. if coalition forces can't surround and contain the occupants of some village in the sticks they have no fricking business being there. Says a civilian. You clearly have no idea how hard it is to send a combat group out in to the middle of no where, support them, supply them, and keep them safe. If you did, you'd not make such a crass comment as this. What were you expecting? That a company or two of PPCLI bombed up, head out for a few hours drive in to the desert, attempt to surround a village, and pray they don't get ambushed? To anyone in the military, your claim is utterly devoid of intellectual thought, and that's not me being rude, that's me being serious. I suggest in the future bitwhys, you leave the soldiering to soldiers and stick to some aspect of posting that you can offer informed opinions on. Just putting that out there.
P.S. In 2005, I did a road move with my call sign and five (5) others to Khowst from Kabul. In all it was about 60 soldeirs in G-wagons and LAV IIIs. That road move was planned for several days, close air support was always on hand, and we didn't stop for anything along the route. This was in the North, where it is a hell of a lot safer than in the South. The amount of planning for a simple road move in the North would pale in comparisson to the planning for a combat engagement aimed at bottling...
Quote has been trimmed

yeah

****

whatever

you guys wanted a fight you got a fight

you guys gotta blow up innocents go ahead

don't expect me to cheer and don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

not any more.

BitWhys

#26

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by Johnny UtahQuote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by ClaudiusWe see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.However...One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.Quote has been trimmedSunday Night GoofballQuote has been trimmedChildish comments are all you have to bring to the Table..
Quote has been trimmed

childish repetion from under the table.

Johnny Utah

#27

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny UtahQuote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by Johnny UtahQuote: Originally Posted by BitWhysQuote: Originally Posted by ClaudiusWe see the news story and the natural human reaction is disgust and concern for the civilian. I understand that.However...One needs to widen their perspective than the simple details of the story. One has to look at the trail of events that would lead up to the order to attack. Intelligence (apparently correct) is received that Taliban combatants are assembling in a village very close to Qandahar (they are not usually found in these numbers). As Taliban are always on the move timing is essential, there is no telling how long they will be there. You could co-ordinate a specific battle plan and assemble your troops, ride/fly out there, diembark, ingress slowly, surround the village, hopefully gain surprise and attack.What would be 'best-case-scenario' outcome of this plan? Probably the same, including the dead civilians, except we would probably have 2-20 casualties ourselves.I don't mention this to convince anyone of anything one way or another, just pointing out the alternative to the airstrike.Quote has been trimmedSunday Night GoofballQuote has been trimmedChildish comments are all you have to bring to the Table.. Quote has been trimmedchildish...
Quote has been trimmed

Keep attacking me with you're childish irrelevant comments because you lose..

Claudius

#28

Re: Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

May 23rd, 2006

Quote:

you guys wanted a fight you got a fight

you guys gotta blow up innocents go ahead

don't expect me to cheer and don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

not any more.

I don't think anyone expects you to cheer death. I don't see anyone cheering.

I do expect people to calmly, without rhetoric or anger consider the entire scope of events rather than simplify every situation like this into a nice convenient: "people shouldn't die....and anyone who thinks different should be ashamed"

If you are unwilling to examine and consider the details then you're hardly using critical thought are you? In fact if emotion is your only justification....if self-righteous rhetoric is the basis of your platform….if the attempt to monopolize 'concern for human life' in an arrogant attempt to claim unquestionable righteousness....if the only significant contribution you can add is "this sucks"...if “you guys suck and I’m taking my ball and going home” is the result of being forced to succumb to the fact that you probably don’t ‘know better’ than the people in positions of responsibility regarding these situations, well then what can anyone say?

If that's the case no one can help you and you will never find yourself in a position of serious responsibility and that's probably for the best.

"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds."
--Buddha

BitWhys

#29

RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 24th, 2006

The case here is there are people on this board that are trying to justify killing civilians. When the Taliban do that its called "terrorism".

I can live without your kind of help.

mabudon

#30

RE: Afghan occupation - C

May 24th, 2006

Yes, a cost-benefit analysis of dead innocents to "suspected/confirmed taliban/insurgents" death tolls is pretty barbaric, I think that is the point here, a LOT of folks are enlightened to the point where this kind of thinking appears shockingly barbaric (cue the "you don't live in the real world" music for the next copy/paste with YOU ARE A DUMMY featured as thesis statement)

As has been stated already, if we don't have the resources to do it the most humane, "constructive" (which is why we're there, supposedly, to make stuff- must be in a phase closer to 2012 or something once all the indiginous folks have been killed so as to not have anywhere to "blend in") way, then we have NO place being there- if there IS a way to do things without bloodshed, the cost shouldn't be the reason why it becomes the road not taken, and the blood of who knows how many innocents is pretty much MY hands as a taxpayer and I , for one, am disgusted/ashamed

Similar Threads

Afghan president says U.S. forces killed 16 civilians
by Francis2004 | Jan 25th, 2009

US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
by Praxius | Jul 11th, 2008

Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids: residents
by JBeee | Aug 9th, 2007

U.S. confirms civilians killed in Afghan raid
by Vanni Fucci | Jul 4th, 2005