Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

[Karlin]

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 shit 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]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

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]

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?
:cwm10: :confused1: :confused2:

 

[Jersay]

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]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

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

 

[Mogz]

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

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]

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/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060523.wxafghan23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

 

[BitWhys]

good cop/bad cap

brilliant :roll:

 

[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.


.

 

[Jersay]

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

 

[BitWhys]

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 bullshit. 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:

 

[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.

 

[sanch]

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]

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]

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]

this is bullshit. 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

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

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


.

 

[Jersay]

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]

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 fucking say it instead of talking around it. (too late, btw. modus tollens)

 

[sanch]

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]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

his is bullshit. 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.