Airstrikes kill dozens at wedding: Afghan villagers

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don't feel that persecuted. If I did I wouldn't drop by. But if you want to paint us all that way I will surely play the role of that arrogant American just to give back what I am getting.

A lot of people are going to die air strikes Smack. I understand your defence of country and institutions, as you know many men all through the ages defended whatever they had to for the nation, the tribe, the women and the children. You must know the sentiments of those victims of airstrikes and the resolve they build in your enemies, and America now has manifold more enemies then when the war on terror was declared, I think you cannot prevail against the world. No despotic power ever will.:-|
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Good countries don't bomb 3rd world wedding parties killing dozens of women and children.

That is just a fact. Evil monstrous countries do that.

When was the last time the US bombed one of their own wedding parties? Or bombed an American school and claimed the children were being used as human shields?

Condemning the slaughter of innocence isn't hate - nice try.

Why don't you learn how to read arsewipe? I wasn't condoning the the bombing of these people but **** like this does happen in war unfortunately.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Obviously you are clueless and can't think on your own so i'll type it slowly so you can understand... it was one of those so-called 'preachy republicans' that got the yankee military there in the first place.

And, no, I'm not all those things you listed, only a Canadian with a brain, not like you, following the yanks blindly...

Risus, save your sermons for someone else.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
We hit ANOTHER wedding! We always seem to strike Afghan weddings. :roll:

The first order of business for Obama should be to lay off airstrikes on Afghan weddings because we seem to hit an awful lot of them.

Its cause you Americans and you`re leaders are all cowards.

First order of business, if Obama has any guts, is to bring the current war criminals in office to trial.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Why don't you learn how to read arsewipe? I wasn't condoning the the bombing of these people but **** like this does happen in war unfortunately.

Does the whole universe revolve around you or only when you're off your meds?

Idiot :roll:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Its cause you Americans and you`re leaders are all cowards.

First order of business, if Obama has any guts, is to bring the current war criminals in office to trial.
He's the mouthpiece of those same criminals, he'll pardon them and imprison more innocents and he'll widen and intensify the warfare, that's what his mandate is.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Its cause you Americans and you`re leaders are all cowards.

First order of business, if Obama has any guts, is to bring the current war criminals in office to trial.

Oh give me a breaK!

I keep saying it........

Want to stop useless deaths from airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Commit thousands more troops, prepare to take much heavier casualties.....and heavily restrict air strikes......


Or I suppose we could withdraw, let the Taliban take it back, give the Islamofascists a great victory, and wait around with oour thumbs stuck up our arse until they re-organize and start setting off more and bigger IEDs.....in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax.....

Yep. we're high on the list for vengence......
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Maybe it's a plot by the Americans to stop weddings in Afghanistan because it leads to procreation, which in turn leads to more Taliban. Just throwing ideas out there....

So the old British Empire tactic eh? Prevent the population from breeding and you have less to deal with later on..... or breed them out as they attempted to do in the past by allowing dukes and such to have first go at the bride after marriage, before the husband..... smooth.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
And what is standing by and watching it called? (Rwanda ring any bells?)

Honestly, if you're going to continually attempt to bring up Rwanda all the damn time, we can always take a random grab at many of the atrocities you guys pulled in Vietnam, or Iraq, or in Afghanistan currently, or many of the other conflicts you guys have been involved in and held very little to no control over your troops' behavior..... one incident for Canada you keep bringing up..... compared to how many by the US?

It honestly doesn't matter how many one country has over another or not..... what matters is what is currently happening to people today and if nobody brings attention to it, it will just continue on without interuption. It could be Canadians bringing this up, or it could be the British who have scores more in their history then the US & Canada combined.... that is still not an excuse to keep doing it so you're at par.

The current problem is:

• We're supposed to be there to "Liberate and protect Afghans"
• US/NATO forces are killing afghans
• The majority of the afghans killed are at the hands of US airstrikes more then any other allied force or tactic.
• It is in all of our best interests to reduce/prevent these deaths.
• What do you do about it?
• If nothing is or can be done about it..... what do we as Canadians and our forces do?
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Oh give me a breaK!

I keep saying it........

Want to stop useless deaths from airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Commit thousands more troops, prepare to take much heavier casualties.....and heavily restrict air strikes......


Or I suppose we could withdraw, let the Taliban take it back, give the Islamofascists a great victory, and wait around with oour thumbs stuck up our arse until they re-organize and start setting off more and bigger IEDs.....in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax.....

Yep. we're high on the list for vengence......

Sounds good to me.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Its cause you Americans and you`re leaders are all cowards.

First order of business, if Obama has any guts, is to bring the current war criminals in office to trial.

Yeah yeah yeah. And you calling people cowards safely behind a monitor is very brave. This is a stupid comment and I won't brand all Canadians cowards...but you are one for sure. I bet your the type to give someone the finger as you are driving down the highway doing 60MPH.

Why will he bring Bush to trial? Obama is going to continue the war.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Honestly, if you're going to continually attempt to bring up Rwanda all the damn time, we can always take a random grab at many of the atrocities you guys pulled in Vietnam, or Iraq, or in Afghanistan currently, or many of the other conflicts you guys have been involved in and held very little to no control over your troops' behavior..... one incident for Canada you keep bringing up..... compared to how many by the US?

Are you saying that these things are not brought up often in these forums? Real or made up?

It honestly doesn't matter how many one country has over another or not..... what matters is what is currently happening to people today and if nobody brings attention to it, it will just continue on without interuption. It could be Canadians bringing this up, or it could be the British who have scores more in their history then the US & Canada combined.... that is still not an excuse to keep doing it so you're at par.

I agree. I do not like the idea that innocent folks get killed and most Americans don't like it either. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The current problem is:

• We're supposed to be there to "Liberate and protect Afghans"
• US/NATO forces are killing afghans
• The majority of the afghans killed are at the hands of US airstrikes more then any other allied force or tactic.
• It is in all of our best interests to reduce/prevent these deaths.
• What do you do about it?
• If nothing is or can be done about it..... what do we as Canadians and our forces do?

I would imagine that most are killed from airstrikes via the US because we are the only ones with combat aircraft. It is absolutely in everyones favor to keep civillian casulaties down but civillians have always suffered in war zones. It sucks but that is what happens.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Since Eagle wants to talk about Rwanda let's do that.

Let's talk about what went on and the punishment for it on our military.....didn't we disband an entire portion of our army over that?

Then let's look at every horrible incident the U.S. military has committed and the hand slaps they got for it.

We take it seriously Eagle while you lot look for ways to cover it up and give secret handshakes and passes to those that committed these atrocities.

Accidents happen, I admit that, but over and over and over again with seemingly little care or regret is what is disturbing on your part.

Then to top it off you're all surprised that people want to fly planes into your buildings.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I agree. I do not like the idea that innocent folks get killed and most Americans don't like it either. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The Afghan people are about the poorest on earth compared to the US who have the most money to throw around.

I would imagine that most are killed from airstrikes via the US because we are the only ones with combat aircraft. It is absolutely in everyones favor to keep civillian casulaties down but civillians have always suffered in war zones. It sucks but that is what happens.
Even any NATO aircraft are under US command. There is quite a difference if these are 'mistakes' or 'fully authorised', I think I would believe that latter is more true.

Would this summarize the situation?
"This dossier makes six major points. First, the U.S. bombing upon Afghanistan has been a low bombing intensity, high civilian casualty campaign [in both absolute terms and relative to other U.S. air campaigns]. Secondly, this has happened notwithstanding the far greater accuracy of the weapons because of U.S. military planners decisions to employ powerful weapons in populated regions and to bomb what are dubious military targets. Thirdly, the U.S. mainstream corporate media has been derelict in its non-reporting of civilian casualties when ample evidence existed from foreign places that the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan was creating such casualties in large numbers. Fourthly, the decision by U.S. military planners to execute such a bombing campaign reveals and reflects the differential values they place upon Afghan and American lives. Fifth, this report counters the dangerous notion that the United States can henceforth wage a war and only kill enemy combatants. Sixth, the U.S. bombing campaign has targeted numerous civilian facilities and the heavy use of cluster bombs, will have a lasting legacy born by one of the poorest, most desperate peoples of our world. In sum, though not intended to be, the U.S. bombing campaign which began on the evening of October 7th, has been a war upon the people, the homes, the farms and the villages of Afghanistan, as well as upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

That is not to say the Taliban have not killed as many civilians.
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes (Human Rights Watch, 8-9-2008)

Negotiations between the Afghan leaders and the Taliban could become a reality, with the right concessions from both sides.
US willing to hold talks with Taliban, says report -DAWN - Top Stories; October 29, 2008
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Related Update:

U.S. military investigating 2nd case of Afghan civilian deaths this week
U.S. military investigating 2nd case of Afghan civilian deaths this week

The U.S. military is investigating civilian deaths in Afghanistan for the second time this week following Thursday air strikes that may have left seven non-combatants and 13 insurgents dead.

The casualties occurred after a convoy of Afghan and coalition troops came under fire during an ambush in the Ghormach district of Badghis province in the northern part of the country, said Col. Greg Julian, the public affairs officer for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The troops then returned fire and called in air support, and as a result there "may have been civilian casualties."

"If we find that innocent people were killed in this incident, we apologize and express our sincere condolences to the families and the people of Afghanistan," Julian said.

Two women and two children were among the seven civilians killed in the attack, said Badhgis deputy governor Abdul Ghani Saburi.

The attack Thursday comes just a day after Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a plea to U.S. president-elect Barack Obama urging him to prevent undue loss of Afghan civilian life during U.S. military operations.

Monday air strike allegedly kills dozens

On Monday a coalition air strike in the Shah Wali Kot district in Kandahar province killed at least 23 children and 10 women who were attending a wedding, according to villagers.

Villager Abdul Jalil, a 37-year-old grape farmer whose niece was getting married, told an Associated Press reporter at the scene of the bombing that U.S. troops and Taliban fighters had been fighting less than a kilometre from his home.

Fighter aircraft destroyed his compound and killed 37 people, Jalil said. Karzai's office said the attack killed about 40 people and wounded 28.

Those deaths are being investigated by the U.S. military and the Afghanistan government.
In response, the U.S. military said in a Thursday statement that "several" insurgents were killed after an attack on a coalition patrol moving through the Shah Wali Kot region of Kandahar province between Monday and Wednesday.

Several civilians were attempting to flee the area at the time of the attack, said the U.S. statement, but the insurgents prevented them from leaving.

While the military did not say where they received this information, they quoted the Kandahar police chief as saying several civilians were wounded as they were trying to leave the area where the fighting took place.

The U.S. did not explicitly take responsibility for the alleged civilian deaths.

Between January and August, over two thirds of the 577 civilians killed by U.S.-led forces or the Afghan army have been killed in air strikes, the UN estimates.

Over the same period in the previous year, 477 civilians were killed by pro-government forces, according to the UN.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Oh give me a breaK!

I keep saying it........

Want to stop useless deaths from airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Commit thousands more troops, prepare to take much heavier casualties.....and heavily restrict air strikes......


Or I suppose we could withdraw, let the Taliban take it back, give the Islamofascists a great victory, and wait around with oour thumbs stuck up our arse until they re-organize and start setting off more and bigger IEDs.....in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax.....

Yep. we're high on the list for vengence......


Vengence against whatT
There was never a problem with Canada and Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

"Or I suppose we could withdraw, let the Taliban take it back, give the Islamofascists a great victory, and wait around with oour thumbs stuck up our arse until they re-organize and start setting off more and bigger IEDs.....in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax....."
.....or a little cove in NFLD!! lol

"Commit thousands more troops, prepare to take much heavier casualties.....and heavily restrict air strikes......"
....were talkin cowards in the 1`st degree here man, Bush and Co.