There is that 'unfortunate' word again, this time being used to describe circumstances whereby 20 millimetre depleted uranium gatling gun projectiles, being fired from warplanes, rip through mud brick houses, into the bodies of defensless children who are huddled in fear of the murderous onslaught.

[ 25 May 2006: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But surely they'll appreciate the reconstruction teams all the more?

---

“whereby 20 millimetre depleted uranium gatling gun projectiles, being fired from warplanes, rip through mud brick houses, into the bodies of defensless children who are huddled in fear of the murderous onslaught.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Slumberjack

“whereby 20 millimetre depleted uranium gatling gun projectiles, being fired from warplanes, rip through mud brick houses, into the bodies of defensless children who are huddled in fear of the murderous onslaught.”

Where in the story you linked does it mention your quote from above?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Slumberjack

“whereby 20 millimetre depleted uranium gatling gun projectiles, being fired from warplanes, rip through mud brick houses, into the bodies of defensless children who are huddled in fear of the murderous onslaught.”

Where in the story you linked does it mention your quote from above?

---

Sorry for the delay, but here is a source on the use of A-10s in the raid:

quote:

---

Collins said coalition troops had come under attack from militants and had retaliated. "We had the right to open fire... The enemy chose to occupy those houses," he said.

"We did not bomb them, we used precision fire." He said he was referring to 30mm shells fired by 4,000-round-a-minute Gatling guns mounted on us a-10 thunderbolt aircraft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Another description puts the calibre at 30mm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

The calibre I spoke of in my post was in fact wrong. It is 30 mm as opposed to 20 mm. An example of literary licence run amuck. Regret the mistake on that. Thanks.

---

So your quote below is not based in fact but creative fiction.
Sorry to be such a party pooper but it is difficult enough to glean facts from the official propaganda.

quote:

---

There is that 'unfortunate' word again, this time being used to describe circumstances whereby 20 millimetre depleted uranium gatling gun projectiles, being fired from warplanes, rip through mud brick houses, into the bodies of defensless children who are huddled in fear of the murderous onslaught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
[QB][/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
otter

The village was not attacked by Canadian Forces operating in Kandahar province. It was attacked by American Forces operating in Kandahar province.

---

quote:

---

Webgear: The village was not attacked by Canadian Forces operating in Kandahar province. It was attacked by American Forces operating in Kandahar province.

---

That's what "coalition" spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy stated:

quote:

---

Canadian soldiers were not involved in the latest offensive.

"No, definitely not," Lundy told the Canadian Press. "They would have been back in their compound."

The Canadians had been in the area just hours before the attack, Lundy added.

"They were there earlier that day doing other things."

---

"Canadians were not involved."

Yup. Doing "other things". What those "other things" are - well, I don't suppose we're going to find out anytime soon, are we?

Oh, BUT WAIT! There's more. Let's have a look at what the NY Times has to say. The NY Times doesn't have to massage their news for Canadian readers.

quote:

---

Fighting that began last Wednesday has been raging in the Panjwai district, about 15 miles west of the city of Kandahar. In Sunday night's operation, coalition forces, led by Canadian troops on the ground and supported by American planes, mounted their second operation in a week against a large Taliban presence in and near Panjwai, a military statement said.

---

"...led by Canadian troops on the ground."

First there is the "confusion" between NGO staff and military staff. The result of that is that Doctors Without Borders, among others, are now long gone. Then there is the "confusion" between US troops and Canadian troops. The US audience has been better prepared to "accept" Afghani civilian casualties. Canadians need to be "eased" into that sort of understanding. And of course, there is the ongoing confusion about the true purpose of the mission; is it to "help" the Afghanis or is it straight-up counter-insurgency?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Pretty much all of it, except for the 30mm vice 30mm cannon fire, is accurate, and supported by evidence. Women and children were killed, American A-10 Warthog were used against a populated village. Although it is simply impossible to imagine or convey what must have been the sheer terror of innocent civilians as the US "heros" strafed their village from above with penetrating rounds, huddling in their mud brick houses would perhaps best describe their actions prior to those rounds crashing through their roofs and into their bodies. Can you refute any of this with your own 'facts.'

---

I don't take issue with your opinion,merely that your conclusion is not supported by that article.

quote:

---

"But Canadian troops were not involved because Canada does not have any bombardment capability in Afghanistan."

---

For one thing, Canada does have a kind of bombardment capability in Afghanistan: M777 Howitzers capable of firing satellite-guided 155mm shells from 10-30km away. It was this kind of fire Nichola Goddard was directing when she was killed last week.

Furthermore, in that same engagement, Col. Ian Hope called in a satellite-guided JDAM airstrike on an insurgent position. The aircraft dropping the JDAM 500-lb bomb was American, but the order came from a Canadian. Effectively, that seems to count as a 'Canadian bombardment capability.'

I'm not challenging Harper's claim that Canadians didn't call in the strikes on this more recent occasion, and I'm not saying the earlier engagement in which Goddard died killed civilians.

Panjwai district is a very large district, it is at least 100km by 100km in size.

It is possible that Canadian Forces where never in the same area of the attack.

The district is part of the Canadian Area of Operations, so if there were Canadians in the area of the village to could be for a number of reasons such supply convoys driving through the town, the PRT visiting the village, or just a normal patrol going through the village.

It is possible that either the Canadian or American officer was confused about the events of the day. The American officer was reporting from Kabul and not Kandahar.

Maybe the CBC reporter was lazy and did not bother to check the facts.

There are still large number of NGOs groups and personnel in Kandahar, in April there was at least 1000 NGOs operating in Kandahar province. My co-worker attends weekly meetings with all the NGOs operating in Kandahar province.

Panjwai District Map

“I am saying that Harper's claim and argument run contrary to fact and logic. I hope he doesn't try that argument in the future, in the unfortunate event some Canadian-directed M77 or JDAM strike results in civilian casualties.”

That is the problem with some politicians and even some military types is that sometimes they just do not understand what they are talking about nor do they understand all the facts before they speak.

quote:

---

sgm: Harper seems to have muddied the waters ... in giving his reasons for not calling a Canadian probe into the attack that killed these civilians ... I am saying that Harper's claim and argument run contrary to fact and logic. I hope he doesn't try that argument in the future, in the unfortunate event some Canadian-directed M77 or JDAM strike results in civilian casualties.

---

It may be contrary to fact and logic but public opinion in Canada is mighty different from public opinion in the USA. And maybe that, and not the facts, is what is guiding the actions of PM Harper. Don't forget the only thing he really gives a shit about is a majority government so he can implement his full neocon agenda and not his current piecemeal "stealth" approach.

So Canada can be the good cop - especially if there are Afghan civilian casualties. And the USA can be the bad cop - and take the blame for actions that the Canadians public would not stomach - regardless of who is making the decisions.

Edited to add: It's not that hard to muddy the waters with a lot of remarks that "errors will be made", "it is possible" this and "it is possible" that, so-and-so "was confused" and other reasonable-sounding phrases. A lot of people just get weary of having to wade through it all and leave such matters of state to "their betters".

[ 25 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Liberal democracy is a sham the world over.

quote:

---

"The ultimate cause of why civilians were injured and killed is because the Taliban knowingly, willfully chose to occupy homes of these people. We do everything we can to prevent killing civilians," he told reporters in Kabul.

---

quote:

---

The ultimate cause of why civilians were injured and killed is because the Taliban knowingly, willfully chose to occupy homes of these people.

---

Bullshit. The cause is because the US decided to shoot, knowing that there were civilians there but deciding that the presence of combattants made it legal.

The claims of attempts to minimize harm to civilians are lies: the US's bottom line is isn't "who else will get killed" but "are there legal combattants present".

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

"...led by Canadian troops on the ground." It's all so confusing. Golly gee whiz.

---

They're all part of the same coalition - a unified force under unified (U.S.) command, each nation interchangeable with another.

The presence of Taliban insurgents in the homes was not a direct threat to Afghan/coalition forces and the village could have been contained rather than bombed.

It would be interesting to find out what troops were directing the ground support aircraft, I suppose it will be known in the inquiry that will be held by than Afghanis.

“If they were Canadian troops as the times article states, then they would in my mind be complicit in war crimes.”

I am not sure if this is a war crime at this time. There are not a lot of facts being presented; there are many missing factors that have not been reported or not known. Was the Forward Air Controller wrong with the targeting mission, was the pilot able to tell which building were the correct targets, were the civilians targeted on purpose, where the ROE and Geneva Conventions broken?

I say proposed because the schedule for the ISAF takeover from OEF is "events driven".That means no firm takeover date but a future takeover when certain goals have been accomplished.

quote:

---

"Taliban insurgent forces who take shelter in a civilian area knowing that it's going to draw hostile fire are violating international law," said Sam Zarifi, head of New York-based Human Rights Watch's Asia division.

---

quote:

---

“None of this is true. In 1989, at the end of the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy and civil war. An epidemic of banditry and rape ensued. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, who lost an eye in the anti-Soviet jihad, armed a group of 'talibs' (religious students), and set about defending women from rape. Aided by Pakistan, Taliban stopped the epidemic of rape and drug dealing that had engulfed Afghanistan, and imposed order based on harsh tribal and Sharia religious law.”

The Taliban stopped the production of opium and heroin — except in the area controlled by the Northern Alliance: the thugs, drug pushers and rapists who are now Canada's “allies.” The Taliban were hardly humanitarian and imposed an extremely harsh Sharia regime on the country. But with them gone, the epidemic of rape has returned and our “allies” are responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of the world's heroin.

It is important also to revisit the original relationship between the U.S. and the Taliban and the U.S. invasion. The U.S. poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Margolis, about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with U.S. oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan.

It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the U.S. (The plot was hatched in Germany.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timwest:
Maybe we should give the Taliban back to the
Afgan. people. Women treated like dogs, little girls can't go to school or have any other rights !!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
While you won't find a lot of Taliban fans on this board Timwest, sometimes a rare reality check can at least add a bit of perspective.

---

Then quit complaning about the USA, Canada and
other countries that are trying to help.

It will take 10 to 20 years to turn around a sad
country like Afgan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timwest:
Then quit complaning about the USA, Canada and other countries that are trying to help.
It will take 10 to 20 years to turn around a sad
country like Afgan. Lend them your support and make things work !!

---

I have never heard any good solutions to Afgan.
just complaining from the lefties of the world ?

Your only reason for being here is to bait leftists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I agree. Mr. West is being shown the door now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Could Canadians be indicted for complicity in possible war crimes instigated by the US?

---

Why no. Since when is building schools, organizing bowling leagues, and spreading Christmas cheer in Kandahar a war crime? What are you getting at, jester?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timwest:
I have never heard any good solutions to Afgan. just complaining from the lefties of the world ?

---

I think the American's said the same thing about being in Vietnam - that they were there to help those people.

On Wednesday, President Karzai summoned the commander of the coalition forces, Lt Gen Karl Eikenberry, for a meeting over the incident.

quote:

---

Just like the U.S. troops in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, the coalition is trying to prop up a corrupt and unpopular government. Local governments are dominated by so many warlords and gangsters that many Afghans express nostalgia for the Taliban regime of 1996 to 2001, which at least was not perceived as corrupt and immoral.

"The Afghan population is throwing up its hands," a veteran aid worker in Kandahar said. "The disorder today is coming from the government itself. Its mandate was to clean out the warlords, but instead it's engaged in an endless dance with them. Everyone says that the Taliban regime, if nothing else, at least stopped the corruption and created law and order."

Another aid worker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the government is rapidly losing support as the Taliban move closer to the cities. "The Taliban are travelling openly in convoys, coming into the towns and sitting with the people at night, trying to influence them," he said. "The people are taking a passive role now, but in six months, if this situation continues, they could support the opposition."

Most aid agencies have withdrawn from southern Afghanistan, and foreign aid workers are unofficially barred from most villages -- not just for their personal safety, but also because they would draw Taliban reprisals to the villages.

---

quote:

---

The Taliban numbers, meanwhile, seem almost inexhaustible. During the past two years, casualties on both sides have steadily risen. In the first three weeks of this month, the coalition said that 420 Taliban fighters were killed, injured or captured in southern Afghanistan. Yet the Taliban have continued to escalate their attacks. Their numbers are clearly much greater than the coalition expected.

............................

The Canadian mission is not yet doomed, but it cannot hope to succeed without more reinforcements, a long-term commitment to the country, and a new strategy to "drain the swamp" in the Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan.

---

The numbers of "Taliban" might guestimated by knowing the number of young male students (Talib) in radical madrases. Add to that the disaffected young male Muslim populace in every country in the world (remember John Walker) and you get some idea of the numbers of fighters the coalition will face.

Liberals divided on Afghan mission” It’s not unusual to hear Liberals talk about something they know nothing about. It’s becoming even more common to be subject to their changing of history to try and make themselves look good.

Canada’s main wars over the last 100 years, and the Prime Ministers who sent the troops.

• Boer War: Sir Wilfred Laurier (Liberal)

• World War I: Sir Robert Borden (Conservative)

• World War II: R.B. Bennett (Liberal)

• Korea: Louis St. Laurent (Liberal)

• Kosovo: Jean Chretien (Liberal)

• Afghanistan: Paul Martin (Liberal)

Voters know where the NDP & the Con's stand
come election time.

The mandate and locale (from Kabul to Kandahar) shifted under Martin.

The recent vote in the house was on whether or not the yet barely begun deployment should arbitrarily and with no talk of assessment, be extended to 2009.

Liberals voted roughly 75% against.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
The mandate and locale (from Kabul to Kandahar) shifted under Martin.

The recent vote in the house was on whether or not the yet barely begun deployment should arbitrarily and with no talk of assessment, be extended to 2009.

---

The only difference is that at least two of the dead in Kandahar have been from direct fire and not from mines/IEDs.

This mission is no more dangerous than the early UNPROFOR years 1992-95. The only difference is the dead and wounds were never really reported in the media for the UNPROFOR mission.

quote:

---

"We have to remember that there were a number of Canadians killed in the World Trade Center,” Harper said. “We are all touched by the threats of terror. This country, as we all know, was the bastion of that and is still a threat in terms of those who would establish terror bases across the world."

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/weekinreview/28schmitt.html

http://tinyurl.com/jg22f

And just today:

quote:

---

A deadly traffic accident Monday involving U.S. troops sparked the worst rioting in the Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban regime, with hundreds of protesters looting shops and shouting ''Death to America!'' At least eight people were killed and 107 injured, an official said.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghanistan.html

quote:

---

Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls last week's bombing of Afghan civilians by U.S. warplanes an “unfortunate accident.” He is wrong. The attack, which killed at least 17 civilians plus an estimated 24 suspected Taliban insurgents, was deliberate, inevitable and — in terms of what Canada and other members of the U.S.-led coalition say they are trying to do — devastating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Why no. Since when is building schools, organizing bowling leagues, and spreading Christmas cheer in Kandahar a war crime? What are you getting at, jester?

Support our troops!!!

---

What I'm getting at is that Canadian troops are exposed to complicity in potential war crimes because Canada has ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the US has not.

If Canadian troops are subordinate to US command and involved in an incident such as the indiscriminate bombing of civilian infrastructure,can Canadians be charged for involvement while the US commanders who order the incident can not?

If charges of war crimes can be brought against GWB by a third party,can the same be done Canadians for complicity in alleged crimes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

What does anyone make of KandaHarper's Dubya impersonation ?.

---

Harper is focussed on a majority government.So was Martin when he dreamed up the Kandahar mission.

When Martin first proposed this mission,I was against it,not due to opposition to failed state intervention but due to the political foundation of the mission.

As soon as the political advantage turns,the Afghans will be abandoned.

The only possible chance of success in this mission is to provide ISAF protection to villagers and to pay them enough to compensate for the loss of poppy revenue.

That will never happen.

The average poppy farmer earns $690/year.

The purchase of 800 GWagons cost $300 million.

The purchase of 50 Nyalas for up-armoured blast protection cost $100 million.

400 million/690= 600,000 farmers with options.