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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Did Afghan villagers set the bomb?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Did Afghan villagers set the bomb?
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 April 2006 01:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did the Taleban really do in our 4 soldiers? or was it just plain angry villagers, as it turned out in the axe incident last month?

This is from today's New York Times:

quote:
Members of a family from Gumbad, the village where the Canadians are based, said Saturday in a telephone interview that the bombing had been organized by villagers who were angry about what they described as inappropriate treatment during searches.

One elder, whose family asked that he not be identified for fear of reprisals, denounced the Canadian troops for bringing dogs into the village mosque and peoples' homes, and for conducting intimate body searches.

"I am an educated person, and I know a bit about how they do things, but I am getting angry when they are bringing dogs to my mosque and to my house," the elder said. "I also feel like attacking them with an ax, but I lack the courage."

Major Innis said that the Canadian force had not received such complaints from villagers, and that the sophistication and cost of the bomb was such that it was unlikely to have been set by them.


Ouch!!!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 April 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dogs in a mosque?!? Please let this unnamed individual be just some bitter and lying man. Please.

Members of the military who participate on this site often tell us that the Canadian military receives training on the culture of the people on whose land they will serve. I just took that at face value.

A few weeks back I was listening to talk radio and a woman 'phoned in, her son had served in Afghanistan and she was very against the deployment. She said the much vaunted culture education consisted of 2 hours. T-W-O hours.

I should join the military -- I'd love to learn to speak rudimentary Pashtun in 2 hours.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 April 2006 01:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well siren, unfortunately this isn't the first report of this nature. When Cpt. Trevor Greene was attacked in March by the axe-wielding 16-year-old, Canadian HQ was also quick to call him a "Taleban". But those villagers said otherwise -- and they also blamed the attack on Canadian heavy-handed search tactics:

quote:
[Haji Mohammed] Eisah says the axe-wielding attacker was Abdul Karim, a 16-year-old boy who was upset by the U.S.-led coalition's heavy-handed tactics and insensitivity to tribal traditions. Eisah said the boy had no Taliban connections...

Eisah says the boy was one of many local people who are angry at coalition and Afghan army tactics, such as operations where they search and occupy the homes of villagers.

"They come to our village and search our homes and our women," Eisah in an interview by satellite telephone. "This guy was very angry about these kinds of operations." ...

Eisah was part of a delegation of conservative rural tribal elders from the heart of Taliban country who travelled to Kandahar city a couple weeks ago to complain about house-to-house searches.

The elders said coalition troops break down doors and search randomly after attacks, sending women out of the house and outraging community members.

Afghan troops often follow up by occupying houses and stealing their meat, the elders complained.

"Coalition forces come and search the homes, Afghan forces stay the night and we have to take our women to another home," Eisah said.


Source: Canadian Press.


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

posted 23 April 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, when we hear stories about them having to torch a village in order to save it, we'll know who's out of control over there.

Bring them home, for sure. We don't want David Bowie singing about being afraid of Canadians.

[ 23 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 23 April 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Dogs in a mosque?!? Please let this unnamed individual be just some bitter and lying man. Please.

Members of the military who participate on this site often tell us that the Canadian military receives training on the culture of the people on whose land they will serve. I just took that at face value.

A few weeks back I was listening to talk radio and a woman 'phoned in, her son had served in Afghanistan and she was very against the deployment. She said the much vaunted culture education consisted of 2 hours. T-W-O hours.

I should join the military -- I'd love to learn to speak rudimentary Pashtun in 2 hours.


Training costs money. Are you in favour of a larger military budget to facilitate better cultural sensitivity training?


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 April 2006 02:56 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:
Training costs money. Are you in favour of a larger military budget to facilitate better cultural sensitivity training?

So, are you confirming that the cultural sensitivity training is a two hour event?

Yes, I am in favour of a larger military budget. I'm also in favour of cutting from the top military brass, reducing the pension for ex-CF personnel who, on retirement from the CF, are fully employed in civilian life and a lot of other things.

Cultural training needn't be terribly costly; enroll soldiers in civilian university courses on anthropology. Pass or Fail if you like.

I am becoming more and more concerned about our non-peacekeeping, non peace-making role and exactly what we are doing in this foreign land that chews up militaries like kids swallowing french fries. I would like money spent on defence of Canada, patrolling the 200 km fishing limit, icebreakers and a permanent military base in the north.

I don't like our soldiers harassing people in their own countries. And I rather suspect the CF will soon tire of it also.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 April 2006 09:47 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Training costs money.

Stupidity costs lives. Bring them home.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 23 April 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post
I think the Canadian troops as well as the American troops should come. Canada and the U.S. should not be involved or interfere in other countries affairs. That also includes peace keeping or any other type of internal strife with the exception of natural disasters, and in regards to natural disasters, we should only send troops at the request of the country that has sustained the natural disaster.
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 April 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

Training costs money. Are you in favour of a larger military budget to facilitate better cultural sensitivity training?


Oh my God ... so this is now the excuse for abusive behaviour? "we couldn't afford the training to civilize us."

Canada can't afford to have insensitive abusive jerks representing us in foreign countries either.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 23 April 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering that Canadian forces are under US command, is it at all surprising that Cdn forces would be "insensitive"? Dogs in the mosque? Just searching for bombs and drugs. Kick the door in? Just protecting our boys. How many people do Cdn troops drag out of their homes and villages to the yankee torture chambers?

Bring them home. Let the UN and world community sort this out. Then we can figure out if there's a role to be played in humanitarian or reconstruction aid.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 24 April 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are always many stories within a story. Try to get more angles when forming an opinion.

quote:
From the article linked below:

Coalition commanders and investigators on the ground in southern Afghanistan have a tendency to believe most of their story. "It was not by us," said Jann Moohammad, 31, a taxi driver who makes his living shuttling people between Gumbad and Kandahar city. A second villager, Abdullah, a local shopkeeper, backed up the assessment.

"I am 90 per cent certain it was the Taliban," the 37-year-old said in a interview through a translator.

"Who else could it be?"


Villagers blame Taliban for the deaths of four Canadian soldiers

Is it a possibility that we used dogs in conducting searches? Yes it would be. They would only be used in instances where a lot of thought was put into it, knowing full well that it would damage relations with the locals.

Sometimes we have to make a trade off. A bomb sniffing dog is very accurate, and very non-invasive aside from cultural differences. To get the same effec t one would have to practically destroy the interior of a building to conduct a search by hand. Lesser of two evils.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 April 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Sometimes we have to make a trade off. A bomb sniffing dog is very accurate, and very non-invasive aside from cultural differences. To get the same effec t one would have to practically destroy the interior of a building to conduct a search by hand. Lesser of two evils.

Or, you could stay the fuck out of their church and their country, making such desecration unnecessary in the first place.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 24 April 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Or, you could stay the fuck out of their church and their country, making such desecration unnecessary in the first place.



We could also try and stay civil. Frankly, I have had more civil conversations staring down people with guns.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 April 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

We could also try and stay civil. Frankly, I have had more civil conversations staring down people with guns.

I see. Defiling a church with dogs is a necessary tradeoff, but seeing the word 'fuck' in print is a sacrilege?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 24 April 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Reason's link:

quote:
While the relationship with the people of Gumbad may be somewhat cordial in Canadian eyes, villagers are quick to tell you that they are deeply offended by the use of bomb-sniffing dogs.

"I have been looking at the Canadians while they bring dogs to mosques and homes," said Abdullah.

Gallinger denied his troops have ever taken dogs into a mosque, realizing what a grave insult it would be.


The deputy commander of Task Force Afghanistan said dogs are only employed in compounds they believe may be assisting militants.

"We're not kicking in doors, that does not happen," said Col. Tom Putt.

"Dignity is the key here. We want to treat these people with the same respect we want to be treated."

Gallinger said whenever they want to search a home using dogs, they sometimes ask permission of the owner and explain their reasons.

© The Canadian Press, 2006


Although I would prefer the "sometimes" didn't occur in the last sentence . . . for the time being I choose to believe the soldiers on this one. It's just too gross a violation to bring dogs into a mosque without some sort of consent.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 24 April 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

I see. Defiling a church with dogs is a necessary tradeoff, but seeing the word 'fuck' in print is a sacrilege?


Well, how would you feel if I told you the reason dogs were used in such a way is because bomb making supplies, chemicals, and materials, have in the past been found in mosques?

Which is the greater sacrilege? With a bomb sniffing dog we are in and out in very short order... Unless bomb making materials are found...


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 April 2006 08:13 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Which is the greater sacrilege? With a bomb sniffing dog we are in and out in very short order... Unless bomb making materials are found...

The dogs, obviously. Neither christianity nor Islam have much objection to combining arms and churches.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 24 April 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

The dogs, obviously. Neither christianity nor Islam have much objection to combining arms and churches.



You are right their. However, once a thing is done, it can not be undone.

So, it would be irresponsible for the forces in the region, that if they have reasonable intelligence, that either there are bomb making facilities in location, or persons known to be sypathitic or actually insrugents either are at, or have been to a facility in question.

In my mind's eye, it is far preferable to take preventative measures which save lives, then wait and take lives.

Also, for the record, this is not happening as much as you beleive. I have nothing more to say on this, so... Please, feel free to flame away. If anything new develops, I will post it here.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 April 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

You are right their. However, once a thing is done, it can not be undone.

You are attempting the sophistry of pretending to have been 'forced' by others to carry out some noxious act. This is always a fallacy. If the soldiers violate a church, that's their decision and their responsibility: they weren't ever forced to do this.

The insurgents can as easily claim that they're 'forced' to hide bombs in mosques or set IEDs for convoys by the soldiers occupation of their country--the chain of events which can't be undone stretches much farther back than a dog in a mosque.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 25 April 2006 01:25 AM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

So, are you confirming that the cultural sensitivity training is a two hour event?


Not at all - I've never done it.

quote:
Yes, I am in favour of a larger military budget. I'm also in favour of cutting from the top military brass, reducing the pension for ex-CF personnel who, on retirement from the CF, are fully employed in civilian life and a lot of other things.

Why cut pensions? Working full-time after retirement shouldn't reduce your pension. As for top-heaviness in the CF, Hillier's efforts at streamlining should, over time, reduce the number.

quote:
Cultural training needn't be terribly costly; enroll soldiers in civilian university courses on anthropology. Pass or Fail if you like.

That would cost even more money than military-administered training and would likely be far less specific and relevant. I imagine contracting specialists on the region (and with experience in the region) to deliver instruction periods at units would be more cost effective. That would also enable more intensive, specific, and militarily relevant material to be taught.

quote:
I am becoming more and more concerned about our non-peacekeeping, non peace-making role and exactly what we are doing in this foreign land that chews up militaries like kids swallowing french fries.

Our participation in activities other than peacekeeping doesn't disturb me, depending on the motives therefor, though I too wonder about where the Afghanistan mission will end up.

quote:
I would like money spent on defence of Canada, patrolling the 200 km fishing limit, icebreakers and a permanent military base in the north.

I agree completely.

quote:
I don't like our soldiers harassing people in their own countries. And I rather suspect the CF will soon tire of it also.

I'm not so sure - Afghanistan presents a major opportunity for the CF to gain experience in operations other than UN peacekeeping. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a justification for being there, but rather will probably play a factor in whether the CF tires of Afghanistan.

I can't (and won't) speak for the CF, but myself and my friends are quite eager for the experience.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 25 April 2006 01:29 AM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
I think the Canadian troops as well as the American troops should come. Canada and the U.S. should not be involved or interfere in other countries affairs. That also includes peace keeping or any other type of internal strife with the exception of natural disasters, and in regards to natural disasters, we should only send troops at the request of the country that has sustained the natural disaster.

So you believe that humanitarian intervention against genocide (like that in Rwanda) is wrong?


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   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