The Afghan people will win - Part 1

Webgear and Unionist,

I have a Canadian Press article dated March 3, 2009. It is longer and more detailed than the CBC post:

"Forensic analysis of fragments from the bomb that killed the three young boys determined it was likely an old munition, perhaps left over from the Soviet occupation, that may be fashioned into a booby trap, officials said. Using old explosive material in a homemade bomb is a classic Taliban tactic, said Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, the commander of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The most likely cause of this explosion was an anti personnel IED, based on all of the factors at the scene. The children, aged 4, 12 and 13, likely found the device in a field on the way home from school and brought it into the village of Salehan, west of Kandahar City, before it detonated as they stood on a gravel pathway, he said. The burden of proof and experience in this part of the province places the likelihood of harming people with explosives squarely on the shoulders of the insurgency, not on the shoulders of Canadians, Vance said.... Military officials ... admit they're still struggling to understand the outburst of anti Canadian sentiment touched off by the tragedy."

<>(I rearranged the order of the paragraphs of the original to give the best logical flow to the article)

<>Here is what the article is saying:

1. The children were killed by a Russian UXO (UneXploded Ordnance) from the 1979 - 1989 Soviet Afghan War.

1a. The story is morphed where the UXO was modified into a booby trap to fit the Canadian military and government's propaganda that the Taliban are detestable murderous scumbags who are responsible for ALL the deaths incurred by the Afghan war.

2. The children were killed by an IED - a non professional, non factory made mine.

3. The bomb (at this point, whatever it is) was not located in a field in the hamlet, but somewhere away from the hamlet. No mention is made of the distance.

4. The children were not at first in the hamlet but were on their way home from school where they found the IED.

<>This raises a number of questions: A 4 year old was going to school? How far did this 4 year old have to walk to go to that school? War has been raging in Afghanistan since 1979 - 30 years. These children have known nothing but war all their lives and yet the Canadian military expects us to believe that the children when they saw the IED (IEDs are buried in the ground with only their whip antenna sticking up a few inches off the ground, so they are hard to detect), their reaction was, "cool toy!" and to pick it up and take it home. We are expected to believe that these children would not have recognized it for what it was. Even if we are to believe this fairy tale so far, the military expects us to believe that no one saw the children returning home, that none of the villagers informed the children what the electronic devise was, took it from them and, running like hell, whisked the children a safe distance away, screamed at the top of their lungs to warn the other villagers and attempted to dispose of the bomb in a safe manner.

<>Why do I not believe this?

Although this article is more detailed than the CBC article, there is information the CP leaves out that one can find in a February 24, 2009 article at www.rawa.org

The RAWA article states that the Canadian military held a live fire exercise 15 km west of Kandahar. This conforms with the CP article that explains that the hamlet of Salehan, where the incident took place, is located west of Kandahar City.

Conclusion: It is very likely that the Canadian military was responsible for the deaths of the Afghan children - and the Canadian military still 'don't get' why the Afghan villagers are pissed off at them.

Practising a live fire exercise in close proximity to an Afghan community suggests that the U.S., the U.N., NATO, the EU, the U.K., Canada, the ISAF, etc., don't give a fuck about the Afghans and never did. There are reasons why we are in Afghansitan, but that sure ain't one of them.<>

<>Not only are we losing the shooting war, we are losing the propaganda war in Afghanistan - dismally.

The Canadian military can't even 'get their story straight'. With clowns like that running the war, we don't need the Taliban's help. We can lose this one all on our own. 

Thanks for those posts.

Yes, thanks Former Soldier. It doesnt sound like Afghans are winning much with their country still turned upside down after more than 20 years and children being blown to pieces by UXO's. One UN official said Afghan children have the fewest rights of any and are among the most abused children in the world. 

Webgear,

Currently the Obama administration is conducting a review of the Afghan war and will come out with strategic recommendations in time for the next NATO summit in May.

Harper has already publicly expressed praise for Obama's 17,000 troop surge to Afghansitan. 

My guess is Harper is just 'lickin' his chops' anticipating:

1. The review will recommend an increase in the troop surge.

2. Obama will follow this recommendation.

3. Obama will accede to Generals David McKiernan's (U.S. and Coalition Commander in Afghansitan), David Petraeus' (CENTCOM Commander responsible for both the Iraq and Afghan theaters of war) and Robert Gates' (U.S. Defense Secretary) demands for even more troops in Afghanistan. All these commanders have stated that the current overall request of 30,000 troops is NOT a final cap.

4. At the NATO summit Obama will ask Canada to escalate its military commitment to the war.

Harper is hoping that 'Obama mania' will rub off on him. Harper will turn to the people and say, "See, Obama has asked me to keep Canadian soldiers engaged in combat. How can I not oblige a nice guy like Obama?"

Harper will turn to the government and attempt to bully Parliament into agreeing to yet another escalation of the war.

The ideological differences between the Cons and the Libs are either hairsplitting or nonexistant. Iggy is on record supporting both the Iraq and Afghan wars, just like Harpo. It is very likely that Iggy and the Libs would pass such a motion in the House.

<>"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. My reading of Afghan history is that it's probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind." - Stephen Harper.

<>Wouldn't it have been nice if Harper had read that Afghan history 'book' before he went to Afghanistan in 2006? Before the first and second times he escalated Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan?

Is Harper salivating at the mouth over the prospect of more war? You bet he is. As for anyone who believes Harper is not likely to escalate the war and will stick to the June 2011 disengagement (as promised during the last election) from combat resolution: Well Webgear, I wouldn't bet my, yours or any other Canadian soldier's (or Afghan's) life on it.

Frmrsldr wrote:

According to all the information I have coalated on the incident, the Afghan version of events is:

1. The Canadian military conducted live fire exercises in the vicinity of Salehan.

2. There is shrapnel and UXOs from Canadian mortar and, possibly, artillery shells in the fields in and around Salehan.

3. The children were either searching for scrap metal to sell to bring some income for their families or were playing in one of those fields.

4. They came into contact with a Canadian UXO. It exploded. The children died. The Canadian military is responsible for their deaths.

One of the Canadian military's version of events is:

1. The fields in and around Salehan are littered with UXOs.

2. The UXOs are Russian from the Soviet Afghan War, NOT Canadian.

3. No mention is made of the Canadian military's live fire exercise in the vicinity of Salehan.

4. The Taliban felt the payoff of killing fellow Afghans was worth the risk of surreptitiously entering a field of UXOs and running the risk of being killed themselves to either plant an IED or booby trap of their own or (even riskier) to modify a Russian UXO into an IED or booby trap, just so that the surviving villagers can blame the Canadian soldiers for their childrens' deaths. My, those Taliban are devious. How do they do it? What are they? Ghosts, or something?

What is your argument Webgear? Is it the same as the Canadian military's, or just a little less extreme?

The Canadian military's propaganda is geared for the 'lowest common denominator' mentality. I am here referring to the Canadian civilian population. One has to be possesing very few details and little interest in such events to be fooled by such propaganda.

CTV initial reports and substantial reports indicated that the CF was conducting live fire exercise in the vicinity of Salehan, which is a small error on your version of events.

Other details we have not looked at.

1. The bodies of the children were intact after the blast, pictures where initially provided by CTV news. If the children were carrying the mortar shell, it is not possible for the bodies to remain intact even for a small shell such as a 60mm mortar detonated in close proximately. These small children would have been ripped to shreds.

2. In a previous thread I linked a website that noted nearly 800 people in Afghanistan for the year 2008 were killed by IEDs, UXOs and old mines. I believe around 150 of those people were killed by insurgent IEDs. So, yes the Taliban do kill civilians and sometimes on purpose.

3. Another similar event happen last year when a bus struck an IED north of Kandahar city, over 10 people were killed.

4. In the former Yugoslavia, one of the factions mortared their own side causing several dozen innocent civilian deaths in a market area and blamed their enemies. So this method has been used before in the past.

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Frmrsldr

It is likely Afghanistan will end in 2001 and we will likely end up in Congo or Sudan if you read between the lines from various political advisors commenting on what the Canadian military should be doing after the "Combat" mission ends.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

I realize that the Cons, Libs, NDP and Greens all want Canadian soldiers to stay on in Afghanistan after the 2011 combat disengagement deadline and either do humanitarian work or to protect humanitarian NGO workers.<>

<>What is war?

My definition of war is killing, injuring and destroying.

Have you ever been trained by the military to educate, comfort, heal, nourish, build - in other words do things that will help a civilian community and its people? I haven't.

There were two occasions where the international community 'blew it' when it came to Afghanistan:

1. The U.S. and U.K. attack on Afghanistan after 9/11. According to international law, an act of terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war. To respond to a criminal act with an act of war is illegal and, in my opinion, immoral.

2. After the Battle of Tora Bora in November - December 2001, former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair goes to Afghanistan and says, "For too long we have ignored Afghanistan. Afghanistan must not become a breeding ground for terrorism."

After that, the first contingent of NATO led ISAF troops entered Afghanistan and the band - sorry, I mean, and the war played on.

If, in the first instance we had the CIA, FBI, MI 5, MI 6, CID, INTERPOL, CSIS, RCMP, etc., engage in intelligence gathering, find out who the masterminds behind 9/11 were, hunted them down, captured them and brought them to justice - or if they refused to surrender, kill them (oh well), instead of going to war.

And in the second instance, if we had sent humanitarian NGOs instead soldiers, and had engaged in reconstruction and development, and nothing but reconstruction and development, then we would not have the mess we are all suffering from today.

<>The politicians (the civilian leaders and decision makers) need to get around this contradictory notion of soldiers as humanitarians. We need to:

1. End the war.

2. Bring our troops home now. 

Through more than 7 years of war, we have sown so much hatred, ill regard and distrust among the Afghans that is impossible for us to immediately try to reverse the harm we have done.

Why do people like Stephen Harper and Barack Obama insist on remaining in Afghanistan, rather than pulling our troops out now?:

Simple foolish human pride. 

 You crack me up Webgear.

The only reason whatsoever Harper has suggested we pull out or whatever  in 2011 is because he only has a minority government. If he ever got a majority we'd be there forever pissing off a good segment of the world's population and giving them reasons to try to shoot down or take down more of our airliners or whatever else they can think of.

Unionist wrote:

The warmongers have a new mascot for their cause. First they kill her husband, then they use her to egg on the others to their death.

The National ran an extended (52-second) excerpt from the mascot's speech (beyond the usual 4-second soundbite). Pastor Mansbridge then opined that it was "a very powerful statement". 

During the Vietnam War, the argument went:

"We are fighting the Viet Cong in Vietnam so we don't have to fight them in the streets of Walla Walla, Washington."

Today, the argument goes:

"We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan [oops, that should go] so we don't have to fight them in the streets of Wa Wa, Ontario."

From the Vietnam War to the present day, have you ever heard of an attack on U.S. soil that the Viet Cong were responsible for?

From 1979 to the present day, have you ever heard of any attack on foreign soil that the Taliban were responsible for?

This shows an incredible lack of understanding of the people we are fighting against.

In a sense, the Taliban are just like Stephen Harper and his Conservatives, or any political group for that matter:

When in power, they want to stay in power.

When out of power, they want to get back into power.

It is that bs argument that we are fighting in Afghanistan to defend ourselves.

The only people who are defending themselves are the Afghans against our invasion and attacks against them.

According to the Geneva Conventions, an unprovoked invasion to ensure the country in question's government is a friendly regime to the invader (we call it regime change today) is illegal. This precedent came out of the Nuremberg Trials.

In many ways, we are guilty of the very things we fought against in WW 2.

Please continue in a new thread.