Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Child suicide bomber wounds two Canadians

MURRAY BREWSTER

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 4:07 PM EDT 16/05/08

Two Afghan soldiers also hurt in blast set off by 10-year old ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The Taliban has sunk to an all-time low in decrepidy.
  2. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The Taliban has sunk to an all-time low in decrepidy.
  3. Alex Peterson from Canada writes: Canadian solders must be terrified now that they realize that it's also children that can carry bombs. Though I don't think it should be viewed as a sign of weakness, rather determination.
  4. Sean O'Reilly from Canada writes: Really shows what these 'people' are made of when they send a child to execute their beliefs.

    At some point the world needs to turn away because all these type of people are about is hate.
  5. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: Pure evil. There should be a new, sub-human classification that puts kids in this position.
  6. jeff mactavish from Canada writes: This is surprising. I was led to believe that Islam was the religion of peace.
  7. nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada writes: yes this shows how ruthless the taliban can be and what extremes to which they will go to maintain their position. unfortunately, it also shows us why we can't win this conflict using soldiers, artillery, tanks, missiles, satellites or airstrikes. it's not a conventional war, but we're fighting it in the conventional way. 6 years on and there's been little to no measurable progress, even though the taliban is hopelessly outgunned. the taliban has no access to heavy armour, aircraft, satellite images or any of the super-expensive and super-profitable-for-the-suppliers hardware that we foolishly believe will give us a crucial edge. any gains made are lost again within weeks and usually take more resources to secure the second and third times around, making this whole conflict longer than it needs to be and cost more than it could or should.
    we need to back off or enlist the help of our muslim allies like turkey and give them all the support they need to help this country make it through the shaky fog to stability. we need to stop kidding ourselves that the ANA will be ready anytime soon despite our best efforts. muslim-on-muslim violence is explicitly forbidden by the koran, so using muslim proxies like turkey to help with security is sure to be more effective with fewer casualties than arrogantly insisting we are the best people for the job and that no one else is up to it. either way, we need to get our own soldiers out of there unless we're ready to watch them kill children while acting in self-defense. this bombing isn't the worst we'll see if we don't change tactics in some fundamental way.
  8. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: How to raise children 101....where can I sign up for the course.
  9. Jason Brown from Canada writes: The taliban don't use usable fighters for suicide bomber. The use the mentally ill and retarded who are easily manipulated. Using a 10 year old fits the same need. Life if cheap to them, they don't care how many Afghans (suicides and collateral deaths) it takes to kill one of our soldiers as a dead soldier is a huge victory because of the media impacts on public opinion.
  10. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Pretty sleazy, to make a kid do it. Suicide bombing is an adult exercise.
  11. Jim S from vancouver, Canada writes: Why are these called 'suicide bombers'? Isn't it more like 'murder bomber'?
  12. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Child' and 'suicide bomber' should never appear in the same sentence on a just Earth. He was not the perpetrator; the adults who devised the system, chose him and sent him out to die - and kill others - are the killers. And I say this not to excuse all 'child soldiers' because there's a hell of a difference between ten and fifteen years old. This boy was clearly a victim, along with the Canadian soldiers who are wounded. I wish them speedy recovery and thank them for their service.
  13. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: Good grief ! dollars will get you donuts that there are going to posters to this forum that will somehow blame this on Harper and us rather than deal with the sick ideology that perpetrates such horrors. Let's be honest what we have here is a classic example of why we need to continue the fight against this sick ideology and for lack of a better term cull it from the gene pool of civilized thought!
  14. willie s from Canada writes: anybody want that other child soldier Omar Khadr back in Canada???
  15. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Wow. Can you imagine the extremes they would go to if we were burning the villages, pillaging and raping. Thank God the worst we are only doing to them is providing security, freedom and making them roads and schools.
  16. Blue Magic ...... from Mississauga,, Canada writes: WTF...

    Disgusting, just disgusting.
  17. R M from Canada writes: This is all Harper's fault!
  18. Kathleen Degelder from USA, Canada writes: Jason Brown: Excellant post!
  19. Tom Sawyer from Canada writes: well they use pregnant women as well so I suppose there arent any rules. Savages.
  20. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: This is all Layton's fault!
  21. Heidi Weber from Canada writes: Obama and Layton think they can sit down and 'reason' with these people.
    Never thought I would say this but W is right on this one - appeasement is a failed strategy.
  22. Carly MacKay from United States writes: Two mentally disabled women and a child. Their hate is overwhelmingly strong. Goes to prove that the Taliban is not fighting for the average Afghani or people of Afghanistan. This is all about them trying to get back into power - to restore their way of life prior to the beginning of this war-honor killings, rape, forcing women into subservience, punishments that range from chopping off hands for stealing food to stoning to death for being seen with a man that is not a family member. We should all be grateful that we were born here and not in Afghanistan.
  23. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: And Jack Layton and the NDP would have us negotiate with these people??????????? Unbelievably tragic and horrific if accurate account......Taliban also use children and women has human shields as they make them stand outside any buildings where they are planning, meeting or hiding so that if there is an attack the innocents get killed and then they can claim American/NATO brutality.
  24. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: Hey...what were the ROOT causes of such a terrible act. Brutal! Let's build some schools and liberate women...RESPONSE...blow up 10 year old...thank you!
  25. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: What's needed is total anhilation of the 'things' that subscribe to this type of activity. They just can't be human, so shouldn't be treated as such.
  26. Steve S from Victoria, Canada writes: nick oliver: Usually I wouldn't bother responding to such tripe as you've posted, but I cringe that there might be others out there who feel this way.

    'we need to back off or enlist the help of our muslim allies like turkey and give them all the support they need to help this country make it through the shaky fog to stability' -- Frankly, it looks like Turkey is really just interested in making sure the Khurdish rebellion doesn't get out of hand. Our 'muslim allies' had ample opportunity to do something about Iraq and Afghanistan before 2001, and they did nothing. They've shown a complete unwillingness to do anything but deal with internal issues.

    'muslim-on-muslim violence is explicitly forbidden by the koran, so using muslim proxies like turkey to help with security is sure to be more effective with fewer casualties' -- Most of the violence being launched by the Taliban and al Queda in Iraq is against fellow Muslims! Do Hamas and Fatah hug and kiss whenever they cross paths because they're both Muslims?

    'we need to get our own soldiers out of there unless we're ready to watch them kill children while acting in self-defense' -- And when we leave, we'll watch the Taliban suddenly become a peaceful bunch of Muslim do-gooders? Sure, our soldiers wouldn't be in a position where they might accidentally kill children... but the locals we'd be abandoning would surely pay the price.
  27. Just A Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: Why are some people thinking this child was mentally challenged? The videos of children from 4 years and up being indoctrinated to hate are freely available on the internet. Some of these kids are saying they are looking forward to killing the infidels and how proud they will be to die doing it.
  28. Jim IIII from Canada writes: Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Pretty sleazy, to make a kid do it. Suicide bombing is an adult exercise.

    Alberto, that was my first thought, after further thought I came to the conculsion that the bomb was most likely set-off remotely. Even so...... it it a fact that these kids are taught to hate at a very early age and grow up to be the ones who set off bombs strapped to the lesser learned ones..........This is Islam at its best........
  29. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Yep. As I said, total anhilation of these 'things'...kids or not.
  30. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'm pretty sure the average Afghanistan thinks this is a deplorable act as well. I'm definitely sure God dose not approve. COWARDS!
  31. W W from Canada writes: And not a word of condemnation from the Amnesty, HRW or the UN. This is unspeakable double standards that these guys are practicing.
  32. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    What's a ten year old boy going to do with 72 virgins in paradise?
  33. W M from Canada writes: There are several possible conclusions that can be drawn from this:

    1) Whoever organized this, be they Taliban and / or Al Caeda, are completely morally bankrupt

    2) They are having trouble recruiting adults of sound mind to be suicide bombers.

    3) They are showing disrespect for the burkha, not to mention the safety of Aghan women (both of which they profess to hold dear) by using burkhas to disguise male fighters.

    4) The Canadian strategy of showing kindness to children is working, and Taliban and Al Caeda are hoping that attacks like this will make NATO troops more suspicious of children and, therefore, less willing to interact with them and be kind to them. Moreover, it is NOT a stretch to conclude that they would be thrilled if this causes our troops be more jittery and kill some children. That's right, far from protecting women and children, I am indeed saying that the Taliban want to maximize the likelyhood that they will be killed by NATO troops. The the next time you hear of Taliban attacking NATO troops from civilian compounds and inviting return fire, keep this in mind.
  34. Jason Brown from Canada writes: nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada writes: muslim-on-muslim violence is explicitly forbidden by the koran, so using muslim proxies like turkey to help with security is sure to be more effective with fewer casualties than arrogantly insisting we are the best people for the job and that no one else is up to it.

    ---- Well Nick your two comments are rather ignorant. Turkey has been involved in Afghanistan doing various aid efforts and as part of the NATO force. I am not sure of #s etc. but I am also sure NATO would be happy if Turkey stepped up even more as more soldiers are needed. Remember though Turkey is rightly distracted from Afghanistand by the Iraq security situation on its border and its internal issues. You are right though about the Afghan perception being more positive of fellow muslim Turkish soldiers then us but we are in no way preventing Turkey from helping out as you insinuate with the arrogance comment.

    The taliban have no issues with muslim on muslim violence. They use people for suicides (is that not violence on a fellow muslim?), and the vast majority of the people they kill are not foreigners but fellow muslims in the form of the ANA, police, and unlucky bystanders.
  35. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: Tim...so the US specifically targets 10 year old Afghan children? Who's the retard??? The bufoons on the left just can't or won't ever GET IT! They'd make great candidates if we ever explored suicide bombing as a method of winning a 'war'.
  36. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Where are the usual posters (you know the names), blaming NATO, blaming Harper, blaming the Canadian military, making ridiculous posts about Canada helping to prop up a warlord and opium regime and making absurd references to the Geneva Conventions?

    Makes you sick doesn't it, that while soldiers are fighting and dieing doing the job we (left and right) asked them to do, the Taliban are murdering children.

    Come on Ted Andrews 'Withdraw troops now!!'....right?
  37. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Looks like the Taliban are retaliating against NATO shooting and bombing innocent civilians by sending out innocent civilians to fight back.

    It's deplorable, of course. Just as it's deplorable when NATO bombs villages, shoots innocent civilians for coming too close to a convoy, or sends out death squads to kill Afghans in the night. Of course, there will be the usual comments from those who see nothing wrong with us killing children, but everything wrong when the Taliban do it.
  38. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: There we go, I was getting worried. Thanks Richard.
  39. Don Bryant from Calgary, Canada writes: Using a 10 year old suicide bomber is further proof that these creatures are not human beings - they're a form of life lower, even, than maggots. But I'm sure Taliban Jack, Romeo Delaire, and all the bleeding-heart lefties that are regular posters to these strings will, somehow, find a way to defend their latest action.
  40. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: If anyone slags the work our soldiers are performing, complains about how Taliban prisoners are treated, or criticizes Hillier for what he had to say about these terrorists, then you should be ashamed. This story reveals exactly what we are dealing with. These terrorists deserve no consideration.
  41. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Another great day for the religion of peace.
  42. Dwide Schrude from Canada writes: I'm not saying I agree with their tactics, but we are kinda occupying their nation by force.

    A few days ago a lot of people on these pages seemed to think we need more military at home to defend our borders. They're just doing the same thing but being more ruthless about it.

    All that will result from our being there is more hatred towards one another. Any Afghani government that is legit must be elected on a platform of hatred towards the west, any that isn't is just a puppet we've installed so we can build a cheap oil pipeline. We need to leave that country. Yes there will be suffering but this is much worse what we are doing now.
  43. W M from Canada writes: Just A Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: Why are some people thinking this child was mentally challenged? The videos of children from 4 years and up being indoctrinated to hate are freely available on the internet. Some of these kids are saying they are looking forward to killing the infidels and how proud they will be to die doing it.

    =====================================================

    I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is a big moral difference between brainwashing small children to kill themselves, threatening them to get them to do it and remotely activating bombs? All of the alternatives seem pretty morally bankrupt to me. Or, are you suggesting that evidence that an enemy is extraordinarilly morally bankrupt, is reason to surrender to them, rather than oppose them?

    As for the story, it says that the bomb 'may' have been remotely activited, which does seem like a reasonable possibility. We also know that the Taliban and Al Caeda have indeed pushed and coerced kids who don't want to be suicide bombers to do so. The reason we know is that some of them have managed to 'escape' their fates and have talked about it.
  44. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: P Jones, not according to Richard. The word 'intent' has no meaning in his world.

    Blame NATO because an enemy hides behind kids, blame NATO because a soldier defends himself from an imminent attack, blame NATO when a suicide bomber gets through and blows up himself, the convoy and civilians.

    NATO can do no right, Richard prefers we leave the Taliban alone to continue their brutality against a population. So much for 'Canadian values'.
  45. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Bill McDonald from Canada writes: According to the yellow-bellied coward, Romeo Dallaire, we are just as bad as the Taliban.

    What a pathetic, two-bit, alcoholic, embarrassment to the to the uniform that little worm was. They should have let him rot on the park bench where they found him...

    Raping prisoners in Abu Gharib is pretty low so I would have to agree with him.
  46. Karin Pasnak from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Another reason to believe that this war will never be won!
  47. Richard Soley from writes: Interesting that the usual group of anti this and anti that aren't here in force today. Nick Oliver thinks there is no progress but the standing army in Afganistan is pushing 70,000 and from all reportes they 'get' it . If ever there was a reason to fight a war the abuse of children and the use of handicaped individuals as bombers is it. I would like to thank our soldiers who are presented with an overwhelming event with this child as a bomber and still our soldiers go out day after day to bring security and train the police and army, and the worst abuse comes here at home from the gutless armchair warriors who think with their keyboard. Glad as hell the boys weren't hurt and proud as hell of our guys doing a hard difficult job against ruthless terrorists. I support the mission, the Canadians and the good changes we are making to the lives of Afganis! It is this kind of effort that Canadians have made which brings us honor!
  48. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Richard Roskell logic:

    NATO kills innocent civilians (so says Richard)

    Therefore

    Innocent civilians can be used to kill NATO.

    So many wars could have ended earlier with this logic.

    Churchill sending innocent British civilians, with bombs strapped under their vests, to the Continent after Germany blitzed London.

    Ho Chi Minh sending swarms of innocent Vietnamese with hand grenade backpacks to Saigon after the Hanoi bombings killed innocent North Vietnamese.

    Brilliant. Right up there with Graeme Smith's 'in depth' one week report on the Taliban characterizing them as simple folk trying to win back their country.

    Somebody should attack Canada just so we can send some of these innocent Canadian commenters with explosive vests off the end of the pier.
  49. W M from Canada writes: nick oliver - we have been increasing efforts to train and equip Afghan troops and I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that NATO wouldn't be thrilled, if Turkey were to send more troops. Precisely what actual evidence do you have that NATO doesn't want troops from Turkey in Afghanistan and / or other Muslim countries? I sure haven't heard of this.
  50. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Richard Roskell logic:

    NATO kills innocent civilians (so says Richard)

    Therefore

    Innocent civilians can be used to kill NATO.

    So many wars could have ended earlier with this logic.

    Churchill sending innocent British civilians, with bombs strapped under their vests, to the Continent after Germany blitzed London....

    There were a lot of underage soldiers fighting for the allies during WWII.
  51. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: The only underage fighters for the Allies in WWII volunteered and lied about their age.
  52. W M from Canada writes: Dwide Schrude from Canada writes: 'I'm not saying I agree with their tactics, but we are kinda occupying their nation by force.'

    =====================================================

    Dwide, the Afghan government may not be great by our standards, but it was elected in an election that was monitored by the UN. And, NATO agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan and station some of them in the south, only after one heck of a lot of lobbying by Karzai. Therefore, I think your analysis is flawed, even if some Afghans do see us as occupiers. Moreover, I have yet to hear of a study that suggests that the Taliban has majority support anywhere in Afghanistan, including in the south where it is strongest.
  53. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I'm sure the officials looked the other way.
    Maybe he said he was older that what he is.
    And how do they know how old he was? Did he have a birth certificate?
  54. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I see 'possibly as young as 10' now means '10' to some of you.
    He could be 15 for all we know.
  55. j boland from United States writes: There is a clear pathology of a kind of dementia to such a cultural imperative that lifts up as a main goal of life the actually killing of all 'infidels' and considers it virtuous. One has to question their humanity.
  56. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: I'm sure the officials asked for the proper documentation just as the Taliban does.
  57. W M from Canada writes: Bill McDonald, please provide a quote. Dallaire has criticize the UN for not protecting innocents in Rwanda and he has criticized it for not protecting people in Sudan. Therefore, your contention that he says we should stop trying to help the victims of the Taliban sounds a little surprising. Is that what you are saying and, if so, please provide facts.
  58. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: Did he have a birth certificate saying he was '15' or '10'?
  59. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I have relatives who were underage and fought in WWII. Do you think they gave fake ID?
  60. W M from Canada writes: Tim Cares - underage soldiers in WWII were 17 and when they were identified, they were sent home. Surely you aren't suggesting that 'officials' mistook a 10 year old for someone in their late teens. More importantly, what motivates you to make excuses for people who would use a 10 year as a suicide bomber under any circumstances. No matter how you slice it, an adult chose to send a child to kill/die, rather than doing it himself. Are you really trying to make excuses for that?
  61. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: Probably. To bad they cared more about this country then you do.
  62. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: There you go Tim, you got a bite. Now reel that sucker in!
  63. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: First line of the article:

    'A boy possibly as young as ten .... '

    Wow! Post a comment without reading a thing?

    ADD really is prevalent.
  64. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: Well they probably didn't see his birth certificate so they had to guess based what was left.
  65. Jeremy Debling from Canada writes: Ya I guess the Taliban who supported Osama, figured that blowing up the Twin Towers constitutes a fake war!
  66. globefan Eh from Canada writes: Again I'll be the dissenter. The people of Afghanistan haven't experienced normal in a hundred years.

    Everyone should read a Thousand Splendid Suns..a hundred more years of counselling won't begin to heal, look at the Child abuse of the Church or what has been done to our own aboriginals..Yes, the people of Afghanistan are not happy and it will be many more years of occupation and it still won't be right..
  67. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    I always seem to think of my youngest (he's 14 now) as 10. I think it's because I loved his 10 year oldness... smiling, searching, loving, caring, thoughtful, interested, running, exploring...

    This makes me irate! I'm not a religious man, but I'm gonna pray at that kid anyway...
  68. M. S From Edmonton from Canada writes: why wasn't this 10 year old in schools we built..
    we are building schools there right?
    little girls are going to school and they aren't being raped and stuff right ?
    no INNOCENT people are dying.....
    maybe this 10 year old watched his dad, mom and sisters blown up by the liberators.. maybe this 10 year old just didn't have anything else to live for..

    ---

    but im sure the reason behind is because this 10 year old HATES OUR FREEDOM.. THIS 10 YEAR OLD HATES THE WAY WE LIVE.. OUR WAY OF LIFE..

    ---
  69. W W from Canada writes: The taliban jack would never go to talk to these people himself. He would send someone. In case...you know...some taliban sent a child to greet him.
  70. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: I have more faith in our soldiers to show their professionalism than many of the writers on this thread. There has been character assassination, and much name calling on here. The fact that a child is used for this is despicable, it does not matter if you are a leftie or a rightie, it is just plain wrong. However, unfortunately it is a child soldier, easily indoctrinated, by a father, brother, uncle or somebody. I am sure our soldiers will not begin indiscriminately killing young children because of one incident, but will be more vigilent and attentive to who is around. Afghanistan is a dangerous place, after all it is a war zone. We have an enemy who is not fighting a conventional war. It is guerilla warfare, not an easy one to win. However reading some of the posts on here, I surely hope that some of the posters have not indoctrinated their children to annilihate them all. That attitude shows you are no better than the enemy your purport to hate.
  71. m m from Canada writes: .
    1979 – What are they doing there?
    2008 – What are we doing there?

    BTW, Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed 9/9/2001.
  72. W W from Canada writes: I wonder where all these apologists who always say that these animals don't have much tools to kill but they love to kill, so they start sending kids for suicidal missions. If they only had weapons.... they would kill much more effectively.
  73. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Tim Cares,

    'I have relatives who were underage and fought in WWII. Do you think they gave fake ID?'

    Actually I'd like to hear what they think of your comments here?

    CHeers

    Mikey
  74. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Richard Roskell,

    Thanks for again proving what I already knew!

    Will never understand the mind that claims using a child as a weapons delivery system is the same as having children die because the Taleban hide behind civilians when they attack.

    Really glad you are on the other side of the country. Would hate to have you as a neighbour.

    Cheers

    Mikey..

    Bombing villages where men women and children live is not the same as al Qaeda hiding behind women and children. There is no evidence that there are any al Qaeda there many times.
  75. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: While we are talking about things military. Here is an interesting read. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/425878
  76. Yanxu Li from Canada writes: Maybe somebody has asked such a question before:

    What if Talin troops took over our country? Countrymen, assume we did not have tanks or airplines, but only bombs, what were we supposed to do?

    Keep in mind that our troops are stationed in Talin's hometown, not the otherwise. I suggest not assume any moral position before acknowledging this REALITY.
  77. della baird from vancouver, Canada writes: dee vancouver: ed long whiterock........ what a disgusting remark,saying that someone should bomb our country. obviously you do not have children! by the way it could happen sooner than you think,are we to believe that your insensitive remarks mean that you will be first in the line of fire...................
  78. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: a NATO spokesman, General Carlos Branco said 'There was a suicide attack by a teenager who exploded himself near a patrol. We confirm two (NATO) soldiers were injured,'

    It is not confirmed what the age of the bomber was. Therefore it is not a 'fact' that he was 10 years old. the General described him as a teenager, which is not very specific.

    CBC's website also reports 'there was no official confirmation of the bomber's age or how the bomb was triggered'

    Anyway, let the Afghan people negotiate if they want to. It's their country, isn't it? If it ends the civil war, that will be better than the current insurgency.

    Then CF can come home.
  79. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: I also hope they don't start sending more young kids to attack our troops - CF will have to shoot every child that comes near.

    Maybe that's the strategy; to get foreign forces to shoot indiscriminately. It certainly has become epidemic in Iraq, where US soldiers are notorious for not just gunning down families, but planting weapons on them after the fact.
    See the Winter Soldier testimony from returning vets who admit to doing exactly that.

    A Corporal in the United States Marine Corps tells of the common practice of using 'drop weapons' or shovels, which could be tossed next to the body of a civilian they had killed, in order to justify the death under the 'Rules of Engagement'.

    No one, I repeat, no one knows how many innocent Afghani and Iraqi children have been killed by NATO and the US. Our bombs fall on the houses of 10 year olds and kill them too.

    The difference is that we can deny that we meant to do it, and a lot of you actually believe it.
  80. Antonio San from Canada writes: At least they are using their troubled kids to effectiveness: they do not have the SOCC...
  81. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Unbelievable. They're using children now? For the record, sending a child, who cannot make decisions on his own, to commit suicide, is just as bad as killing him yourself.
    I believe CDS Hillier had it right all along: 'detestable murderers and scumbags'.

    Canadians should be PROUD that we are doing our best to rid the world of these 'people'.
  82. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Tim Cares from Canada writes: Your hypothesis that since we consider adulthood to start at 18, everyone else should to is just another example of expecting everyone to live their lives and shape their societies in a way that conforms to your beliefs.
    It is really quite bigoted.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looks like I struck a nerve. You can delete it all you like but the comment still stands in relation to Tims argument. I happen to cut and paste when I am faced with G&M censorship.

    Here is what I originally posted before the comment was censored and deleted.

    'I have always struggled with the fact that liberals think a 50 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl was a good idea, but Tims statements above clears it all up for me.'

    Why would this comment be removed and deemed as 'offensive'.
  83. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: May 15 UN special rapporteur Philip Alston delivers report where he exposes foreign agents for killing civilians in raids.

    His report is dismissed by many as 'speculation' and not 'evidence'. Even if these raids killed 5 year olds...

    Fast forward to May 16, headlines scream '10-year old' 'child' and we read 'described by witnesses as around 10 years old'

    but that's not dismissed as speculation, even though a NATO General described a 'teenager', which confuses the issue.

    Selective outrage..
  84. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: I also hope they don't start sending more young kids to attack our troops - CF will have to shoot every child that comes near.

    Maybe that's the strategy; to get foreign forces to shoot indiscriminately. It certainly has become epidemic in Iraq, where US soldiers are notorious for not just gunning down families, but planting weapons on them after the fact.
    See the Winter Soldier testimony from returning vets who admit to doing exactly that.

    A Corporal in the United States Marine Corps tells of the common practice of using 'drop weapons' or shovels, which could be tossed next to the body of a civilian they had killed, in order to justify the death under the 'Rules of Engagement'.

    No one, I repeat, no one knows how many innocent Afghani and Iraqi children have been killed by NATO and the US. Our bombs fall on the houses of 10 year olds and kill them too.

    The difference is that we can deny that we meant to do it, and a lot of you actually believe it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An epidemic in Iraq? Please post links that verify that statement.

    Also, please post links to this good Corporals statement about it being 'common practice'.

    And you're right, no one knows how many children have been killed by NATO bombing an enemy position. Probably one or two. The difference is called 'intent'. A very powerful word in the legal world. The intent of NATO is to kill the child murderers, the intent of the Taliban is to murder children in order to kill NATO troops.
  85. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Jimmy K - yep, the same types of people that the US supported in the 1980's, and that Pakistan is still supporting, while it receives billions in arms from us.

    Go figure. You'd almost think we're playing both sides of the game.....nah, we'd never do that!
  86. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: May 15 UN special rapporteur Philip Alston delivers report where he exposes foreign agents for killing civilians in raids.

    His report is dismissed by many as 'speculation' and not 'evidence'. Even if these raids killed 5 year olds...

    Fast forward to May 16, headlines scream '10-year old' 'child' and we read 'described by witnesses as around 10 years old'

    but that's not dismissed as speculation, even though a NATO General described a 'teenager', which confuses the issue.

    Selective outrage..

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morally repugnant..
  87. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Joe Canada - google Winter Soldier and you can read the testimony. Also visit www.ivaw.org and you can link to video testimony.

    Honestly, I was both impressed and disgusted by the testimony; impressed with their honesty, disgusted with the depravations of these young soldiers..
    Here's what a Sergeant who served four years and ten months in the United States Marine Corps Infantry with an honorable discharge had to say about the 'Rules of Engagement':

    ' The rules of engagement have been broadly defined and loosely enforced to protect US service members at the expense of the Iraqi people'
    'With no way to identify their attackers and no clear mission worth dying for, Marines viewed the rules of engagement as either a joke or a technicality to be worked around so that they could bring each other home alive. Not only are the misuse of rules of engagement in Iraq indicative of supreme strategic incompetence, they are also a moral disgrace. The people who have set them should be ashamed of ourselves, and they are just one of the many reasons why the troops should be withdrawn immediately from Iraq.'
  88. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: I note Joe Canada speculates that 'no one knows how many children have been killed by NATO bombing an enemy position. Probably one or two.'

    one or two? Is that supposed to be funny?

    'Children have also become casualties in military operations against the insurgency, including air strikes by international military forces. Air strikes have in some cases unintentionally missed their target and fallen on civilian areas, killing children. On 9 March 2007, nine civilians in Kapisa Province, including four children, were killed in a Coalition military air strike. On 8 May 2007, 21 civilians, including women and children, were reportedly killed in Helmand province as a result of air-strikes that supported ISAF operations. ISAF has acknowledged at the Protection of Civilians Workshop in Kabul in August 2007 that mistakes have been made during operations, and informed the UN that they continue to adjust operations to minimise civilian casualties.'

    http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/afghanistan.html

    On unexploded ordinance (UXO) 'Between August 2006 and July 2007, 295 mine and UXO accidents involving children, which accounts for over 60 percent of the total number of accidents, resulted in at least 59 deaths. The UN remains disturbed by reports of children being used to perpetrate attacks and, in some cases, as human shields by the Taleban and other insurgents. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and the UN has documented several high profile cases of children involved in attacks.'

    etc..etc.. That's a little more than one or two,isn't it?
  89. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: One thing is almost certain: if this conflict is ended, by negotiation, far less children will be killed by NATO bombs, perhaps none.

    It is worth repeating that war is a very toxic and dangerous state, and many bad things happen. Atrocities abound, murder and lawlessness are rampant.

    This is not a peaceful, loving thing to do to fellow human beings, no matter what you believe the intentions are. Neither was training and arming Islamic insurgents against the Soviet-backed government in 1979. How many children were slaughtered or orphaned because of that completely optional proxy war?
    Anyone?
  90. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: So let me see if I understand: It's a good thing that we send young Canadians to die in Afghanistan because the Taliban booby trap children?

    I just don't understand this way of thinking. How are our military preventing the Taliban from doing these things? How do the deaths of Canadians mitigate this?

    Afghanistan is nothing compared with Pakistan; should we send troops there as well? Should we send troops to overthrow Mugabe, or the Burmese generals?

    Given that we are not pursuing Al Qaeda, why are Canadians there? This is clearly a conflict between the Karzai regime and the Taleban; why is Canada involved, and why should Canada be involved in this particular conflict?
  91. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: This is what happens when you don't build more basketball courts...oh wait....I'm pretty sure they have Afghan focused schools in Afghanistan????
  92. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Cluster bomb use by US

    http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html

    http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=17793

    http://www.rawa.org/s-cluster.htm

    In Afghanistan alone, about 20 innocent civilians including children and women, daily fall victim to mines, half of whom loss their lives due to lack of medical facilities. Due to the presence of mines, access has been denied to more than 488 square kilometer of land, including agricultural fields, irrigation canals roads and residential areas.

    Over 30% mine victims in Afghanistan are children. The legacy of that long war also included 750,000 amputees

    The UN figure for the number of Landmines in Afghanistan at 10 million. There are more than 600,000 landmines to be cleared while the warring factions are still laying more.
  93. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi - why are we there? because the US got it's nose bloodied by a former protege, Osama Bin Laden. They wanted revenge; ironically after helping to create Al Qaeda (the database) from the mujahedeen, they then bungled the attempt to capture or kill him.

    The Taliban finally offered to hand over OBL to a non-US entity, but the Bush administration said no, we'd rather attack the whole country and let him escape.

    If you wrote a fictional novel about gross incompetence, you couldn't think of anything more stupid than what took place here. Now Canada's stuck here until further notice, since our government refuses to allow us to vote on it.

    If the Canadian majority got its way, we'd probably be leaving Kandahar next year, but our politicians find it very convenient to play politics with the subject, as they jockey for power. Good for them, bad for us and democracy, I say.
  94. R Hopkins from Edmonton, Canada writes: Did NATO kill his mother?
  95. Fred Smith from Canada writes: Only proves this war can't be won ... Just think next time a 10 year old starts running toward Canadian soldiers they have to shot him or her just to be on the safe side .. Maybe the kids just want some candy or maybe they want to kill you .. Welcome to counter-insurgentcy warfare just when you think it's bad it gets worse ..
    Soon shooting Afghan women and childern will be normal if you want to stay alive ...
  96. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi - I forgot to mention that instead of having an international tribunal to try Mr. Bin Laden, where he may in fact have been found not guilty, the US had a unique opportunity to use up a nice big chunk of expensive weapons that it had lying around, including cluster bombs, which it dropped on civilian areas.

    It was a win-win situation: Bin Laden stays around as the bogeyman, the military gets it's rocks off, and 100's of billions of dollars are spent on more weapons.

    What's not to like about it? War is great for business, if you're the world's number one spender on military in the world (50% of total military spending is done by the US alone, which has 5% of the world's population), and the world's largest exporter of arms.

    There IS a strong connection, dontcha think?
  97. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Fred Smith - precisely. It's a no-win situation for our troops in that case. They have to consider every child an enemy combatant.
    You know what happens after that.....

    Winter Soldier
  98. J L from Canada writes: Disgusting These despicable excuses for human beings are now recruiting 10 years armed with bombs.joining obviously mentally sick individuals who place explosive devices in the