Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

2 children killed by Canadian troops in Afghanistan

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 12:36 PM EST 28/07/08

NATO says soldiers opened fire on a car they feared was about to attack convoy ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: GET THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!
  2. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes:
    If you aren't going to listen then you shouldn't weep when you are attacked. Enough lives are lost when a car explodes in a sneak attack. People should know, after all these years, that you don't approach convoys. It is sad that these children have died but the parent driving the vehicle is to blame. No one else!
  3. Kublah Khan from Canada writes: After 88 Canadian troops have been killed, who can blame our boys for being a little fast on the trigger. Rev has the right idea. Stephen, time to stand up for what is right and what the majority of Canadians want!
  4. jim thomas from ontar e..erio, Canada writes: At first read, I was curious which NATO troops had killed the children. I suspected US troops as they have a reputation as being trigger happy. It goes to show me that under conditions of constrant potential attack from what appears to be a potential car bombing that the lines become unclear. Are Canadian troops now trigger happy too? When things like this happen, it becomes difficult to believe that Canada is going to come out of this as being seen as helping by Afghanis.

    I could write get out of Afghanistan like Rev but I don't think anyone is listening?
  5. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Recently a young illiterate youth, (in Iraq if I recall correctly, but it might have been Afghanistan), was almost conned into being a suicide driver, (told he'd be 'reunited with his family' if he drove the truck), and there was, not long ago, an Afghan 6 year-old who had explosives taped to his body.

    I have no idea of the actual circumstances behind the incident discussed in this thread, nor could I have, but I'm of the opinion that, as part of the investigation, the possibility that this was a set-up, with children being deliberately 'sacrificed', cannot be ignored.

    We are NOT dealing with nice people, and I fail to understand how ANYONE in Afghanistan could be unaware of how to behave around troop convoys.
  6. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: This articles obvious sadness aside, one wonders if these people hold any environmental awareness of what is happening in their own country. CAR[?]=CAR BOMB...CAR[?]=IED Many Afghans have died as a result of car bombs and IED's surely a little caution and attention to traffic flow is not amiss.
  7. the douglas from haldimand, Canada writes: This country has been at war since at least 1979; the Soviets, itself ( Taleban & warlords), now NATO. Every man and woman should know you do not approach troops in a manner that could be perceived as threatening. Every man and woman should know you do as directed by the man holding the gun.
  8. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: This story highlights a major weakness in Nato's position, fighting against and enemy indistiguishable from the civilians we are meant to help .The US faced a similar problem in Viet Nam , which the tactic of suicide bombing makes far worse .These tragedies are inevitable, and while I have great compassion for the children, I also have great compassion for the soldiers who did the shooting . Who I have little compassion for are the fools who sent Canada's army there, the fools who keep them there , and the fools who reduce the whole Afghan paradox to a simple 'good vs bad' paradigm. .
  9. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Brendan Caron from vancouver-How hard is that heart or brain of yours? Children driving, get it children. That is not Canada, Brendan. Kids work at a lot younger age in many places in the world. Children however are not developed in many ways as adults. Innocent people jerk. Innocent people. In Iraq there has been 4000-5000 troops but approx 1 million civilians. Talk about abomination. Judgement headed our way. I am not sure of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan but I can assure you it is a lot more than our troops.
  10. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: REV eighteenseventeen writes: 'Children driving, get it children. That is not Canada, Brendan. Kids work at a lot younger age in many places in the world.'
    .................
    I find it somewhat difficult to believe that a TWO year old or a FOUR year old was driving this vehicle; it's certainly not indicated in the accompanying article that suggests their PARENTS were in the car.
  11. Brian Dell from Stockholm, Sweden writes: I don't have enough info to say whether a 'weapons free' policy here ultimately saves Afghani lives on net given the hundreds of Afghanis (not to mention the dozens of Canadians) that have been killed by car bombers, or not. It could be necessary for the greater good, but if so, we have a stark example of why war is such a evil. Is the world a better place for the Canadian military being in southern Afghanistan? Probably. _But the Taliban undoubtedly believe they are making the world better (which they may just equate with 'holier') as well_. These moral catastrophes can only come about if both sides are unyielding about their confidence that their actions are, in fact, making the world better. A certain humility about the righteousness of military action is thus necessary to avoid war. From the way things look here in Sweden, whether the USA is right or not when it takes up the gun as it frequently has since WWII is accordingly rather beside the point. I don't think it is right to call GWB a baby killer and neither is it right to call the Canadian gunner here that. Their object is not to kill children. But children do get killed and when it happens it is legimitate and perhaps even necessary to review the question of whether the greater good is really being served. I define a 'neo-con' as a liberal idealist who has become cynical about the means (e.g. that regulation or that border is ultimately just a colonial artificat or otherwise something arbitrary you can't logically sanctify) _but not about the idealist ends_. Canadians in general appear to be self-critical and relatively humble which is why the world is generally inclined to respect the necessity of 'collateral damage' caused by the Canadian military.
  12. Sam Barns from moncton, Canada writes: These soldiers should be arrested for murder and put in jail for 25 years.

    The occupation is not just futile but criminal.
  13. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: It doesn't matter who was driving the car. These wars are about control of the distribution of oil and gas in the middle. It's all greed. And you ( canadians ) have no say. If anyone thinks for one minute that the liberals or any other political party will end the war and bring our troops home once elected, they are dreaming. This war was pushed on us by all the political parties and the main-stream media who are in the pockets of corporate globalization. We are being integrated into the so-called new-world order. And you have absolutely no say whatsoever.
  14. Richard Soley from writes: Well before the human rights crowd goes off the deep end I suggest strongly they write the Taliban and their close buddies the AL-Qeada and demand the SOB put on a uniform, and quite using civilians to hide behide. Our soldiers get ambushed from civilian crowds, houses, compounds, they get ambushed while working to pave roads, build schools, help the population repair and reconstruct their country but they get Sh%^ for defending themselves. THe only mistake is the self appointed critics who 'demand' without considering the situation our troops face nor the chaos and bloodshed if NATO was to leave. THe finest solders in the world are doing the very best they can, rmemeber that and support our solders!
  15. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: rev... you are an abomination.
  16. Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: Reg Anderson from Canada writes: It doesn't matter who was driving the car. These wars are about control of the distribution of oil and gas in the middle. It's all greed. And you ( canadians ) have no say. If anyone thinks for one minute that the liberals or any other political party will end the war and bring our troops home once elected, they are dreaming. This war was pushed on us by all the political parties and the main-stream media who are in the pockets of corporate globalization. We are being integrated into the so-called new-world order. And you have absolutely no say whatsoever. ____________________________________________I take it that the Globe and Mail is not the mainstream media then. They appear to be the most anti-war paper around. Remember, convoys have been going around kandahar for ages, and the soldiers used all tools at their disposal to ward the vehicle off before engaging. This involves the use of signs with pitures and writing (pics due to the literacy rate), hand signals waving the vehicle off, and warning shots. These are all done prior to actually enagaing the vehicle proper. So being trigger happy is not the case. Yes, it sucks that two kids were killed. But it could have been worse. The driver failed to adgere to the list of signals given by the troops and kept on coming. He must take some of the blame for this. Sam Barmes says we should put the soldiers in jail, charge them with murder. He is a classic example of the Canadian public. Knows nothing about war, Afghanistan or soldiering, but will demand that their voice be heard when they spout drivel.
  17. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Rubbish Binny from Canada: If you're going to respond, please respond with some intelligence. Your comment isn't even worth my time.
  18. Jerry g from Canada writes: so many of the posters think that Afghanistan is like Canada, everyone watches TV and listens to Nato on how to approach a military convoy. Well guess what, they have a different language and also different culture. And mass media is in local pockets. So to the ones who think everyone in Afghanistan knows what the Canadian army protocol are, are dreamers and ignorant.
  19. Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: Yeah, and your comments are overflowing with intelligence, aren't they Reg. Pot, meet kettle. I guess you are one of those self appointed 'experts'we keep hearing about. Why not go over there and see first hand?
  20. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: Hard to believe that a car with 4 occupants would be a car bomb. Even suicide bombers are not that inefficient. Trigger happy indeed.
  21. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Rubbish Binny from Canada:

    I have no interest in getting into a sand-box piss-fight with you. Just go away.
  22. John Fedup from Canada writes: The driver, who survived the shooting, should have been strung up and left to rot.
  23. Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: Reg, scared of a few valid points that blow away your theories. The troops followed all the steps to ensure the safety of themselves and the occupants of the veh. If that driver intends on continuing his approac, then si be it. But Reg, you seem to want to make the CF out to be the bad guys, again and again and again. You want to avoid a sand box piss fight, then give a valid response instead of trying to convice me that you know more about Canbadian procedure than anyone. What next, you will probably criticize my spelling and grammar instead of giving a decent argument. You responses Reg, are the ones that are useless, again.
  24. Blaine Walker from Ft.Erie, Canada writes: The Canadian troops must have just watched the return of John Rambo and got all American on us.If you think this is an isolated incident then you're either naive or in denial.As for Brendan Caron and his ilk maybe some day, God willing, someone will take shots at your car when you're on your way to your next KKK meeting.You people are pathetic.
  25. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Paraphrasing Mad Albright on Iran sanctions murdering 500 000 Iraq kids: 'It's in a good cause.'

    In any event, they were Muslim kids and well, many Canadians know that .....

    And besides, our troops KNOW that they are hated, so what's another two kids?

    Perhaps we can sent them to Palestine to help the IDF, eh?>

    Canada: bring home the occupation and secret sniper killers troops.
  26. The Truth Is Out There from Canada writes: anyone who supports this war or has anything to do with it should be totally ashamed of themselves!!!
  27. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: No, Sam - it is the politicans and the generals who should be in the dock. Where is the ICC when it is not after Mugabe and Bashir?

    Sam Barns from moncton, Canada writes: These soldiers should be arrested for murder and put in jail for 25 years.

    The occupation is not just futile but criminal.
  28. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: Reg, scared of a few valid points that blow away your theories. The troops followed all the steps to ensure the safety of themselves and the occupants of the veh. If that driver intends on continuing his approac, then si be it. But Reg, you seem to want to make the CF out to be the bad guys, again and again and again. You want to avoid a sand box piss fight, then give a valid response instead of trying to convice me that you know more about Canbadian procedure than anyone. What next, you will probably criticize my spelling and grammar instead of giving a decent argument. You responses Reg, are the ones that are useless, again.
    --
    First I want you tp show me where I tryed to convince you that I know more about Canbadian procedure than anyone. Please.. show me the words.. place them in your next response. You don't even know what your talking about do you?
  29. T Rimmer from MB, Canada writes: There is nothing 'trigger happy' about this situation. The driver was warned repeatedly to stop. He didn't. This is war, and people die in war, and that includes children. Their father -- or whoever the male driver was, is the one at fault here.

    Who is to say that the driver WASN'T in the process of threatening the soldiers? Just because you can't believe that a man would enact a suicide bombing (or use his vehicle against soldiers as a weapon, bomb or no) with children in the car, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is a long history of using children to distract, and even carry, bombs. Don't let your liberal sensibilities tell you that 'that doesn't happen' -- it's that blindness that allows it to work, and continues the use of children in this way in war zones.
  30. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Clive Gingell from Canada writes: I have children a lot older than 2 or 4 but not yet teens. They are still children. Take a trip to India it may open your eyes what kids do at 10 years old, yes kids (children) ten or eleven. The article says they are children driving not babes. Get a heart.
  31. bruno barsuazie from Bloomfield, Canada writes: Dear Canadian Press/Globe and Mail: I strongly object to the HEADLINE of this item. Yes, it is unfortunate that there were childrens' deaths but the proper action was taken. If only the driver was killed instead. Stifle your alarmist headlines and focus on reality. Only the Taliban gains from this outrageous headlining.
  32. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Clive Gingell- My apologies, my mistake. G&M has this article changed since it first came out? I was the first post and methinks it has changed. Maybe to early in the morning.
  33. c rob from Canada writes: Now just who in his or her right mind thought this wouldn't happen in a war zone? Who do you think suffer the most during war? Look at Iraq, look at Bosnia, look at Rwanda, look at Darfur, just look for pete's sake and realize that the children suffer the most when political leaders go to war behind the comfort of their big desks.

    Enough.
  34. Mircho Mirchev from writes: Richard Soley: Aren’t all resistance movements, including the once that you probably would support (re: anti-Nazi resistance in Europe), fighting the same way. Where do you get this naive idea that resistance fighters in Afghanistan have to wear uniform? By your failed logics, we should put on trial all survivors from said anti-Nazi resistance for war crimes, or better for terrorist activities. Admittedly, if it was good for them, it should be good for present resistance groups.
  35. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Actually Clive I printed the original article and it has changed since 5:03 am EDT when it first came out.
  36. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: T Rimmer from MB, Canada writes:
    'Who is to say that the driver WASN'T in the process of threatening the soldiers? Just because you can't believe that a man would enact a suicide bombing (or use his vehicle against soldiers as a weapon, bomb or no) with children in the car, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is a long history of using children to distract, and even carry, bombs.'

    Can you point to a SINGLE incident of suicide car bombing where there were 4 occupants in a car, with children to boot?
  37. Anne Peterson from Canada writes: Are we becoming like the Americans, only counting our own deaths. What is the definition of a psychopath again. We are invading a foreign country, even if the UN was pressured into agreeing. Whether we dress it up as saving those poor people from themselves or not, it is about strategic resources and American power. Forgotten fact: the Taliban are Afghans. I recommend Eric Margolis's book. He makes it clear who we are fighting and fairly much how futile it is.

    What people can't seem to understand is that if you kill two children you probably make 20 more enemies who will willingly follow the Taliban. Sort of a self perpetuating method of having an enemy to fight.

    Very handy in Iraq. Keep everybody fighting until the oil is in the right hands.
  38. B . from Canada writes: Some of these comments amaze me. Anyone driving in Afghanistan should be well aware of foreign and afghan troops in the country as well as the absolute necessity of stopping when told to do so at a checkpoint.
    The children's (or any) deaths are regrettable, but the soldiers already have to go to great lengths - often at increased risk to themselves - to prevent things like this from happening. When the driver gave the soldiers no choice but to shoot, it is the driver that actually killed the children, not the Canadian soldiers. The situation is regrettable, but let's not lose sight of who is at fault here. It is not the soldiers by any stretch of the imagination.

    And as for the Afghans having foreign troops in their country...it is because they have a history of not being able to take care of problems themselves. Letting Bin Laden & Co hang out there was an invitation to invasion.
  39. Is there anybody out there? from Canary Islands, Canada writes: NO MORE KILLING.
  40. Mircho Mirchev from writes: Once the occupation forces start killing children in order to protect themselves, they are in trouble. They are obviously not in the right place. No reasonable person can justify such a killing in Canada. It should not be justifiable anywhere else either. The life of the children is worth more that the life of invading forces.
  41. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: What a sad human being.

    T Rimmer from MB, Canada writes: .... This is war, and people die in war, and that includes children. ...'

    Bear this in mind when more Hillier Heroes follow these children the End. If the murdered kids are from the Pashtuns, then more Hillier Heroes are being planned right now. We Christians are in a killing frenzy of Muslim Afghans.
  42. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: B . from Canada- Soften your heart please.
  43. kathy the islands from Canada writes: Brendan Caron from Vancouver.

    Agree.
  44. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: kathy the islands- You work for the G&M Kathy?
  45. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: I am astonished at the number of people who portray the soldiers in their armoured vehicle and cannons at the ready as being the real victim. I guess, if you are a civilian in Afghanistan, you are not allowed a single error of judgment, distraction, oversight - anything. You so much as miss a hair in your coffee and you, along with anybody else with you, is dead. Righteous consequence of the true victims which are soldiers in their armoured vehicles.
    I am not suggesting, not for a moment, that these kids were deliberately targeted, but come on now, blaming the parents is going way too far. It is the same attitude as feeling sorry for cops when a senior or a youth, or a person in a jail cell is tazered. In this age of paranoid fear, the victim always seems to be the guilty party, even if the victim is a toddler or a toddler's parent.
  46. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Here we go, let the Canadian military slam-fest begin. Good on ya G&M for opening up this one for comments. No surprise there.
  47. Dave M from Canada writes: I can't blame the Canadian soldiers in the sense that they are bad people, the pressure on them must be intense. And these types of incidents in Iraq have led some American soldiiers to later commit suicide, so I feel bad for the soldiers. But I'm also a little sick after seeing some of the comments here about Afghan children deserving to die. I just hope none of our troops are like you. You are not normal, do you understand that?
  48. cool breeze from Canada writes: this is a tough situation to be in...its killed or be killed so i see why the soldiers fired

    on the other hand, the flow of information in places like Afghanistan is extremely restricted...so it is unfair to expect Afghan civilians to make perfect decisions based on half baked information...

    my heart goes out to the families of the kids and to the soldiers that have to live with it
  49. Mani Pulated from Bymedia, Canada writes: Because of this war, it is now a crime, punishable by death, to become lost or confused, during a car trip.
  50. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: I suspect that the majority of posters here that are criticizing the Canadian military are the same ones that are against the deployment of 200 additional troops to support the choppers that are forthcoming. I'm not sure what the purpose of this convoy was, but with the deployment of the choppers, the number of convoys required will go down. Therefore, one can conclude that as the number of convoys goes down, so will the number of Canadian deaths and accidental Afghani deaths. In other words, the deployment of the choppers (including the 200 troops that will support them) is a win-win situation for both the Canadian military AND the Afghani populace. Just a little something to think about.
  51. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Mircho Mirchev from writes: Once the occupation forces start killing children in order to protect themselves, they are in trouble. They are obviously not in the right place. No reasonable person can justify such a killing in Canada. It should not be justifiable anywhere else either. The life of the children is worth more that the life of invading forces.
    __________________

    No one is trying to justify the deaths. It was accidental ... the soldier(s) didn't shoot the children intentionally.
  52. c rob from Canada writes: P Jones from NB

    Sir, I do not think that poster was suggesting that these children were deliberately killed. If I understood him correctly, he was lamenting the loss of children's lives as the ultimate tragedy in this and many other messes. I read these posts often and all I read are arguments for winning and losing. Not a single person engaged in that great debate ever mentions the damage already being done to the next generation. Do you honestly think that stabilizing Afghanistan and opening it up for resource development will promote peace? Peace is not possible without Iran's consent, which if not given or negotiated, will lead to yet another round of debate about winning and losing as more accidents occur and children are shot or, if sanctions are imposed (ala Iraq) simply starve.
    To be opposed to a conflict should not be confused with a repudiation of members of our armed forces.
  53. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: REV eighteenseventeen: Apology accepted, and, BTW, I HAVE been to India, (at ground level with a backpack in 1963, hitchhiking east after coming through Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and points west. Been there, done that.).
  54. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: P Jones from NB, Canada writes: the deployment of the choppers (including the 200 troops that will support them) is a win-win situation for both the Canadian military AND the Afghani populace. Just a little something to think about.

    I don't know about 'win-win' P. Jones. If this is still about hearts and minds, hopping around the countryside in choppers, equipped to fire rockets down on people, buildings, or vehicles that look suspicious, is not what I would call 'win-win' for the objectives pursued by those in the air or by those poor sods with no choice but to try and somehow make a living squeezed as they are between an anvil and a hammer.
    Look at Israel and Palestine. How many years has that struggle in the West Bank and Gaza been going on? All the helicopters, tanks, guided missiles, drones (and nukes) in Israel's arsenal has not achieved victory on the ground in the traditional sense, nor has it achieved much in terms of a hearts and minds conversion we try so hard to achieve in Afghanistan.
  55. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: There is now, no more difference between US troops and the CF forces; every human in Afghanistan should be scared sh$tle$$.
    More death to come; on both sides.
  56. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: 'Every Canadian vehicle travelling in a convoy is equipped with potent, 25-millimetre guns'

    I'm no weapons expert, but is it possible to fire a few preliminary warning shots (into the engine block or tires, for example) with this type of gun, before shooting to kill? Or does that require a level of marksmanship these soldiers don't have.

    'Coalition forces run frequent advertising campaigns that warn Afghan locals to keep a safe distance from convoys.'

    I'd like to know more about these advertising campaigns. Do they run on radio, TV, newspapers, billboards? Do they assume all Afghans have the literacy skills to understand the message?

    What I do know is that in Canada, which has a 99% literacy rate, those ads that warn us that 'speed kills' and 'if you drink, don't drive' haven't eliminated all highway fatalities. So, maybe we shouldn't assume that because we run these campaigns in Afghanistan, anyone who gets too close to a convoy deserves to be shot.
  57. Thomas Morris from New York, NY, United States writes: Now who's the trigger happy cowboys! It aint so easy is it?
  58. Winston Smith from Canada writes: I feel sorry for these soldiers.
  59. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Al B says 'Can you point to a SINGLE incident of suicide car bombing where there were 4 occupants in a car, with children to boot?' ................. Could be the bombers have changed their tactics, the others in the car could've been totally unaware of the driver's intentions, and it wouldn't be the first time that children's lives have been deliberately 'sacrificed', (to use the enemy's terminology), in order to kill. Worse things have been done, and done by the child's parents; when I was first in Sri Lanka I saw many children who had been physically mutilated by their PARENTS in order that they might be sent out on the street as beggars. Too many of you people have absolutely NO idea what goes on in the real world, and like the flagellants who whipped themselves during the plague you are so pathetically EAGER to blame yourselves for everything that happens. Perhaps that's easier than harsh reality? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/children-getting-sweets-from-us-troops-are-killed-by-car-bomber-498725.html Quote: 'Children getting sweets from US troops are killed by car bomber A suicide car bomber killed 27 people and wounded 67, mostly children, when he blew himself up beside a US patrol in east Baghdad. The children were crowding around an American vehicle to receive sweets from soldiers when they were caught by the blast.' Unquote. HERE are the people who target children, children of their OWN religion & ethnic background!
  60. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Some idiot loaded a couple of kids in a car, drove near a military convoy, surely knowing the consequences of ignoring a signal to bear off but did so anyway. Whose to blame, the soldier who is trained to follow military procedure and reacted accordingly or the fool that got himself and the children into the situation? Things happen in time of war, sometimes with unfortunate consequences. Bleeding hearts rejoice and the leftie media makes sure they do.
  61. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Get out of Afghanistan now.....nothing else need be said...these murders were very predictable, there was nothing accidental about them other than the timing.
  62. Joe V from Canada writes: What I want to know is why they didn't fire a few warning shots into the ground in front of the vehicle before it came so close?
  63. Jeff Sheremeta from Calgary, Canada writes: Get our troops out of the American oil pipeline services business.
    Paving the way for oil transportation is about all that is being done with all this death now. It was the major reason before and after 911 that Afghanistan was of much interest to the US.

    At least Canada was smart enough not to join in looting Iraq too.
  64. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Some idiot loaded a couple of kids in a car, drove near a military convoy, surely knowing the consequences of ignoring a signal to bear off but did so anyway.

    I guess in your world parents in a Afghanistan never have a need to take their kids anywhere. Not to visit family, not to go shopping, and not for medical reasons.
    Who was driving near whom anyway? Was the military convoy driving near where the private car was travelling, or was the private car driving near where the military convoy was travelling?
    Some may place the blame on the soldier who pulled the trigger, some may place it on the driver of the car. The kids are just collateral damage on the margins of the big picture, right?
    How about the ultimate responsibility for collateral damage, where does that fall? Do politicial leaders who make 'War on Terror' pronouncements and military leaders who make 'Get the Bad Guys' pronouncements carry any responsibility at all for such collateral damage, or are they victims as well???
  65. Jesse Winger from Calgary AB, Canada writes: How the children suffer and die in the wars of men.

    We are there for a higher purpose, aren't we?
  66. Lucien Pignon from Quebec city, Canada writes: Proud to be Quebecois, not Canadian. http://antiantagoniste.blogspot.com/2008/07/le-canada-en-afghanistan-cest-comme.html

    So, most of you were happy that over 200 more soldiers were going to be send in Afghanistan. Good, they'll be able to kill much more civilians.

    I thought that Canada was suppose to help Afghan children to get to school, not to kill them.

    Shame on you Canadians.
  67. Lucien Pignon from Quebec city, Canada writes: All that war because the USA let happen 911. That was an inside job and now, you Canadians, are killing children in Afghanistan. Shame on you, shame on you...
    http://investigate911.se/
  68. BJ Homes from Ontario, Canada writes: As a result of this incident more Canadian soldiers will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder in the future. Families both in Canada and Afghanistan will have to bear the cost of this tragedy for years to come.
  69. Captain Jack from Canada writes: Coalition forces run frequent advertising campaigns that warn Afghan locals to keep a safe distance from convoys. In fact, most locals are terrified of getting close to military vehicles.
    ... Cars generally screech to a halt and pull off the road to let military convoys pass.

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

    Are people required to genuflect as well?

    Is there a law in Afghanistan that gives the right of way to military vehicles, or is it merely and extra-judicial practice of the foreign armies to bully their way around the roadways?
  70. John Morrow from Canada writes: Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Can you point to a SINGLE incident of suicide car bombing where there were 4 occupants in a car, with children to boot? '

    Al,

    Clearly you've never made a life or death decision in your life.

    How exactly would you propose to identify which speeding cars have bombs and which cars are carrying kids at distances of 10-50 meters? Its not like you can wait until the car pulls up beside you.

    Perhaps you'd like to go over and play the role of car bomb identification guy.
  71. Mark S from Canada writes: I just don't get it, there were four adults and two children in the car. Not one of these four adults had heard or read anything about the warnings to stay away from the convoy's. I hardly doubt that!!! The adults are responsible for the death of these two children. It could very well have been a test to see how close they would be allowed to approach. We'll never know. I put no blame on the soldiers.
  72. Cuban Cigar from Canada writes: BJ Homes from Ontario, Canada writes: As a result of this incident more Canadian soldiers will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder in the future. Families both in Canada and Afghanistan will have to bear the cost of this tragedy for years to come.
    --------------
    Let's see - therapy sessions vs. losing one's children.
    My guess is the family in Afghanistan will have a slight edge.
  73. The Work Farce from Canada writes: It's obvious from the comments by the war nuts that this futile war is not about helping Afghan women and children to have schools and democracy. They don't give a damn about Afghans but like the entertainment and vicarious glory these wars provide them. You don't liberate people by killing and maiming them, destroying their homes, occupying their streets, humiliating them and littering their land with artillery shells and land mines. This whole war isn't worth wasting the lives of two children because soon as the politicians get sick of this war and move on to the next war, Afghanistan will likely explode in another civil war. And it will be our fault.
  74. Sunil W from Canada writes: It seems like Canada is under some sort of mass hypnosis that we are actually doing good in Afghanistan...no matter how many of our boys die there or how many innocent Afghans are killed. So it doesn't really matter if the Afghan sees us a doing good or not. Our govt. does, the public does and the men in uniform do so thats all that matters. Otherwise why haven't we, as a country touting democracy far and wide, done anything about bringing our boys home yet. Are we waiting for the next election or are we collcetively hiding behind our democratic processes?
  75. Tom Weller from Canada writes:
    It’s a lame, copout kind of excuse indeed to blame the victims for their own deaths. Take note that the same solder who pulled the trigger may also become a victim one day of his own deed. These kinds of disastrous incidents are the breeding grounds for the dreaded Post Traumatic Stress Disorder where seeds of self destruction are sown.

    So stop justifying for more devastation more killing and maiming in this never ending, militarily unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Stop cheering on our solders to kill more enemies and become fatalities or turn into tormented victims themselves. Try to win this war with some old-fashioned diplomatic negotiations too, not only with brute force by bombs and bullets alone. Bring home our solders intact, preferably not in body bags or psychologically scared for life wrecks.
  76. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: 'Every Canadian vehicle travelling in a convoy is equipped with potent, 25-millimetre guns' I'm no weapons expert, but is it possible to fire a few preliminary warning shots (into the engine block or tires, for example) with this type of gun, before shooting to kill? Or does that require a level of marksmanship these soldiers don't have. 'Coalition forces run frequent advertising campaigns that warn Afghan locals to keep a safe distance from convoys.' I'd like to know more about these advertising campaigns. Do they run on radio, TV, newspapers, billboards? Do they assume all Afghans have the literacy skills to understand the message? What I do know is that in Canada, which has a 99% literacy rate, those ads that warn us that 'speed kills' and 'if you drink, don't drive' haven't eliminated all highway fatalities. So, maybe we shouldn't assume that because we run these campaigns in Afghanistan, anyone who gets too close to a convoy deserves to be shot. ____________________ Only the LAV III's have the 25 mm guns and they wouldn't have been used in ithis situation. I believe the SOP for the soldiers in this situation is to warn the vehicle to back off with hand signals, then fire warning shots, then disable the vehicle. Any firing of a weapon would be done with the soldiers' rifles. The whole sequence of events happens very fast and the soldiers have to make instant decisions. The children likely got hit when the soldiers were trying to disable the vehicle. Regardless, it was a terrible accident. Those who are throwing around the 'trigger-happy' accusation don't know what they are talking about ... period.
  77. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: One notes how the deaths of these two children has provoked deep regret and sadness in those who promote the Afghan war on this forum. Perhaps a similar tragedy will strike them one day, and we can all show the same level of concern.

    The amazing thing about all this is how little thought people are willing to give the Canadian Forces practice of shooting at civilians if they come too close to a CF convoy. Would you like to see how quickly it can all happen? Here's a link to a video on YouTube showing a Canadian convoy firing on Afghan vehicles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKcjmnhskjk

    It's from a PBS documentary. The whole excerpt is interesting, but the sequence to note begins at about the 1:12 point. You will see the Canadian convoy traveling along a winding road. As it's rounding a bend with the view ahead obscured by trees, a vehicle approaches. The approaching vehicle probably didn't see the Canadians coming due to the trees. At about the 1:23 point the two vehicles can see each other clearly, and at the 1:25 point the Canadian convoy fires a warning shot into the ground immediately in front of the vehicle.

    Two seconds. As an Afghan civilian driving your car on a country road, that might be all the time you're given to recognize what's happening and take appropriate action, or be shot dead.

    With no evidence whatsoever, many people here believe the driver in this case was acting without due caution. Yet there are countless ways in which the driver may have done all he could but still would have been shot under the current Canadian Forces policy.

    The Canadian Forces policy of shooting at civilians who come too close to their convoys is a DEATH SENTENCE on as yet unnamed innocent Afghan civilians. I deplore that policy.

    A 25 mm cannon round through the head of a four-year old child? Take that to bed with you tonight, Canada.

  78. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: The Work Farce from Canada writes: It's obvious from the comments by the war nuts that this futile war is not about helping Afghan women and children to have schools and democracy. They don't give a damn about Afghans but like the entertainment and vicarious glory these wars provide them ...
    ____________________

    What's obvious is your intent to make trouble.
  79. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Richard Roskell from Canada writes: One notes how the deaths of these two children has provoked deep regret and sadness in those who promote the Afghan war on this forum. Perhaps a similar tragedy will strike them one day, and we can all show the same level of concern ...
    _____________________

    Nice opening to your post there Richard. It shows plenty of insight into your character.
  80. jamie yavis from Canada writes: Cowboys! Nothing more nothing less!

    We have absolutely no right to be in Afghanistan, and only once the tables were reveres ed can we really ever understand that.

    For democracy? For freedom? I think not! These people are being killed on their own soil for what North Americans, not the world, feels is their god given right to do.

    And don't give me the crap about 911, this war has been going on for centuries and we are the ones that seem to perpetuate it.
  81. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: No matter how you twist your logic and your morals into supporting this abominable war, there are unavoidable consequences to what Canada is doing there.

    'Another hospital visitor said that if he were the children's father, he would personally strap on a suicide vest and exact vengeance on Canadian troops.

    Shopkeeper Din Mohammad said foreign soldiers had better stop accidentally killing civilians or they will suffer the same bitter fate as the defeated Soviets.'

    Wake up and alter course before it's too late, Canada.
  82. Commisar From Canuckistan from Canada writes: Richard Roskell from Canada writes: One notes how the deaths of these two children has provoked deep regret and sadness in those who promote the Afghan war on this forum. Perhaps a similar tragedy will strike them one day, and we can all show the same level of concern ...

    Your comment shows your one sick individual. This was a tragedy no doubt regretable for sure but your comments are sick.
  83. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: P Jones, six posts from you on this topic and not one of the six expresses a word of concern for the Canadian Forces policy of shooting civilians who come too close to their convoys.

    I'd say that gives pretty good insight into YOUR character.
  84. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Commisar, your problem with my comments is what, exactly?
  85. Jack Flack from Canada writes: Richard Roskell,

    I would assume the Commisar has a problem with your implied desire to see posters, who support Canadian soldiers defending themselves, have a family member shot.
  86. Commisar From Canuckistan from Canada writes: This is 'Perhaps a similar tragedy will strike them one day, and we can all show the same level of concern ...'

    If you dont see whats wrong with that statement god help you.
  87. Dave Hasler from Edmonton, Canada writes: Good morning Richard Roskell ..... a few comments on war in Afghanistan.

    War as we can see is distasteful and sometimes tragic - but necessary until the day we all wake up to a one world government with common ground and flowers everywhere.

    The problem with diversity is just that - diversity. Then you insert ego, pride, nationalism and whatever else into the mix and you inevitably end up with some sort of conflict.

    Rwanda, the Balkans, Israel/Palistine Darfur and many other problem areas are probably easily ignored by Canada for the most part. Unless of course we wish to be members of the international community and the UN. Even the Swedish with their renouned 'neutrality' have engaged in the Afghan theatre - albeit in more peaceful areas than Canada is currently.

    I and many others (you too perhaps?? - sorry if I am wrong) more or less ignored the happenings in Afghanistan for the most part after the Soviets withdrew. The Taliban beheaded and blasted their way to power as the world yawned.

    Such as we tend to do with many dictators or extremist regimes that pick on their own. What matters if thousands or even millions die as long as WE are not involved.

    What should the world do about Darfur?

    Stay out of there??? After all it could be dangerous - just as Afghanistan is.

    Should the UN and/or Canada sent troops to Rwanda when the first signs of genocide appeared. It is widely regarded that early action could have saved 500,000 lives.

    It would have meant running the risk of shooting someone.

    I am not advocating the UN or Canada shoot it's way to world liberation. We have a 'peacekeeping' tradition that usually means the slaughter is over and the victors have emerged by the time our troops arrive.

    What are lives actually worth? Is the risk of accidental shootings to be avoided at all cost? Even if it means allowing genocide?
  88. Rob L from Vancouver, Canada writes: Oh, we'll have lots of reasons to boycott the Olympics when it comes to Vancouver in 2010.

    HUMAN RIGHTS FOR AFGHANS! BOYCOTT THE 2010 OLYMPICS!
  89. c rob from Canada writes: While I believe that Mr. Roskell is more than capable of defending himself, all he was trying to do was to inject some empathy into this news. You know what that means don't you folks? Trying to put yourself in someone else's place for a moment. If you are a parent, give it a try. I'll bet most of us can't even try. The horror is too much. That's what he meant. So behave.
  90. drunk wookie from TO, Canada writes: I guess that little girl will get to go to school in heaven. Get ready troops. After the americans killed the 47 members of the wedding party a few weeks later 1km away from the mass murder an american base was overrun and nine soldiers killed plus many wounded. The look on the fathers face says it all. Forget paying the family for their loss. They will come at you and exact revenge so everytime the troops make a mistake and fire on a car, just finish the job and execute everybody inside to avoid fueling the insurgency. If enough 'collateral damage' is done to the country might as well execute the whole country. This is an equation that doesn't have a positive solution for coalition troops. Hey at least the poppy crop is at record levels.

    It must feel real good when the troops actually get to kill an armed 'terrorist'. Little do they know that dead man could've been trying to avenge his childs death. But, lets just follow the simple conservatives and support the troops, fight for little girls education rights, blah blah blah. How has Canada sunk so low???
  91. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Very sad to hear about the deaths of these two young boys. It must be very traumatic for the soldiers involved in these accidental deaths. Sadly, eve soldiers as well trained and dedicated as our Canadian forces are open to mistakes in this stressful situation.

    It doesn;t change my view that we are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan and helping with the liberation of this country from the Taliban.
  92. Jack Flack from Canada writes: Richard Roskell,

    ...by the way, checked out that youtube video.

    From what I seen in the video the soldier who fired the warning shot showed great restraint.

    The vehicle was in view of the lead vehicle for a minimum of 5 seconds, more than enough time to pull over to the side.

    As this slow speed approach occured on a turn the soldier used a warning shot to the front of the vehicle to warn the driver and the driver then pulled to the side.

    The incident in this article mentions high speed and repeated audible and visual signals to stop bieng ignored.

    It is a shame that these children died but the fault was in the driver of the civilian vehicle for not paying attention while driving and not stopping when warned.

    The coalition forces have been in theatre for a while now and they have put out information campaigns regarding approaching convoys and soldiers. These campaings involve print media, liasion with tribal elders, radio brodcasts, and signage on the vehicles (with both drawings and writing).

    After all this time it is hard to imagine people not being aware of approaching military vehicles in a WAR ZONE at high speed as dangerous.
  93. J C from Canada writes: Arent' gunners supposed to shoot the engine of approaching cars?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.