Outrage over controversial Islamic group's plan to march through Wootton Bassett

[Uthman]

People in Wootton Bassett, the town famous for honouring dead British soldiers returning from Afghanistan, reacted defiantly on Saturday to news that a controversial Islamic group is to march through its streets.

Mourners watch as soldiers are driven through the village of Wootton Bassett

Islam4UK – which calls itself a "platform" for extremist movement al-Muhajiroun – plans to parade through the Wiltshire town in the coming weeks.

The group's website says the event is being held "not in memory of the occupying and merciless British military" but of the Muslims its says have been "murdered in the name of democracy and freedom".

Leader Anjem Choudary said the protest, involving 500 people, would be peaceful one, with "symbolic coffins" being carried to honour Muslim victims of the conflict. He said he also planned to write to the parents of dead UK soldiers with his version of "the reality of what they died for".

But the walk will not coincide with the return of a dead soldier's body, added Mr Choudary, 42, a former lawyer from East London.

Hundreds of people line the market town's High Street every week to watch servicemen's bodies being driven through from RAF Lyneham.

Family and friends of the fallen, shopkeepers and British Legion members wait in all weathers to pay silent tribute to a cortege of Union flag-draped coffins.

Ex-mayor and councillor Chris Wannell said: "We don't do what we do at Wootton Bassett for any political reason at all, but to pay our respects to those who have given their lives for our freedom.

"We are a Christian country and a traditional old English market town who honour very much our Queen and country. We obey the law and pay respects to our servicemen who protect our freedom.

"If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett."

He also called on the media not to give the group any attention.
North Wiltshire MP James Gray said: "I've seen in the past assorted groups threaten to march, but they don't actually do it. I wouldn't think they'd get permission from the police.

"The people of Wootton Bassett are not interested in politics. They will say, these are foolish people making a silly point – we'll get on with our ordinary lives thank you.

"This also misunderstands the nature of what the people of Wootton Bassett do. They are not bloodthirstily in favour of the war. Most people would say they were not qualified to comment on the rightness or wrongness.

"The people of Wootton Bassett are decent, quiet, pragmatic people and they'll stay at home instead (of reacting to the march)."

Islam4UK describes the plans for the "momentous march" on its website.

It says: "Wootton Bassett, is currently famous for its public mourning processions held in memory of British soldiers killed whilst on military service in Afghanistan; coffins containing the dismembered bodies of these soldiers are usually draped in Union jack flags and driven through the town centre from RAF Lyneham, as a tribute to their 'sacrifice'.

"The proposed march by members of Islam4UK is however of a very different venture, held not in memory of the occupying and merciless British military, but rather the real war dead who have been shunned by the Western media and general public as they were and continue to be horrifically murdered in the name of Democracy and Freedom – the innocent Muslim men, women and children.

"It is quite extraordinary, that with well over 100,000 Muslims killed in Afghanistan in the last 8 years that those military serviceman who have directly or indirectly contributed to their death are paraded as war heroes and moreover honoured for what is ultimately genocide.

"We at Islam4UK find this totally unacceptable and as a result have decided to launch the 'Wootton Bassett March' to highlight the real casualties of this brutal Crusade."

Mr Choudary added: "The British public is blissfully unaware of what's being done in their name. More than 10,000 innocent men women and children are being slaughtered.

"You may see one or two coffins being returned to the UK every other day but when you think about the people of Afghanistan it's a huge number (being killed) in comparison.

"I intend to write a letter to the parents of British soldiers telling them the reality of what they died for."

The march will call for the withdrawal of British troops who Mr Choudary believes are largely in Afghanistan to "prevent the rise of Islam in the area."

He added that some families of the dead soldiers had even offered him their support.

Wiltshire Police said they were aware of the "significant community concern" caused by the proposal, adding that they would have to approve details before permitting the march.

A force spokesman said: "In exceptional circumstances, the police may apply to the local authority for an order prohibiting such a march.

"In these particular circumstances, Wiltshire Police will be liaising closely with the local community and our partner agencies.

"Furthermore, contact will be sought with the organisers at the earliest opportunity in order to determine the facts of the proposed march.

"To date there has been no contact from Islam4uk or any other group wishing to arrange such a march in Wootton Bassett."

Source

[Uthman]

Article from the BBC

Article from The Times

[Supreme]

I think the best thing they can do is let the march go ahead, but not give it any attention. No media, no insults, no EDL nutters. Just let Choudary and his group of ex alcoholic, drug addicted clowns march, and not raise an eyelid when you see the self righteous loony toons walk by. Although writing to the parents of dead British soldiers would be nothing short of an insult. Choudary needs to watch his next step, with the likes of the EDL, BNP and just general people angry by his antics around, or else he might find himself sharing the same fate of the deceased British soldiers, although I doubt the people of Wootten Bassett would turn out in their usual thousands to give him the usual honourable send off.

[Pygoscelis]

Never heard of this guy or his group. Is he the muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps?

The last things muslims in the west need is a MORE tarnished image. I think you're right, he does this and other muslims, sane ones not belonging to this group may have to pay for it.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

Further information can be found in this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ett-march.html

[Supreme]

Never heard of this guy or his group. Is he the muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps?

The last things muslims in the west need is a MORE tarnished image. I think you're right, he does this and other muslims, sane ones not belonging to this group may have to pay for it.

Fred Phelps would be a good comparison, yes. Or a Nazi who used to be a devout Jew. Because this guy hates everything he used to do. He hates casual sex, pornography, drugs, alcohol- it'd be fine normally to hate these things, but Choudary used to be a porn addicted, sex crazed, drug loving alcoholic. He's a hypocrite, well deserving of some sort of Sharia style punishment for his sins.

[aadil77]

I'm all for the protest, I don't care about mr chaudary and his crew although it would have been better if a more moderate group had come up with the idea

here's some comments to think about:

How come if the EDL protest and march past a mosque it's free speech, yet if these passionate group of guys walk in Wooton Bassett they should be sent packing??

Quote:
Are they not right to mourn their lost as well? Are their lives worth less than some 18yr old english lad who enlisted because it was better than working in McDonalds, not knowing why they are really involved in a war?

Quote:
Why march through this town though? Does this group want to provoke people?

Having said that,

A friend of the company my dad works for had his whole family killed in a bomb attack in Baghdad ordered by British and US infantry. He was Muslim and is as much, if not more, respectable than my family here in Australia. I am Catholic and have no problem with peaceful Muslims, honestly.

I see no problem if it is a peaceful march whose purpose is to honour their dead.

Islamic families have lost loved ones too

Quote:
what is wrong in remembering the civilian casualties of both the iraq and afghan
wars,the first was illegal and the second has lost all credibility.We should remember the death of all the inocent regardless of who they are.

Quote:
As unpleasant as this guy is, he's not doing anything wrong. He has every right to protest providing he doesn't break any laws and there is no real reason to stop him as freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people we agree with and goes against British tradition.

Quote:
i hope they do march, these are normal people highlighting the atrocities of war, the "our boys" attitude has got to go, we are a human race, we already dont give any media coverage to the thousands of innocents killed, yet we go way overboard when one of "our boys" gets killed, it's a shame they die, but it's then used as a political tool, big funeral on the news, whats that for? propaganda thats what.

Quote:
I don't see a problem myself. As long as the march is peaceful then there's no issue.

I doubt the BNP types will let it go peacefully though.

The marchers do have a point. There are lots of innocent muslims being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan but their lives are deemed to be worth less than westerners by the media.

Quote:
if we don't want muslims marching on our streets, then we shouldn't have our army doing the same in their lands.

Quote:

I Cannot see anything wrong with this parade. It is not glorifying war, but remembering all the innocents, lost in these vile,corrupt unjust wars, but that can be said about all wars in the end. Terrorists, if not created by invading agressors, to justify their actions. or are bred by invading other peoples countries. I would become a Terrorist, if my country was invaded.

Quote:
but surely they have a point?!

after all they are right....its not only the soldiers that had to suffer but the victims as well....a lot of innocent lives were lost and the public have to realise this. i know its not the soldiers fault but rather our corrupt government..

Quote:
What is wrong with you people? Do you not give a jot about 100,000 innocent Muslim men, women and children who have died in the war? A war that they want as little as we do. At least soldiers choose to go to a war zone. innocent civilians don't!!! The life of an Iraqi civilian is worth just as much as a UK soldier

Quote:
I'm not a fan of Anjem Choudary but I don't think it hurts for the British public to be reminded now and again that many innocent Afghan men,women and children have been killed in this conflict.
The media does not report much on this, the British public do not seem to care either. It is time that they did.

Quote:
I think the people of that town should stop and pay respects to the peaceful march, and pay respect to dead in afghanistan, iraq etc - A dead child is still a dead child, regardless of religion or colour.

[Joe98]

A friend of the company my dad works for had his whole family killed in a bomb attack in Baghdad ordered by British and US infantry.

You will recall how the war went. The Brits fought in the south and the Americans went to Baghdad. How can British and American infantry order a bombing in Baghdad/??

This comment is the usual propaganda spouted so often.

The insurgents in Iraq killed 90,000 - 100,000 people. The “bombing” above, if true, was done by insurgents.

….remembering all the innocents, lost in these vile,corrupt unjust wars, I would become a Terrorist, if my country was invaded.

The difference is the Iraqis killed other Iraqis. If the Americans invade you’re country would you kill your own countrymen?

-

[CosmicPathos]

You will recall how the war went. The Brits fought in the south and the Americans went to Baghdad. How can British and American infantry order a bombing in Baghdad/??

This comment is the usual propaganda spouted so often.

The insurgents in Iraq killed 90,000 - 100,000 people. The “bombing” above, if true, was done by insurgents.






The difference is the Iraqis killed other Iraqis. If the Americans invade you’re country would you kill your own countrymen?

-

It certainly wasnt on a massive scale before your men popped into the lands to give "divine" punishment to Mr Saddam?

[Joe98]

It certainly wasnt on a massive scale before your men popped into the lands to give "divine" punishment to Mr Saddam

I agree with that view.

As soon as Saddam was gone the Iraqi people effectivly had a civil war.

The British and Americans took 4 years to stop the civil war.

While this was going on Al Queda chose sides in the civil war and killed many Iraqis.

In the long run Al Queda lost and the Iraqi people won!

-

[Supreme]

I'm all for the protest, I don't care about mr chaudary and his crew although it would have been better if a more moderate group had come up with the idea

Because they're hypocrites. They couldn't give a monkeys about the poor innocent victims of war, they're trying to stir up trouble. It's like if a group of Israeli Zionists protesting about Palestinians support for Hamas whilst marching through the al Asqa compound. Sure, they probably are protesting over a good cause, but they're hypocrites and they're trying to ignite anger.

[aadil77]

Because they're hypocrites. They couldn't give a monkeys about the poor innocent victims of war, they're trying to stir up trouble. It's like if a group of Israeli Zionists protesting about Palestinians support for Hamas whilst marching through the al Asqa compound. Sure, they probably are protesting over a good cause, but they're hypocrites and they're trying to ignite anger.

As I said I don't care what they are and what you think they are, the cause is what is good and muslims should support that.

Its about time people learn about the true victims of these illegal wars

[Amadeus85]

I dont know what's more miserable, those guys who wanna march or the state who gonna allow this.

[abu salaahudeen]

I dont know what's more miserable, those guys who wanna march or the state who gonna allow this.

whats the matter??? Are you and your christian pagan worshipping ilks worried that the christian crusade is going to be exposed??

Be honest . . .

[abu salaahudeen]

Because they're hypocrites. They couldn't give a monkeys about the poor innocent victims of war, they're trying to stir up trouble. It's like if a group of Israeli Zionists protesting about Palestinians support for Hamas whilst marching through the al Asqa compound. Sure, they probably are protesting over a good cause, but they're hypocrites and they're trying to ignite anger.

you know this because you know them too well??? Think before you look like a fool. Fool!

[The_Prince]

what ever happened to freedom of speech, and that you dont have a right to not be offended? typical western HYPOCRITES, start crying foul play when the freedom of speech affects them and makes them feel bad, when the freedom of speech attacks something they hold to be sacred and honourable, oh well, feel a taste of your philosophy, doesnt taste too good now does it.

[Blackpool]

The PM has warned the group that if any offence is caused to the families of the fallen British troops then they will face prosecution. It was stated on Sky News. Also on Sky News the 7 muslim protesters that protested against British troops have been charged! Get in there!

[Supreme]

you know this because you know them too well??? Think before you look like a fool. Fool!

Again, I'm astounded by such amazing intellect that raises such a good point. These people (I'd refrain from using the term 'Muslim' to avoid offending Muslims here) are so filled with hate for the society yet happily enjoying its benefits! In a(small) way, it's a shame we didn't have Sharia law here ten years ago, Choudary would have been stoned to death long ago for being a porn loving, sex crazed, violent, uneducated, bigoted drug addict! But then I suppose with arguments such as this

whats the matter??? Are you and your christian pagan worshipping ilks worried that the christian crusade is going to be exposed??

it's becoming equally hard to take you more seriously than Choudary, peace be upon his adulterous, alcoholic yet still righteous name!

what ever happened to freedom of speech, and that you dont have a right to not be offended?

Freedom of speech is all very good until people start offending others.

[جوري]

I think this belong here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1270009

double standards anyone?

[Uthman]

Anjem Choudary: an open letter to families of British soldiers in Afghanistan

Planned Muslim march through Wootton Bassett 'is an insult and a stunt'

[Supreme]

Anjem Choudary: an open letter to families of British soldiers in Afghanistan

This man is actively seeking an arrest warrant with his name on, although he'd better think again- there's no alcohol in prisons, or women to have casual sex with!

I saw this video about him a week ago, made me laugh. The man patcondell himself seems like a miserable atheist, but it is rather funny how he portrays Choudary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSJae6RuCk

[Skavau]

Freedom of speech is all very good until people start offending others.

Every demonstration offends someone. Every form of humour offends someone. I was watching Dylan Moran All About Me last night and he made false statements about evolution and religion (in particular catholicism). A rather strident Catholic could've been offended. Should he rightfully complain?

[The_Prince]

The PM has warned the group that if any offence is caused to the families of the fallen British troops then they will face prosecution. It was stated on Sky News. Also on Sky News the 7 muslim protesters that protested against British troops have been charged! Get in there!

indeed get in there, once again the west shows its hypocrisy, so now people will get arrested for offending someone? LOL, and i have heard so many british people say people dont have a right to not be offended, and freedom of speech is very sacred, but when its against , now theres a different standard, lol and your proud of your hypocrisy? indeed, get in there, Muslims have been right about you people all along. :D

if these Muslims get arrested for their right to freedom of speech, then other Muslims should have the guts to support them, because their rights are being fringed upon, and if the shoe was on the other person, westerners would be screaming out FREEDOM OF SPEECH ITS OURRRRR RIGHT!

and then we should make such protests the norm just to teach you hypocrites a lesson. so indeed, try to silence the freedom of speech, and show your hypocrisy, but it will only backfire on you, trust me on that.

[KAding]

what ever happened to freedom of speech, and that you dont have a right to not be offended? typical western HYPOCRITES, start crying foul play when the freedom of speech affects them and makes them feel bad, when the freedom of speech attacks something they hold to be sacred and honourable, oh well, feel a taste of your philosophy, doesnt taste too good now does it.

I can't follow you. Has anyone called for a ban on this march? If so, then I agree it would be hypocritical. If not, then were is the hypocrisy?

[جوري]

I can't follow you. Has anyone called for a ban on this march? If so, then I agree it would be hypocritical. If not, then were is the hypocrisy?

he threat of persecution looming for the march as per 'sky news' isn't hypocrisy in your book?
The rest of us understood what he wrote.. perhaps the problem is selective comprehension from your end?!


all the best

[The_Prince]

I can't follow you. Has anyone called for a ban on this march? If so, then I agree it would be hypocritical. If not, then were is the hypocrisy?

over 200,000 people on facebook have called for its ban, and their number is growing, then you have the tabloids, and then you have the PM threatning to arrest them if they cause offense to the famillies as report by sky!

and mr blackpool is also against it, the majority of brits want this banned.

[KAding]

over 200,000 people on facebook have called for its ban, and their number is growing, then you have the tabloids, and then you have the PM threatning to arrest them if they cause offense to the famillies as report by sky!

and mr blackpool is also against it, the majority of brits want this banned.

Then these people are indeed hypocrites. However, they are not in a position to call for a ban, as there are constitutional guarantees in place that allow anyone to organize a protest.

Btw, what is your position exactly. Do you think the UK government should attempt to ban the protest?

[JoshuaD]

Every demonstration offends someone. Every form of humour offends someone. I was watching Dylan Moran All About Me last night and he made false statements about evolution and religion (in particular catholicism). A rather strident Catholic could've been offended. Should he rightfully complain?

Yes but the planned march is being planned to take place in Wootton Bassett in order to cause the maximum possible amount of offence to the British people. They could protest anywhere in the UK they wanted but they chose to do it in Wootton Bassett.

[Supreme]

Then these people are indeed hypocrites. However, they are not in a position to call for a ban, as there are constitutional guarantees in place that allow anyone to organize a protest.

Btw, what is your position exactly. Do you think the UK government should attempt to ban the protest?

Absoloutely not. It's the rights of these ex alcoholics to do whatever they want with their time now they're not spending it on the booze. However, the media needn't report on this at all, nor should any counter demonstration happen, because this will severely frustrate Choudary and co, as they won't be getting the attention they want. But even if this isn't banned, Choudary's always announcing such demonstrations but never ever has the balls and bravery to carry through with them.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I don't agree with intentionally offending people.

I also don't agree with double standards.

The march should be allowed under freedom of speech.

[JoshuaD]

Johnson 'will back' Wootton Bassett Islamic march ban

Mr Choudary said he wanted to draw attention to Afghanistan's "occupation"

The home secretary has said he will back any request from police or local government to ban an Islamic group marching through Wootton Bassett.

Alan Johnson said he felt "revulsion" at the thought of Islam4UK's proposed march through the Wiltshire town.

Wootton Bassett has become famous for its repatriation ceremonies for fallen British service personnel.

Islam4UK says it wants to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties.

Mr Johnson said: "The idea that anyone would stage this kind of demonstration in Wootton Bassett fills me with revulsion.

"I find it particularly offensive that the town, which has acted in such a moving and dignified way in paying tribute to our troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, should be targeted in this manner." We are going to do our utmost to make sure that this march doesn't go ahead

He added: "If the Wiltshire Police and local authority feel that a procession of this kind has the potential to cause public disorder and seek my consent to a banning order, then I would have no hesitation in supporting that request."

Islam4UK, which has been linked to the radical al-Muhajiroun movement, said the town was chosen to create maximum publicity.

Spokesman Anjem Choudary said: "We are having a procession, it's in Wootton Bassett but it's not about the people there and it's not against them personally - rather it's to highlight the real cost of war in Afghanistan.

"The sad reality of the situation is that if I were to hold it somewhere else it would not have the media attention that it has now.

"If I am to balance between the sensitivity of having it in Wootton Bassett and the possibility of continuing the quagmire and cycle of death in Afghanistan, then quite honestly I'm going to balance in favour of the latter."

'Dangerous and divisive'

Wiltshire Police said it had not received an application from any group to hold a march in the town.

Marches and demonstrations can be banned if police believe they are likely to endanger public order.
People in the town have lined the streets for the repatriation processions

Earlier, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and the town's MP James Gray all condemned the group's plans.

North Wiltshire MP Mr Gray told BBC Radio 5 live: "Fine Mr Choudary, say what you want, I detest what you say, but please, please don't come to Wootton Bassett."

Social Cohesion Minister Shahid Malik added: "Anjem Choudary rightly has a reputation as a dangerous and divisive figure in the UK, however, he does not speak for Muslims in the UK."

Wootton Bassett's mayor Councillor Steve Bucknell said the town, which has a population of just over 11,000, was entirely inappropriate for any march, protest or demonstration which refers to Afghanistan or Iraq.

"We are going to do our utmost to make sure that this march doesn't go ahead," he said, adding that the town's council had received dozens of e-mails and phone calls from people concerned with the issue.

Locals have turned out to honour the corteges of more than 100 service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they made their way from nearby RAF Lyneham to a morgue in Oxford.

Islam4UK said its march would not coincide with a repatriation ceremony.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/8440408.stm

Good!

[Amadeus85]

:sl:
I don't agree with intentionally offending people.

I also don't agree with double standards.

The march should be allowed under freedom of speech.

That's why I believe in good old cenzorship.

Total freedom of speech is typical child of Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga's civilization.

[Blackpool]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/8440408.stm

Good!

EXCELLENT. I am expecting the march through Wootten Bassett to be banned. :shade:

[aadil77]

EXCELLENT. I am expecting the march through Wootten Bassett to be banned. :shade:

Whether or not it is banned in that location it should still go ahead, don't you agree?

[Blackpool]

Whether or not it is banned in that location it should still go ahead, don't you agree?

Not in Wootten Bassett I don't nor any town that carries fallen troops through. Bans in these towns should be put in place just as it had in Luton with the EDL march where many muslims in here praised the government action..

I can't stand Anjem Choudary and if I had the power to do so I would have hung him for treason years ago.

[aadil77]

Not in Wootten Bassett I don't nor any town that carries fallen troops through. Bans in these towns should be put in place just as it had in Luton with the EDL march where many muslims in here praised the government action..

I can't stand Anjem Choudary and if I had the power to do so I would have hung him for treason years ago.

Not many can stand him, but that protest just has to go ahead theres too much ignorance towards the real victims of these wars

I find it disgusting and insulting when the media goes overboard everytime a single soldier dies when theres a thousand fold more dead muslim men, women and children because of their actions and not a single mention of them in the news

btw what treason has mr anjem commited?

[KAding]

Not many can stand him, but that protest just has to go ahead theres too much ignorance towards the real victims of these wars

I find it disgusting and insulting when the media goes overboard everytime a single soldier dies when theres a thousand fold more dead muslim men, women and children because of their actions and not a single mention of them in the news

That is true. There certainly is a lot less focus on civilian casualties in the Afghan war than in, say, the Iraq war.

Some are trying to keep track though, like the UN. Here is an article from last summer.

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan keep rising, finds UN report

31 July 2009 –The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan continues to take a heavy toll on the country’s civilians, according to the United Nations mission there, which recorded over 1,000 deaths in the first six months of 2009 – 24 per cent more than during the same period last year.

“Both anti-government elements (AGEs) and pro-government forces (PGFs) are responsible for the increase in civilian casualties,” the mission, known as UNAMA, said in its Mid-Year Bulletin on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Afghanistan.

The report, prepared by UNAMA’s Human Rights Unit, focused on improvised explosive devices (IED)/suicide attacks carried out by AGEs, and airstrikes conducted by PGF, the two tactics which the mission says continue to claim the largest number of civilian lives in the ongoing armed conflict.

However, it added that more civilians are being killed by the armed opposition than by the Afghan security and international military forces.

UNAMA recorded 1,013 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2009, an increase of 24 per cent as compared to the same period in 2008. Of these, 59 per cent (595 deaths) were due to AGEs and 30.5 per cent (310 deaths) to PGFs.

“This represents a significant shift from 2007 when PGFs were responsible for 41 per cent and AGEs for 46 per cent of civilian deaths,” the mission stated, adding that it highlights the need for all parties to the conflict, particularly the armed opposition which is responsible for the majority of avoidable deaths, to take all necessary measures to avoid the killing of innocent civilians.

Of the 595 civilian deaths attributed to AGEs activities, 400 were the result of indiscriminate use of IEDs and suicide attacks, which is responsible for 67 per cent of all deaths caused by the armed opposition.

Meanwhile, operations carried out by the Government of Afghanistan and its allies “have resulted in a rising toll in terms of civilian deaths and injuries and destruction of infrastructure, including homes and assets, which are essential for survival and the maintenance of livelihoods,” stated the report.

UNAMA noted that international military forces have tried to minimize the number of civilian casualties resulting from their operations. Nevertheless, “airstrikes remain the largest cause of civilian deaths attributed to PGF during the first six months of 2009,” with 40 incidents of airstrikes since the beginning of 2009 in which 200 civilians reportedly lost their lives.

While acknowledging “a greater openness” by the international military forces, in particular the Security Council-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), with regard to such matters, the mission remained concerned about a number of issues, including the level of transparency of the forces and their capacity or willingness to provide information to UNAMA.

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay warned that civilian casualties were likely to continue rising unless more effective preventive measures were taken.

“All parties involved in this conflict should take all measures to protect civilians, and to ensure the independent investigation of all civilian casualties, as well as justice and remedies for the victims,” said Ms. Pillay.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...&Cr1=civilian#

The Guardian also has a good story on this:

Afghanistan civilian casualties: what are the real figures?

Spiralling military deaths in Afghanistan have obscured catastrophic civilian casualties. How many people have died?

Afghanistan civilian casualties are difficult to measure: women pray by the family grave at a local cemetery in Kabul. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

Two awful incidents in Afghanistan today: in Zabul province, two US soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber in a car just outside a military base.

Meanwhile, another suicide bomber on foot blew himself up in a busy market in Uruzgan province. He was targeting a security forces convoy but his victims were civilians: 10 died (including two boys aged 12 and 14) and another 13 were wounded.

While we are pretty good at providing detailed statistical breakdowns of coalition military casualties (and by we, I mean the media as a whole), we're not so good at providing any kind of breakdown of Afghan civilian casualties.

There has been some work done. Human Rights Watch has published breakdowns of civilian casualties, and academics such as Mark Herold at the University of New Hampshire have done detailed reporting on very specific periods of the operation.

Obviously, collecting accurate statistics in one of the most dangerous countries in the world is difficult. But the paucity of reliable data on this means that one of the key measures of the war has been missing from almost all reporting.

You've noticed it too - asking us why we publish military deaths but not civilian casualties. So, we're going to give it a go.

The United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) publishes statistics on civilian casualties, splitting them into deaths caused by government/military forces, anti-government forces and so on. True, they're not very visible on the UNAMA site and are not updated regularly in a visible way - but they do seem to be the best we can get. They published a report earlier this year which provided some details. Others have been released in press briefings. So the latest figures we have, reported by IRIN, show that over 2000 civilians have died this year so far.

We've summarised the numbers below and you can get the full data going back to 2006 on the google spreadsheet attached. Take a look and let us know what you think - and what you can do with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...tatistics-data

I assume the protest in Wootton Bassett will be about all civilian casualties in Afghanistan?

[S_87]

Never heard of this guy or his group. Is he the muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps?

The last things muslims in the west need is a MORE tarnished image. I think you're right, he does this and other muslims, sane ones not belonging to this group may have to pay for it.

this group of people literally plan these things and call the media and let it be known before hand. why? because they want attention and they think they are hard and controversial when they march with police protection and have media coverage
then when muslims feel the backlash they sit back and watch

[Uthman]

Please don't listen to Anjem Choudary by Mehdi Hasan

Fury over British Muslim cleric's anti-war march threat

Islam group refuses to scrap march

The debate beyond Wootton Bassett by Salma Yaqoob

[The_Prince]

Yes but the planned march is being planned to take place in Wootton Bassett in order to cause the maximum possible amount of offence to the British people. They could protest anywhere in the UK they wanted but they chose to do it in Wootton Bassett.

so what? last i checked its not a crime to get offended, its so amazing you guys start going against the very things you tell us Muslims! when you seek to cause maximum offense to Muslims by insulting our prophet, religion, and protest infront of our mosques, you say oh well thats a democracy with freedom of speech! now when the shoe is on the other foot you start crying foul play!

EDL members going around England calling Muslims terrorists, calling Allah a pedophile, calling for violence etc etc is a maximum cause for offense to the Muslim community in the UK, i dont see anyone banning them.

[The_Prince]

anjem choudry should not call the march off, i dont agree with his tactics, but since there are hypocrites calling for its ban, i am fully supporting it, these hypocrites have no problem in doing such things to Muslims, but now they want to cry foul? i hope choudry protests and offends as many people as possible, this is your freedom of speech, enjoy its taste, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[JoshuaD]

so what? last i checked its not a crime to get offended, its so amazing you guys start going against the very things you tell us Muslims! when you seek to cause maximum offense to Muslims by insulting our prophet, religion, and protest infront of our mosques, you say oh well thats a democracy with freedom of speech! now when the shoe is on the other foot you start crying foul play!

EDL members going around England calling Muslims terrorists, calling Allah a pedophile, calling for violence etc etc is a maximum cause for offense to the Muslim community in the UK, i dont see anyone banning them.

There are 62 million people in the United Kingdom. Very few of them have ever performed the things you said such as insulting Muslims, Islam, your prophets etc; This group are deliberately offending a large portion of the people they share their country with.

Ummmm, if you don't see people trying to ban the EDL then maybe pick up a newspaper from time to time? Several councils and politicians have called for the EDL to be banned, even the BNP have called for EDL protests to be banned!

[JoshuaD]

anjem choudry should not call the march off, i dont agree with his tactics, but since there are hypocrites calling for its ban, i am fully supporting it, these hypocrites have no problem in doing such things to Muslims, but now they want to cry foul? i hope choudry protests and offends as many people as possible, this is your freedom of speech, enjoy its taste, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Congratulations for supporting the ever increasing Islamophobia in the UK! ^o) His protests will achieve nothing - he's not increasing awareness of civilians killed in Afghanistan, he's just making people in Britain hate Muslims even more.

[The_Prince]

Congratulations for supporting the ever increasing Islamophobia in the UK! ^o) His protests will achieve nothing - he's not increasing awareness of civilians killed in Afghanistan, he's just making people in Britain hate Muslims even more.

Islamophobia is on the rise with or without choudry, you guys have constantly been attacking us and our faith, mocking us, killing us, etc etc, the hate has already been up from a long time ago, it didnt just happen yesterday when choudry announced his plans.

[The_Prince]

There are 62 million people in the United Kingdom. Very few of them have ever performed the things you said such as insulting Muslims, Islam, your prophets etc; This group are deliberately offending a large portion of the people they share their country with.

Ummmm, if you don't see people trying to ban the EDL then maybe pick up a newspaper from time to time? Several councils and politicians have called for the EDL to be banned, even the BNP have called for EDL protests to be banned!

i didnt see the PM or Alan Johnson seriously consider banning them, a few politicians came out saying dont let the EDL march, that was all, the major powers that be didnt really care or say much.

[The_Prince]

i know many Muslims are worried of a backlash, well maybe we Muslims should be ready for it and stand up for ourselves, not play weak and scared, thats not going to help out at all, its not like we are an insignificant group of people who cannot react as well. everyones going on about the sleeping giant of Britian has woken up bla bla bla, what about the sleeping giant of Muslims waking up? we Muslims have been taking so much garbage from these people in Britian, and all over Europe, maybe its time Muslims stand up and be counted instead of quietly taking it, and then fearing for more! if these cowards are saying be ready for a backlash you tell them well you be ready for our responses too, because were not gonna just sit down and take it.

I certainly dont fear any backlash, if a backlash comes let it come.

[Supreme]

Cheers for the articles Uthman, as ever interesting to get the opinions of journalists! My favourite bits are:

Choudary and his gang deploy "a simple formula – hold up some offensive placards designed to get people's backs up and call a local reporter to come along and capture some footage – that has reliably generated acres of media coverage for them in recent years".

Choudary and co couldn't even persuade enough people to join a "march for sharia" that they had proudly planned to hold in central London in late October, and, at the very last minute, had to humiliatingly withdraw from their own rally. Pathetic, eh?

And here's a question for Choudary: of the 1,013 civilian deaths in Afghanistan between January and June 2009, recorded by the United Nations, 595 were attributed to "anti-government elements" and 310 to Nato and government forces. So will he and his odious chums have the guts to fly out to Afghanistan and march through the streets of Kabul and Kandahar, carrying coffins symbolising the innocent Afghans killed by the Taliban and al-Qaida? If he agrees to do so, I'll pay for his airfare myself.

I think I'll happily chip in too lol!

Also, I don't think the march should be banned, but if the local MP, town mayor, Home Secretary and even the Prime Minister don't have the power to stop this, who on Earth does have the power?

[glo]

anjem choudry should not call the march off, i dont agree with his tactics, but since there are hypocrites calling for its ban, i am fully supporting it, these hypocrites have no problem in doing such things to Muslims, but now they want to cry foul? i hope choudry protests and offends as many people as possible, this is your freedom of speech, enjoy its taste, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The thing is, if he truly wants to raise people's awareness of the civilians killed in Afghanistan, then he would do well to find the most effective way to communicate this to the British public.

Trying to offend people simply isn't the best way to go about it - all it will achieve is that people will turn away, not listen at all and remain convinced of their personally held views.

Much of my work centers around communication and how we can make people listen and pay attention, so I feel passionately about good communication.

The question is, does Choudry want to inform and teach the public about atrocities which are taking place in Afghanistan, or does he want to shock and offend?
I fear it may be the latter ... and the result would possibly be an even greater divide within our society - between Muslims and non-Muslims.

What on earth would that achieve??? :hmm:

[The_Prince]

The thing is, if he truly wants to raise people's awareness of the civilians killed in Afghanistan, then he would do well to find the most effective way to communicate this to the British public.

Trying to offend people simply isn't the best way to go about it - all it will achieve is that people will turn away, not listen at all and remain convinced of their personally held views.

Much of my work centers around communication and how we can make people listen and pay attention, so I feel passionately about good communication.

The question is, does Choudry want to inform and teach the public about atrocities which are taking place in Afghanistan, or does he want to shock and offend?
I fear it may be the latter ... and the result would possibly be an even greater divide within our society - between Muslims and non-Muslims.

What on earth would that achieve??? :hmm:

well if division happens, then so be it, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, unless any laws are being broken, then this must be allowed to go ahead.

lol i didnt see too many westerners complaining when their freedom of speech was causing major divisions between themselves and Muslims, it was all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech, hence no difference here. who knows, maybe choudry's efforts will soon one day make such protests the norm.

[glo]

well if division happens, then so be it, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, unless any laws are being broken, then this must be allowed to go ahead.

lol i didnt see too many westerners complaining when their freedom of speech was causing major divisions between themselves and Muslims, it was all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech, hence no difference here. who knows, maybe choudry's efforts will soon one day make such protests the norm.

My post was not about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech just means you can speak your mind, but it doesn't guarantee that people will listen or take you seriously.

If Choudry wants people to listen, take him seriously and learn from what he has to say, then he would do better to find a more appropriate way of communication.
If what he wants is to cause upset, upheaval and division, then that's his choice.

It just makes me wonder what his intentions and motivations are ...
He has freedom of speech either way - but whether he puts it to use wisely is up to him (and his followers)

What do you think are the benefits of the planned march in Wootton Bassett? And for whom?

[Muezzin]

Also, I don't think the march should be banned, but if the local MP, town mayor, Home Secretary and even the Prime Minister don't have the power to stop this, who on Earth does have the power?

[KAding]

Also, I don't think the march should be banned, but if the local MP, town mayor, Home Secretary and even the Prime Minister don't have the power to stop this, who on Earth does have the power?

Nobody in government I think, that kinda is the point of fundamental rights after all. At least, not as long as public safety is not being threatened. If there are indications there could be riots local authorities might be authorized to disallow the protest, but even then probably only temporarily.

Theoretically I would imagine it would require changing the law to grant more powers to local of national governments to ban protests like these on the basis that they 'offend'. So collectively British Parliament has the power, but only in the sense that they can articulate general exceptions to the freedom of gathering and expression. That would obviously take a long time to complete, as legislative changes need to pass through the necessary legislative process. It would take months at least. And even then I do not believe they have the power to ban this protest specifically.

[aadil77]

Cheers for the articles Uthman, as ever interesting to get the opinions of journalists! My favourite bits are:

I think I'll happily chip in too lol!

Also, I don't think the march should be banned, but if the local MP, town mayor, Home Secretary and even the Prime Minister don't have the power to stop this, who on Earth does have the power?

Before you get too excited
We don't have to trust any UN figures, they're just as credibal as israel trying to claim most of its murders were hamas fighters during 'op cast lead'

[aadil77]

i know many Muslims are worried of a backlash, well maybe we Muslims should be ready for it and stand up for ourselves, not play weak and scared, thats not going to help out at all, its not like we are an insignificant group of people who cannot react as well. everyones going on about the sleeping giant of Britian has woken up bla bla bla, what about the sleeping giant of Muslims waking up? we Muslims have been taking so much garbage from these people in Britian, and all over Europe, maybe its time Muslims stand up and be counted instead of quietly taking it, and then fearing for more! if these cowards are saying be ready for a backlash you tell them well you be ready for our responses too, because were not gonna just sit down and take it.

I certainly dont fear any backlash, if a backlash comes let it come.

Brother alot us would face up to a backlash is there was any, but we can't be selfish, theres muslims in the country already facing hell because they're a insignificant minority in a small white majority town or city, who is going to protect them?

[KAding]

Before you get too excited
We don't have to trust any UN figures, they're just as credibal as israel trying to claim most of its murders were hamas fighters during 'op cast lead'

Not a very good comparison. After all, the UN is not a party in the fighting.

If you do not trust the UN figures, what figures are you trusting? What do you believe the true figures to be? Do you think NATO or government forces are killing more than reported? Or that Taliban are killing less than reported? Both? On what do you base that opinion?

[KAding]

I certainly dont fear any backlash, if a backlash comes let it come.

Is there something in particular you think this backlash will achieve? Or is it mostly about such things as symbolism, pride and honor?

[aadil77]

Not a very good comparison. After all, the UN is not a party in the fighting.

If you do not trust the UN figures, what figures are you trusting? What do you believe the true figures to be? Do you think NATO or government forces are killing more than reported? Or that Taliban are killing less than reported? Both? On what do you base that opinion?

Everyone know things can be hushed up, facts can be mended to suit a parties needs and their own agenda, in islam we aren't meant to trust the words of a muslim who sins openly let alone the words of non-muslims.

[GazHughes]

Just thought I would add that Anjem Choudary has offered to cancel the march, on the con dition that Gordon Brown or one of his Ministers debate the Afghanistan war with him.

I for one would like to see this debate, I think Anjem Choudary would win as he is clearly the better orator and he is right about the Afghanistan war.

[The_Prince]

Brother alot us would face up to a backlash is there was any, but we can't be selfish, theres muslims in the country already facing hell because they're a insignificant minority in a small white majority town or city, who is going to protect them?

if Muslims start getting treated real bad, then there should be a response in the Muslim world, Muslims in the Muslim world should be made aware of whats going on, and hence the Brits in our countries dont get an easy pass. that may sound harsh, but thats what i mean when i say we Muslims are a sleeping giant too who can react if we really wanted to, what, Muslims are going to have to live like crap in britian while they come and live happily in our countries???? maybe that will make them think twice about hurting a Muslim in small town.

[Ramadhan]

Theoretically I would imagine it would require changing the law to grant more powers to local of national governments to ban protests like these on the basis that they 'offend'. So collectively British Parliament has the power, but only in the sense that they can articulate general exceptions to the freedom of gathering and expression. That would obviously take a long time to complete, as legislative changes need to pass through the necessary legislative process. It would take months at least. And even then I do not believe they have the power to ban this protest specifically.

In the other discussion about the danish cartoonists, atheist vehemently defend the rights of the cartoonists while reject the rights of more the billions muslims to be offended.

I sense that the attitude is reversed 180 degree here in the case of planned march.

the prophet of Muhammad SAW as war-mongering terrorist is clearly a BIG LIE, it is not even satire let alone a comedy.
Thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan by foreign troops which include British troops = FACTS.

[BoredAgnostic]

People have the right to be offended (but not violent) as well as want freedom of speech protected.
No I don't think they should ban the march, but will it further hostilities? Sure will. Is the main goal of this march most likely to just cause trouble? Sure...
I hope that no violence ensues because it would make them just as bad as those that encourage/performed violent acts against people like Salman Rushdie, publishers of his book, or the British teacher that had the class name the bear Muhammed.

[Joe98]

Thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan by foreign troops which include British troops = FACTS.

No,a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

The Taliban do this intentionaly to sway muslim opinion.

It is working well !

-

[glo]

Just thought I would add that Anjem Choudary has offered to cancel the march, on the con dition that Gordon Brown or one of his Ministers debate the Afghanistan war with him.

I for one would like to see this debate, I think Anjem Choudary would win as he is clearly the better orator and he is right about the Afghanistan war.

Is that true?
That would be interesting development!

[JoshuaD]

Just thought I would add that Anjem Choudary has offered to cancel the march, on the con dition that Gordon Brown or one of his Ministers debate the Afghanistan war with him.

I for one would like to see this debate, I think Anjem Choudary would win as he is clearly the better orator and he is right about the Afghanistan war.

Oh, that's reasonable. It's not like Gordon Brown is busy running a country or anything, he has plenty of time to participate in debates with lunatics like Choudary. ^o)

[JoshuaD]

if Muslims start getting treated real bad, then there should be a response in the Muslim world, Muslims in the Muslim world should be made aware of whats going on, and hence the Brits in our countries dont get an easy pass. that may sound harsh, but thats what i mean when i say we Muslims are a sleeping giant too who can react if we really wanted to, what, Muslims are going to have to live like crap in britian while they come and live happily in our countries???? maybe that will make them think twice about hurting a Muslim in small town.

So you advocate punishing British people living in Muslim countries for things happening in a country they left and which they have no control over? I thought Islam was against such forms of discrimination based on little more than race or nationality?

[Ramadhan]

No,a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

The Taliban do this intentionaly to sway muslim opinion.

It is working well !

-

Stop spreading lies. Where is your news source?
Are you on US govt pay list by any chance?





From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%93present%29

Civilian casualties (2001-2003)

According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths" - deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting - and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the U.S. airstrikes and invasion.

In a pair of January 2002 studies, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that, at least 4,200-4,500 civilians were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes, both directly as casualties of the aerial bombing campaign, and indirectly in the humanitarian crisis that the war and airstrikes contributed to.

His first study, "Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties?", released January 18, 2002, estimates that, at the low end, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed in the aerial bombing campaign in just the 3 months between October 7, 2001 to January 1, 2002. The author found it impossible to provide an upper-end estimate to direct civilian casualties from the Operation Enduring Freedom bombing campaign that he noted as having an increased use of cluster bombs[15]. In this lower-end estimate, only Western press sources were used for hard numbers, while heavy "reduction factors" were applied to Afghan government reports so that their estimates were reduced by as much as 75%[16].


According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian, up to 20,000 Afghans may have died as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan.[18]

[edit] Civilian and overall casualties (2005)

An estimated 1,700 people were killed in 2005 according to an Associated Press count, including civilians, insurgents and security forces members.[26][27] Some 600 policemen were killed between Hamid Karzai's election as president of Afghanistan in early December 2004 and mid-May 2005.[28]
[edit] Civilian and overall casualties (2006)

A report by Human Rights Watch said that 4,400 Afghans had been killed in 2006, more than 1,000 of them civilians. Some 2,077 militants were killed in Coalition operations between September 1 and December 13.[29]


[edit] Civilian and overall casualties (2007)

More than 7,700 people were killed in 2007, including: 1,019 Afghan policemen[32]; 4,478 militants[33]; 1,980 civilians[34] and 232 foreign soldiers[35].

With by far the most comprehensive research into Afghan civilian casualties[36], Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated in September 2007 that between 5,700 and 6,500 Afghan civilians had been killed so far in the war by American and NATO military forces.[37] He stressed that this was an "absolute minimum" and probably "a vast underestimate" because the figures do not include:

* the dead among the tens of thousands of Afghans displaced during the initial military operation in 2001-2002, who ended up in refugee camps or elsewhere with little or no supplies for long periods;
* civilian victims of U.S./NATO bombing in mountainous areas, which have few or no communications links or which the U.S./NATO forces "cordon off as part of news management";
* and civilians that did not die immediately at the scene but died later of their injuries.

[edit] Civilian and overall casualties (2008)

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 2,118 civilians were killed as a result of armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2008, the highest civilian death toll since the end of the initial 2001 invasion. This represents an increase of about 40 percent over UNAMA's figure of 1,523 civilians killed in 2007.[15][17][18][22]

On the other hand, according to NATO forces only about 1,000 civilians were killed during the whole year.[38][39]

Going into further detail, UNAMA reported that out of 2,118 civilian deaths in 2008, 1,160 non-combatants were killed by anti-government forces, accounting for 55% of the 2008 total, while 828 were killed by international-led military forces, accounting for 39% of the 2008 total. The remaining 6% – 130 deaths – could not be attributed to any of the parties since some of them died as a result of crossfire or were killed by unexploded ordnance, for example. Of the civilians killed by anti-government elements, 85% died as a result of suicide or improvised explosive devices. Of the civilians killed by pro-government forces, 64% were killed by U.S./NATO airstrikes.[17][18]

(Note: UNAMA's report includes in its count of civilian/non-combatant deaths any "members of the military who are not being utilized in counter insurgency operations, including when they are off-duty.")[17]

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) estimates the number of civilians killed as a result of the armed hostilities in 2008 at around 1,800, with about 1,000 killed by militant groups and about 800 killed by U.S.-led military forces.[16]

The Afghanistan Rights Monitor(ARM), a Kabul-based rights watchdog, estimates that in 2008 about 3,917 civilians were killed, over 6,800 were wounded, and around 120,000 were forced out of their homes. ARM estimated that insurgents killed over 2,300 civilians, including 930 in suicide bombings, and that U.S.-led military forces killed over 1,620 civilians, with 1,100 civilians killed by U.S.-led NATO and coalition forces and 520 civilians killed by Afghan military forces. Out of these, 680 Afghan civilians killed in air strikes by the US-led forces, with U.S. combat aircraft conducting at least 15,000 close air support missions over the year. Another 2,800 civilians were injured and 80,000 displaced from their homes by the U.S.-led NATO and coalition military operations.[16][19]

According to Afghanistan's ambassador to Australia, Amanullah Jayhoon, 1,000 Afghan civilians were killed by coalition forces in 2008.[20]

Meanwhile, NATO's International Security Assistance Force has said that only just over 200 civilians were mistakenly killed by foreign troops last year.[19]

In October 2008, Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire reported that the number of civilians killed in direct action by U.S. and other NATO forces from 2005 up that point in 2008 was at least between 2,699 and 3,273. These figures represent underestimates of the number of Afghan civilians killed because civilians are sometimes labelled militants by the military and because these figures only include civilians that died immediately at the scene and not civilians that died later of their injuries.[36][41]



etc...etc....

[Ramadhan]

US and NATO armed forces are so scared of being involved in ground combat, they most frequently use airstrikes and air bombings to attack "insurgent" areas indiscriminately, resulting in thousand and thousands of the death of civilians.

Who's the terrorists now?

[Ramadhan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_168826.html

KABUL — An operation the American military at first described as a "precision strike" instead killed 13 Afghan civilians and only three militants, the U.S. said Saturday, three days after sending a general to the site to investigate.

Civilian casualties have been a huge source of friction between the U.S. and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has stepped up demands that U.S. and NATO operations kill no civilians and that Afghan soldiers take part in missions to help prevent unwanted deaths.


http://www.france24.com/en/20090509-...US-air-strikes

A joint team of US and Afghan investigators confirmed that "a number of civilians" were killed in clashes with the Taliban in Farah province this week. Afghan President Hamid Karzai (pictured) said 130 people died as a result of US air strikes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/6/afghan

Up to 150 Afghan Civilians Killed in US Attack on Western Province
Dozens of Afghan civilians have been killed in what may be one of the deadliest US bombings of Afghanistan to date. We go to Kabul to speak with Jessica Barry of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul.

http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan:
A Comprehensive Accounting [revised]

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

March 2002
When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."2

A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."3

Mantra of the U.S. mainstream corporate media : "the report cannot be independently verified"

http://cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm

After surveying numerous reports on civilian impact deaths caused by bombing, I estimate the following numbers : Cambodia @ 100,000; Iraq @ 3,000; Serbia @ 1,200; and Afghanistan @ 3,700. These translate into respective kill ratios [civilians killed per 10,000 tons of bombs] of : Afghanistan @ 2,643; Cambodia @ 1,852; Serbia @ 522; and Iraq @ 341.

Along with the U.S military planner's decision to bomb perceived military targets in urban areas, the use of weapons with great destructive blast and fragmentation power, necessarily results in heavy civilian casualties. The weapon of choice during the first three weeks of the air campaign was the 500 lb bomb which has a lethal blast range of 20 meters; later, the 2,000 lb pound became the weapon of choice and it has a lethal blast range of 34 meters


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...r-raid-report/

Coalition airstrikes “killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from fighting” between Taliban militants and international troops Afghan officials and ordinary citizens tell the Associated Press.

Reports are still preliminary. And the reputed death tolls vary widely — from 30 combatants dead to “well over 100 civilians.”

“It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number, it is too early,” Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of Bala Baluk, tells the AP. “People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands.”The top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, says coalition forces “will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened.”

[KAding]

In the other discussion about the danish cartoonists, atheist vehemently defend the rights of the cartoonists while reject the rights of more the billions muslims to be offended.

I sense that the attitude is reversed 180 degree here in the case of planned march.

Yes, for some this apparently is true, though like I said, there probably are no legal means by the government to stop this march. But do you acknowledge that this same '180 degree' applies to Muslims here? Many muslims 'vehemently defend the rights' of this group to protest, yet 'reject the rights of millions of Britons to not be offended'.

People are generally hypocrites on such matters, because they agree with one position and not with another. Luckily, fundamental rights aren't about what public opinion thinks, they are about what has been constitutionally arranged! And these fundamental rights allow both cartoonists and Choudry to protest in the way they want to protest.

the prophet of Muhammad SAW as war-mongering terrorist is clearly a BIG LIE, it is not even satire let alone a comedy.

One man's lie is another man's facts ;). One man's offense is another man's comedy!

Although I think you are misinterpreting the cartoons anyway. They really weren't about Muhammed, they were about segments of the Muslim community and certain interpretations of Islam.

Thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan by foreign troops which include British troops = FACTS.

That is indeed so. Just like thousands more civilians are being killed by anti-government forces. One can hardly ignore those deaths on the basis of political conviction. Yet, that is exactly what Choudry seems to be doing. The real issue here is not dead civilians, it is that Choudry supports one side over the other and uses the dead civilians to push that agenda. Nothing wrong with that per se, that is how politics works after all.

[Ramadhan]

Deaths of thousands of Afghan Civilians at the hands of US and NATO soldiers = FACTS

[KAding]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_168826.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20090509-...US-air-strikes
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/6/afghan
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
http://cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...r-raid-report/

Is anyone denying that NATO operations in Afghanistan are causing civilians deaths? The offense taken by some has nothing to do with the claim that we are causing civilian casualties, that is common knowledge. It has nothing to do with truthfulness, it has everything to do with the location and manner in which the protest is going to be organized.

[KAding]

Joe98's point was not that Western soldiers don't kill civilians, it was that more are killed by the resistance. I could easily copy/paste many articles here about car bombs, IEDs or 'martyrdom' operations that killed many civilians.

[Ramadhan]

People are generally hypocrites on such matters, because they agree with one position and not with another. Luckily, fundamental rights aren't about what public opinion thinks, they are about what has been constitutionally arranged! And these fundamental rights allow both cartoonists and Choudry to protest in the way they want to protest.

Difference:
One protest is based on false info and lie, the other is based on facts.

One man's lie is another man's facts ;). One man's offense is another man's comedy!

There is a BIG difference there.
A terrorist prophet SAW = FALSE
Death of thousands of Afghan civilians at the hands of NATO forces = TRUTH

The Danish cartoonist obviously KNEW that prophet Muhahammad SAW was not a terrorists and yet he ventured out on undue attack to spread lie and incite hatred.

Although I think you are misinterpreting the cartoons anyway. They really weren't about Muhammed, they were about segments of the Muslim community and certain interpretations of Islam.

LOL.
Have you even seen the cartoons? they were cartoons of prophet Muhammad SAW, not Osama bin Ladin.
Certainly the cartoonist just wanted to attack Islam as a whole because he slandered the prophet SAW.
If he really wanted to lampoon certain segments of the Muslim community and certain interpretations of Islam, he could have used many many other materials than the prophet SAW.
There have been millions of all kinds of cartoons of Osama, Ayatollah, Saudi clerics etc you name it, and yet have you ever witnessed muslim condemnation and worldwide protests over those cartoons?

That is indeed so. Just like thousands more civilians are being killed by anti-government forces.

sources please, and preferably from independent sources and whose first source is not government spokeperson.
I grant that there could have been civilians kiiled by the anti-government forces, but thousands?
Also, thats is NOT the issue here right?
The issue here (in the case of planned protest march) is about the role of Brits in killing Afghan civilians.
You are free to protest against Afghan anti-government forces, by the way.

One can hardly ignore those deaths on the basis of political conviction.

No one ignore, except majority of US and European citizens, who are blissfully ignorant of the reality in Afghanistan and keep supporting their governments to keep invading Afghanistan.

[Ramadhan]

[QUOTE=KAding;1271335]Joe98's point was not that Western soldiers don't kill civilians, it was that more are killed by the resistance. [quote]

You either lack honesty or lack reading comprehension skills.

Read again:

================================================== ==
Quote:
Originally Posted by naidamar View Post

Thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan by foreign troops which include British troops = FACTS.

No,a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

The Taliban do this intentionaly to sway muslim opinion.

It is working well !
================================================== =

I will explain the sentences that he wrote for you:
He refuted my assertion that thousands civilians have been killed by foreign forces in Afghanistan by saying "NO"
So, basically he denied the truthfulness of my assertion.

he followed that with:
a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

And I questioned this and challenged him to provide sources.
-

[Ramadhan]

Is anyone denying that NATO operations in Afghanistan are causing civilians deaths?

Yes, Joe98 is denying it.

You should read the sequences of my posts again, and this time, carefully.
I provided all those facts in response to Joe98's post who refuted my assertion that thousands of civilians have been killed by allied forces.



---------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by naidamar View Post

Thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan by foreign troops which include British troops = FACTS.


No,a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

The Taliban do this intentionaly to sway muslim opinion.

It is working well !
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-

[JoshuaD]

No one ignore, except majority of US and European citizens, who are blissfully ignorant of the reality in Afghanistan and keep supporting their governments to keep invading Afghanistan.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in Afghanistan and it was a major hub for terrorists. This was a major threat to the citizens of Europe and the U.S, what else did you expect them to do? Sit back and allow another 9/11?

It is unfortunate that civilians died however there is no way that the US would allow more of its civilians to be murdered because the Afghans had failed to prevent having terrorists training camps across their country.

And what do you think will happen if Europe and the US withdraw from Afghanistan? It'll all be nice and peaceful? I don't think so.

[Ramadhan]

Several of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in Afghanistan and it was a major hub for terrorists. This was a major threat to the citizens of Europe and the U.S, what else did you expect them to do? Sit back and allow another 9/11?

US and its allied went to invade Afghanistan under the pretext of arresting Osama bin ladin.
Interestingly, more than 9 years later, no Osama is caught and arrested despite all the technology, financial, and military might that supposedly have been spent.

It is unfortunate that civilians died however there is no way that the US would allow more of its civilians to be murdered because the Afghans had failed to prevent having terrorists training camps across their country.

The civilian casualties would have been easily prevented if the US and allied forces did not carpet bombing large areas.
There is a complete disregard of Afghan civilian life by the invading troops.

And what do you think will happen if Europe and the US withdraw from Afghanistan? It'll all be nice and peaceful? I don't think so.

Who says it will be nice and peaceful in Afghanistan if the troops pulled out?

[JoshuaD]

US and its allied went to invade Afghanistan under the pretext of arresting Osama bin ladin.
Interestingly, more than 9 years later, no Osama is caught and arrested despite all the technology, financial, and military might that supposedly have been spent.

The civilian casualties would have been easily prevented if the US and allied forces did not carpet bombing large areas.
There is a complete disregard of Afghan civilian life by the invading troops.

Who says it will be nice and peaceful in Afghanistan if the troops pulled out?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...an-396093.html

"Six years after a war was launched to overthrow the Taliban, British solders are still being killed in bloody skirmishing"

There are IEDs all over Afghanistan if they attempted an entirely ground based offensive there would be massive casualties, this makes no sense for the allied militarys. What alternative do you suggest? The allied armies have to use aerial bombing otherwise they would be killed en masse by roadside bombs and similar devices.

One can only assume that those who complain about the allied presence in Afghanistan want a withdrawal. Why would they complain that they are there if they didn't want them gone? I was merely highlighting that if allied troops withdrew then there would still not be peace in the country.

[aadil77]

No,a great majority of civilains have been killed by the Taliban. The Taliban then blame the killings on the Western soldiers.

The Taliban do this intentionaly to sway muslim opinion.

It is working well !

-

The above post is an example of lies that get fed to us on a daily basis. Its unbelievable the crap some people come out with, there would be no killings at all if western countries had kept their noses out, then the excuses used to justify the war are even more ridiculus; oh the women were oppressed, al qaeda training ground

[JoshuaD]

The above post is an example of lies that get fed to us on a daily basis. Its unbelievable the crap some people come out with, there would be no killings at all if western countries had kept their noses out, then the excuses used to justify the war are even more ridiculus; oh the women were oppressed, al qaeda training ground

Are you actually saying that it is acceptable for a country to act as an Al-Qaeda training ground?

[JoshuaD]

Oh and by the way, you mentioned western interference, what about the Iranian interference in Afghanistan? Or is it ok for them to promote tensions in the country because they're Muslims?

[aadil77]

Are you actually saying that it is acceptable for a country to act as an Al-Qaeda training ground?

Do you actually think al qaeda exists in afghanistan? no sign of bin laden yet

[JoshuaD]

Do you actually think al qaeda exists in afghanistan? no sign of bin laden yet

It is known that several *Al-Qaeda* 9/11 Hijackers were trained in Afghanistan. Yes, there is no sign of Bin Laden in Afghanistan, he probably moved across the border to Pakistan along with several other key figures after the invasion. This is why the U.S begun their drone attacks into Pakistan, to pursue Al-Qaeda.

[aadil77]

It is known that several *Al-Qaeda* 9/11 Hijackers were trained in Afghanistan. Yes, there is no sign of Bin Laden in Afghanistan, he probably moved across the border to Pakistan along with several other key figures after the invasion. This is why the U.S begun their drone attacks into Pakistan, to pursue Al-Qaeda.

So what are they doing in afghanistan? There is no al qaeda, the only people the drone attacks are targetting are civilians.

[JoshuaD]

So what are they doing in afghanistan? There is no al qaeda, the only people the drone attacks are targetting are civilians.

... They invaded Afghanistan because it was harbouring Al-Qaeda, now they are attempting to bring about stability so it doesn't become full of terrorists and training camps again. Yes, the drone attacks have failed mostly, however they have killed around 15 significant Al-Qaeda members which shows they they are in Pakistan.

[S_87]

Are you actually saying that it is acceptable for a country to act as an Al-Qaeda training ground?

just out of interest, what is you definition of 'al qaeda' who are they and what makes a person a member of 'al qaeda'?

[KittenLover]

lol I don't think Al Qaeda even exists, if only I controlled what gets shown on TV/news, I could make every 1 believe that pigs fly :)

[The_Prince]

Oh and by the way, you mentioned western interference, what about the Iranian interference in Afghanistan? Or is it ok for them to promote tensions in the country because they're Muslims?

Could you please tell us how Iran is interfering in Afghanistan? or do you just open your mouth and yip yap nonsense with no proof of anything? plz do show us Iran is promoting tensions in Afghanistan, last i checked it wasnt Iran bombing and invading Afghanistan, it was YOUR COUNTRY.

its so funny how you westerners keep dragging Iran into everything, Iran isnt the one thats going into other countries and starting wars, its your backward nations that are going in with the sword to spread your version of democracy, not Iran, so quit your nonsense propaganda.

[The_Prince]

So you advocate punishing British people living in Muslim countries for things happening in a country they left and which they have no control over? I thought Islam was against such forms of discrimination based on little more than race or nationality?

yes i do. if thats the only way to make sure that Muslims are protected and get to live safely, then thats what needs to be done.

[Ramadhan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...an-396093.html

"Six years after a war was launched to overthrow the Taliban, British solders are still being killed in bloody skirmishing"

There are IEDs all over Afghanistan if they attempted an entirely ground based offensive there would be massive casualties, this makes no sense for the allied militarys. What alternative do you suggest? The allied armies have to use aerial bombing otherwise they would be killed en masse by roadside bombs and similar devices.

Are you for REAL?
So you fully support aerial bombings of civilians because allied troops might get killed by anti-government armed forces if they do ground attacks?
Why not go the whole way, just drop the H bomb on Afghanistan, to eradicate potential terrorists?

Using your philosophy, you should not object to terrorist attacks in western countries, because hey, terrorists also refuse to attack openly military facilities because they will get squashed so instead they target civilians facilities because it causes most damage.
Just like what allied forces are doing in Afghanistan.

[Supreme]

Oh and by the way, you mentioned western interference, what about the Iranian interference in Afghanistan? Or is it ok for them to promote tensions in the country because they're Muslims?

I reckon if we'd left Afghanistan alone for a few years it'd now be the Afghan Province of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Perhaps the Iranians would do a better job, perhaps they wouldn't. It just goes to show how many enemies the Taliban truly have, NATO's after them, Russia hates them, Iran hates them, China hates them, the Pakistani government hates them, the Northern Alliance hates them, the Afghan government hate them. I mean, with all these enemies, the Taliban were going to be losing a war at some point in the Noughties, it's just that NATO stepped in there first, mostly because we were probably the best equipped out of all the aforementioned countries.

[The_Prince]

I reckon if we'd left Afghanistan alone for a few years it'd now be the Afghan Province of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Perhaps the Iranians would do a better job, perhaps they wouldn't. It just goes to show how many enemies the Taliban truly have, NATO's after them, Russia hates them, Iran hates them, China hates them, the Pakistani government hates them, the Northern Alliance hates them, the Afghan government hate them. I mean, with all these enemies, the Taliban were going to be losing a war at some point in the Noughties, it's just that NATO stepped in there first, mostly because we were probably the best equipped out of all the aforementioned countries.

if Iran wanted to take Afghanistan over, they would have done it when Taliban millitants killed Iranian diplomats, Iran was even ready to go to war, and this would be their perfect chance to take the country over, guess what? they didnt do it.

Iran has had several chances to take Afghanistan over, yet they didnt, hence your just spreading this nonsense propaganda about the big bad Iran who wants to go into other people's countries and take it over. infact, please show me one country Iran has invaded and taken over? its the west thats always invading and attacking countries, not Iran.

[Supreme]

if Iran wanted to take Afghanistan over, they would have done it when Taliban millitants killed Iranian diplomats, Iran was even ready to go to war, and this would be their perfect chance to take the country over, guess what? they didnt do it.

Iran has had several chances to take Afghanistan over, yet they didnt, hence your just spreading this nonsense propaganda about the big bad Iran who wants to go into other people's countries and take it over. infact, please show me one country Iran has invaded and taken over? its the west thats always invading and attacking countries, not Iran.

I love Iran, I'd love it even more if it gave the Taliban a good kicking itself. I don't know where you got the impression I was trying to villanize the Iranians. No doubt they'd be seen as liberators if they overthrew the Taliban themselves, they certainly would be in my eyes.

[aadil77]

I love Iran, I'd love it even more if it gave the Taliban a good kicking itself. I don't know where you got the impression I was trying to villanize the Iranians. No doubt they'd be seen as liberators if they overthrew the Taliban themselves, they certainly would be in my eyes.

Liberators? LOL you get funnier everyday, what have you got against the taliban?

[JoshuaD]

Could you please tell us how Iran is interfering in Afghanistan? or do you just open your mouth and yip yap nonsense with no proof of anything? plz do show us Iran is promoting tensions in Afghanistan, last i checked it wasnt Iran bombing and invading Afghanistan, it was YOUR COUNTRY.

its so funny how you westerners keep dragging Iran into everything, Iran isnt the one thats going into other countries and starting wars, its your backward nations that are going in with the sword to spread your version of democracy, not Iran, so quit your nonsense propaganda.

It was funding and supporting one of the groups who resisted the Taliban only two years before the US invasion. My comment was made in response to someone who talked about westerners "sticking their noses in" Afghan affairs. I was stating that Iran was doing the same, I was in no way attempting to demonise Iran.

It doesn't start wars however it is possibly the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

[JoshuaD]

yes i do. if thats the only way to make sure that Muslims are protected and get to live safely, then thats what needs to be done.

And British people living in Muslim countries peacefully are a "threat" in which way?

[JoshuaD]

Are you for REAL?
So you fully support aerial bombings of civilians because allied troops might get killed by anti-government armed forces if they do ground attacks?
Why not go the whole way, just drop the H bomb on Afghanistan, to eradicate potential terrorists?

Using your philosophy, you should not object to terrorist attacks in western countries, because hey, terrorists also refuse to attack openly military facilities because they will get squashed so instead they target civilians facilities because it causes most damage.
Just like what allied forces are doing in Afghanistan.

"So you fully support aerial bombings of civilians because allied troops might get killed by anti-government armed forces if they do ground attacks?" - No, please don't put words in my mouth. I was highlighting the perspective of the allied military. They believe they are fighting a just war, but they cannot operate large scale ground offensives, so what other alternative do they have? I never once said I approved of the military strategy did I?

"Using your philosophy, you should not object to terrorist attacks in western countries," - What philosophy?

[The_Prince]

It was funding and supporting one of the groups who resisted the Taliban only two years before the US invasion. My comment was made in response to someone who talked about westerners "sticking their noses in" Afghan affairs. I was stating that Iran was doing the same, I was in no way attempting to demonise Iran.

It doesn't start wars however it is possibly the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

sponsoring terrorism? hezbollah and palestinian resistence groups arent terrorists, but i know anyone who stands up to you western imperialists are considered a terrorist. those groups are groups in their own countries fighting off a western imperialist occupation, so they are not terrorists, you guys are the terrorists, going into other people's countries, occupying them, killing them in the thousands. its time you also recognize this fact too because the majority of 1.5 billion Muslims dont see them as terrorists, and neither do a large % of the none-Muslim population out of the world, so get over it, just like your countries sponsor terrorist occupier israel, Iran likewise has a right to sponsor freedom fighters looking to free their country from your imperial tyranny.

Iran funding an anti-Taliban group is no where near anything as directly invading a country with your army and starting to build millitary bases , plus to then install a puppet government to carry out your form of political philosophy!

[aadil77]

It doesn't start wars however it is possibly the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

The biggest states sponsoring terrorism for us is america, israel and uk, they all sponsor each other somehow. They kill the most civilians, ruin the most lives and get away with it as they are seen as the protectors of the earth

[The_Prince]

And British people living in Muslim countries peacefully are a "threat" in which way?

also imagine how the peaceful Muslims in Britian must then feel too. constantly demonized and vilfied by the media none stop.

[Supreme]

Liberators? LOL you get funnier everyday, what have you got against the taliban?

Genocide, rape, religious discrimination, racism, sexism, torture, tyranny, terrorism- you know, all the usual things that generally make people bad! Sorry if it's funny! I didn't think hating evil people ever was funny, but obviously I'm not with it.

[Hamza Asadullah]

They believe they are fighting a just war,

The vast majority of people this world including most politicians and soldiers themselves will disagree with you on that. There is nothing just about being involved in an illegal war for no reason apart from their hidden agenda.

The soldiers are only there to do their job what they are paid for but it does'nt meant that they feel it is a just war. Several heads of army have spoken out many times about the fact that UK should NEVER have been involved in the first place and they were told to shut up and do what they are paid for by the government.

Most soldiers still don't know why they are there in their first place. Tony Blair has admitted that he would have went into iraq anyway tat is because the 'so called weapons of mass destruction' was only an excuse to go in there in the first place.

If there is any justice in the world then Tony Blair and George Bush should be tried for war crimes against humanity for they have the death over a million innocent lives on their conscience.

The vast majority of UK knows that this is an illegal war and that Britain has to pull out but it is those in the background that control things and they will stop at nothing until their hidden agneda's are achieved.

They may be planning and plotting but Allah is the best of all planners!

[Hamza Asadullah]

Genocide, rape, religious discrimination, racism, sexism, torture, tyranny, terrorism- you know, all the usual things that generally make people bad! Sorry if it's funny! I didn't think hating evil people ever was funny, but obviously I'm not with it.

Really? Im sure America did'nt think that when they created the Taliban to defeat Russia and trained them and gave them the weapons they still have today.

It is funny how you defend those who have taken part in countless atrocities but attack those who are trying to defend themselves! Are they to sit there and let there land be occupied and not take a stand?

You are clearly hypnotised and to absorbed by the media to know what is really going on in this world.

Learn the truth properly for yourself instead of blindly believing what the media want you to believe!

[Supreme]

Really? Im sure America did'nt think that when they created the Taliban to defeat Russia and trained them and gave them the weapons they still have today.

America didn't care about that, it just wanted to humiliate and demonstrate a defeat against the USSR. It is hypocrisy.

It is funny how you defend those who have taken part in countless atrocities but attack those who are trying to defend themselves! Are they to sit there and let there land be occupied and not take a stand?

Remind me again, who am I defending that has taken part in atrocities?

You are clearly hypnotised and to absorbed by the media to know what is really going on in this world.

Must be if I disagree with your opinion.

[aadil77]

Genocide, rape, religious discrimination, racism, sexism, torture, tyranny, terrorism- you know, all the usual things that generally make people bad! Sorry if it's funny! I didn't think hating evil people ever was funny, but obviously I'm not with it.

All the usual lies that come from non-muslims to degrade muslims only to be disproved almost immediately, do you see what I mean? any hate you have against the afghan taliban is generated by media and gov't lies all there to get public opinion for their 'just cause' wars.

If you ever knew any taliban you'd learn that they are some of the most simple and decent people on earth, they live by islamic law and they're free of any of the claims you've just mentioned.

The crimes you've mentioned are probably more common in one city of this country than the whole of afghanistan

[Supreme]

All the usual lies that come from non-muslims to degrade muslims only to be disproved almost immediately, do you see what I mean? any hate you have against the afghan taliban is generated by media and gov't lies all there to get public opinion for their 'just cause' wars.

Of course, the usual excuse when you hear something you don't agree with! And thanks for disproving me immediately with your wealth of sources and facts, put me in my place! With arguments this strong, why do you even bother?

If you ever knew any taliban you'd learn that they are some of the most simple and decent people on earth, they live by islamic law and they're free of any of the claims you've just mentioned.

I'm sure some of them are decent people, many of whom might not even agree with the Taliban ideals they're fighting for, just fighting to keep food on the plates of their family and a roof over their head, which is why I meant the Taliban leadership- besides, they're the ones who incited the genocide, the rapes, the murders, the sexism and racism.

The crimes you've mentioned are probably more common in one city of this country than the whole of afghanistan

FYI- that's because lots of Afghans despised the Taliban and fought against them so that the Taliban could never get the chance to do what they were doing in other cities to their part of the country!

[aadil77]

I'm sure some of them are decent people, many of whom might not even agree with the Taliban ideals they're fighting for, just fighting to keep food on the plates of their family and a roof over their head, which is why I meant the Taliban leadership- besides, they're the ones who incited the genocide, the rapes, the murders, the sexism and racism.

FYI- that's because lots of Afghans despised the Taliban and fought against them so that the Taliban could never get the chance to do what they were doing in other cities to their part of the country!

-------s as usual, go on fill us in about the 'Taliban ideals' we'd like to hear what they are and I'd like to see examples for all the 'genocide, the rapes, the murders, the sexism and racism', I'll try to find you any proof to disprove those stories

At this rate you could work for the army, help them recruit soldiers with all those 'facts' drilled into your head

[Hamza Asadullah]

-------s as usual, go on fill us in about the 'Taliban ideals' we'd like to hear what they are and I'd like to see examples for all the 'genocide, the rapes, the murders, the sexism and racism', I'll try to find you any proof to disprove those stories

At this rate you could work for the army, help them recruit soldiers with all those 'facts' drilled into your head

Brother no point discussing anything with a blind person. Let him believe what he wants. He has no facts but his arguments are only emotional fallacies. He knows NOTHNG about what is actually going on in the world but he is happy to let the media shape his perception and view of the world.

May Allah guide him to Islam and the straight path and reveal the truth to him. Ameen

[Hamza Asadullah]

The following is just a partial list of atrocities, massacres, murders, and injuries in recent history for which the United Sates is responsible:

• 3,000,000 Vietnamese murdered over the course of about 30 years of US aggression.

• Well over 300,000 Japanese were massacred when the US raided Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• 600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975.

• Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to "secret bombing" from 1964 to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees.

• 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island.

• Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America’s massive slaughter in the Korean War.

• 200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. (This took place just over 100 years ago.)

• 23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang’s Nationalist Army) during the late 1940s.

• 700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto.

• 200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support.

• 750,000 civilians were driven from their homes in East Timor by Indonesian forces in 1999 and 10,000 were killed.

• Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children.

• Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq.

• 35,000 Kurds were killed, 3,500 villages were destroyed, and between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 became homeless as a result of aggression by Turkey with US arming and training in the 1990s.

• Over 1,000,000 people were killed in Afghanistan’s civil war from 1979 to 1992, in which the US strongly supported the Moujahedeen, the most violent and sadistic of the forces. (This also set the stage for the CIA-backed Taliban to attain power.)

• 45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US

• Thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel.

• Over 150,000 were killed in Greece when America advised, equipped, and financed violent interventions in the late 1940s and late 1960s.

• Over 75,000 civilians were killed and over one million refugees were created in El Salvador from 1980 to 1994 when the US intensely supported the efforts of a brutal regime and its death squads to eliminate a popular uprising.

• 40,000 civilians were killed by the US-backed National Guard in Nicaragua over the course of almost 50 years.

• 30,000 lives were killed by the US contras in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1989.

• 200,000 Guatemalans were slaughtered from 1960-1990s by a military apparatus trained, armed, funded, and assisted by America.

• Over 35,000 Colombian civilians have been killed during the US-supported Colombian war against left-wing rebels.

• More than 4,000 innocent civilians were killed in Panama during the US invasion in 1989.

• Hundreds of thousands were killed by US direct and indirect interventions in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Argentina from the mid 60s through the 80s.

• 50,000 Haitians were killed when the US military destroyed a peasant uprising in 1915.

• Between 4,000 and 5,000 Haitians were killed in the early 1990s by US-established forces.

• Thousands were killed in the Dominican Republic during the 1960s when US and Dominican troops crushed a pro-Bosch rebellion.

• Over 3,000 were killed and countless others injured by US interventions in Cuba.

• Hundreds were killed or injured when the US invaded Grenada in 1983.

• Over 50,000 Somalians were killed between 1978 and 1990 by US-supported Siad Barre.

• Up to 10,000 more Somalians were killed directly by US troops during America’s "humanitarian mission" in 1993.

• In the US-supported Rwandan genocide, an estimated 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days in 1994.

• Over 300,000 were killed and 80,000 were crippled in Angola from a US-supported civil war.

• Tens of thousands were killed and up to 200,000 were tortured in Chad by Hissen Habre with US support during the 1980’s.

• Over 1,000,000 were killed during Mozambique’s civil war (1980-1992), in which the brutally violent RENAMO forces were supported by the US

• 1,500,000 were killed between 1980 and 1988 in southern Africa by the US-armed South Africa.

• Thousands of people in Pacific islands, Puerto Rico, Utah, California, Nevada, Washington, New Mexico, and various other places have been killed, infected, or harmed as a result of US weapon experiments (especially nuclear weapons and weapons using depleted uranium).

• Hundreds of civil rights activists have been beaten, tortured, framed, and killed in the US by government agencies in recent history.

• Hundreds of Black Panther supporters and American Indians were framed, beaten, or murdered by the FBI and its cohorts in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

• Over 1,200 immigrants and citizens in America (mostly of Arab decent) were detained after September 11, 2001, without evidence of law-breaking or terrorist activity.

• Millions have been killed during America’s recent "War on Terror."

• Over 2,500 US soldiers and one million Iraqi civilians have perished since George W’s recent invasion of Iraq.

NOTE: These numbers are quite liberal, the numbers are likely to be much more!

Every year add hundreds of thousands more innocent lives to the total! To them it seems human lives are just like chess pieces in a game and have no significance. They will stop at nothing until they achieve what they originally set out for- World domination!

[Supreme]

-------s as usual, go on fill us in about the 'Taliban ideals' we'd like to hear what they are and I'd like to see examples for all the 'genocide, the rapes, the murders, the sexism and racism', I'll try to find you any proof to disprove those stories

At this rate you could work for the army, help them recruit soldiers with all those 'facts' drilled into your head

Fair enough bub:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ne-616396.html

"They burnt some of us alive." It was almost the first thing he said to us. In the dust and squalor of a refugee camp, Salahuddin told yesterday how the Taliban burnt an entire family to death in their own home in revenge for the American bombing.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5368139.story

DU OB, Afghanistan - Cupped in a pristine river valley and surrounded by peaks that seem to glow with pale fire at dawn, Du Ob would fit many people's idea of paradise. Its tidy almond orchards are fenced with rows of golden-leafed poplars. Its rich brown fields await turning for winter wheat.

But there are no plows at work today--just the clink of spades on bone.

"They didn't interrogate them or give them a trial," said Sayed Sher Agha, a villager searching for the bodies of eight relatives, including his son, left in a mass grave by the Taliban. "They just shot them just because they were Hazaras."

Oh, bit of racism there as well the brutal murders.

-- The 1998 massacre of 600 Uzbek villagers.

-- The 1998 capture of Mazar-e Sharif, which included, according to Human Rights watch, the execution of scores of men and boys and the rape of women and girls. The Defense Department also said shop owners, cart pullers, and women and children shoppers were killed.

-- A 2001 massacre in Yakaolang, which included, according to Human Rights Watch, the executions of at least 170 men.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/2...ies/index.html

http://www.hazara.net/taliban/taliban.html

The Taliban first appeared on the political scene of Afghanistan in September, 1994 in the southern Province of Kandhar, and have since taken about 90% of Afghanistan. Never has any group been more controversial then the Taliban of Afghanistan. Patrolling the streets in the pickup trucks, the Taliban members, under the General Department for the Preservation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Amr-bil Maroof Wa Nahi Anil Munkar), search houses and destroy any television sets, radios, cassettes, and photographs. The bands of Taliban thugs roam the streets beating those they deem to be violators of the Shariah (Islamic code of Law) [2]. The Taliban's harsh fundamentalist rule has dismantled all civil institutions, and closed all women Institutions. Their leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, cloaks himself in secrecy, refusing to grant interviews or allow his photo to be taken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-1667853.html

Taliban gunmen murdered one of Afghanistan’s leading female rights activists yesterday, as she stood outside her home. In the latest blow against women’s rights, two men on a motorbike shot Sitara Achakzai in the southern city of Kandahar.


Officials said the attack happened in broad daylight. The Taliban have claimed responsibility. Friends said Mrs Achakzai was returning from a provincial council meeting; her assassins were lying in wait nearby.

“This cold-blooded assassination puts in question the direction that Afghanistan is heading,” warned Wenny Kusuma, the director of the United Nations Development fund for Women in Afghanistan. “There is no respect for the rule of law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...on-camera.html

Their deaths were squalid, riddled with bullets in a field near their home by Taliban gunmen as the execution was captured on a mobile telephone.

In footage which is being watched with horror by Pakistanis, the couple try to flee when they realise what is about to happen. But a gunman casually shoots the man and then the woman in the back with a burst of gunfire, leaving them bleeding in the dirt.


Moments later, when others in the execution party shout out that they are still alive, he returns to coldly finish them with a few more rounds

These Taliban seem like really nice people- it makes one wonder why just about every nation is their enemy when all they want to do is go about killing people in peace! Feel free to call it 'Western propaganda' or whatever, the fact is I've found plentiful link and sources from reputable news companies.

Brother no point discussing anything with a blind person

Isn't that discrimination against the disabled? What prevents a blind person being a good debater!

He has no facts

Oops! Looks like I kind of do!

He knows NOTHNG about what is actually going on in the world but he is happy to let the media shape his perception and view of the world.

Out of interest, where do you get your information from if not the media? I do ever so much want to know!

Anyway, feel free to gang up again on me at any time! I'll be happy to defeat you in debate again!

[aadil77]

Out of interest, where do you get your information from if not the media? I do ever so much want to know!

Anyway, feel free to gang up again on me at any time! I'll be happy to defeat you in debate again!

We get our news from the media but we verify it through interviews posted up on the net. Like recently lies by BBC Urdu Service to show that the pak taliban claimed responsilbity of all bomb attacks targetting civilians were refuted when the spokeperson of the pak taliban gave a video interview specialy to refute each of those claims.

We're not sad, we don't don't come on here to gang up on misinformed individuals like yourself, we're trying to give you the real story behind many of these false claims

I'll reply to your articles later, when I can be bothered

[Hamza Asadullah]

There is no wisdom or any point in debating with someone who is blind to the truth and blindly takes whatever he sees on TV and newspapers without even researching the truth for himself. Let us not waste our precious time on such a person.

May Allah guide him to the truth. Ameen

[Ramadhan]

No, please don't put words in my mouth. I was highlighting the perspective of the allied military. They believe they are fighting a just war, but they cannot operate large scale ground offensives, so what other alternative do they have? I never once said I approved of the military strategy did I?

I thought you were justifying the cowardly acts of the allied forces, who were afraid to get killed on ground and instead went on aerial bombings of civilians area.
But now apparently you agree with me that US and allied forces are wrong in doing the aerial bombings.
It's good that you changed your opinion for the better.

"Using your philosophy, you should not object to terrorist attacks in western countries," - What philosophy?

The philosophy that all is forgiven in war, including senselessly and consciously killing civilians in the process to achieve one's aim.

[Maryan0]

There is no wisdom or any point in debating with someone who is blind to the truth and blindly takes whatever he sees on TV and newspapers without even researching the truth for himself. Let us not waste our precious time on such a person.

May Allah guide him to the truth. Ameen

Agreed, They delude themselves into believing the nonsensical things that come out of their mouths and no amount of "debating" or reasoning will change their minds so there is no point in arguing.
salam

[Italianguy]

I have a question.......Don't beat me up, i haven't read the entire thread yet.

This may be a little off topic.....but does anyone here actually support what the Taliban and Al queda are doing??

From my understanding, both of these groups started off as American funded army's against Russian insergents? They were formed with good ideals...and then went bad? I was told Talib''an stands for "one who is seeking"? Is this true?

I'm not looking for a full history report, and I'm somewhat sure......or just hopefull thinking, that there are still those that would appose the negative aspects of what these groups are doing?

I'm only asking, not looking to throw fuel on a fire.

[Hamza Asadullah]

I have a question.......Don't beat me up, i haven't read the entire thread yet.

This may be a little off topic.....but does anyone here actually support what the Taliban and Al queda are doing??

From my understanding, both of these groups started off as American funded army's against Russian insergents? They were formed with good ideals...and then went bad? I was told Talib''an stands for "one who is seeking"? Is this true?

I'm not looking for a full history report, and I'm somewhat sure......or just hopefull thinking, that there are still those that would appose the negative aspects of what these groups are doing?

I'm only asking, not looking to throw fuel on a fire.

Have a quick listen to this short clip:

The Origin and Myth of 'Al Qaeda'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNvqm_qgM5U

[Supreme]

There is no wisdom or any point in debating with someone who is blind to the truth and blindly takes whatever he sees on TV and newspapers without even researching the truth for himself. Let us not waste our precious time on such a person.

May Allah guide him to the truth. Ameen

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same thing, or is it merely for your own benefit, so that you can convince yourself that what you're saying is true?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same thing, or is it merely for your own benefit, so that you can convince yourself that what you're saying is true?

We do not need to convince ourselves of the truth for our eyes are open and we are aware of the true agenda behind what they are doing. It is upto you what you want to believe. I am not going to force feed you anything.

What you need to realise is that that what the media feeds us everyday on TV,Radio and Newspapers is not always the real truth and im talking about all issues not just political ones.

So it is upto us to seek the real truth by looking at various sources and both sides of the arguement. We have been given logic as humans so let us use it and not just believe what the media wants us to believe all of the time like robots.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Ok guys, I think it's time to lock this thread.