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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uthman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 118
  • Views Views 14K
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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 !

-
 
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!
 
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)
 
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?
 
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_civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%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....
 
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?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/21/us-13-civilians-killed-in_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...ollateral-damage-investigation-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/2009/05/dozens-of-civilians-killed-in-afghanistan-air-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.”
 
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.
 
Deaths of thousands of Afghan Civilians at the hands of US and NATO soldiers = FACTS
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Joe98's point was not that Western soldiers don't kill civilians, it was that more are killed by the resistance.
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.
-
 
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 !
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-
 
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.
 
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?
 
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/w...-from-the-invasion-of-afghanistan-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.
 
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
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top