“Usually” ?
Angry villagers carted the bodies of two dead children into Kandahar city today, screaming “Death to the Canadians” and blaming the foreign troops for testing weapons near their homes.
Several children were caught in an explosion as they scavenged for scrap metal in the barren terrain about 15 kilometres west of the city, Afghan officials say, and many locals are convinced the blast was caused by ordnance left over from Canadian exercises in the area one day earlier.
The Canadian military has launched an investigation, saying the forces had been test-firing artillery and tank cannons but the soldiers usually check carefully after weapons practice for unexploded shells.
(source)
Usually? Our soldiers usually check for unexploded practice shells?
Good god already, between our military leaving unexploded ordinance laying around for kids to play with and members of our national police force getting all weak in the knees over being threatened with an office stapler I am given to wonder just what sort of outfit we’re living in.
My favourite was when all the border guards in BC left their posts because of a news report that some maniac was trying to escape into Canada from the US. The True North, Strong and …uh…, well, maybe not.
I’m starting to wonder if we actually give a flying f*ck how many young people are endangered, maimed or killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza. While the social conservatives fret about saving every pre-born white baby, they happily applaud the slaughter of post-born brown babies.
@Beijing York – BY,
How the hell you sneaked in that non sequitur, I’ll never ever ever know.
@OK, I’ll Take the Heat – Lets talk apples and apples and not apples and squid shall we? In the case of the BC border guards the bad guys were (IIRC) armed and apparently dangerous, and the border guards were not.
@Beijing York – I don’t wonder at all, the people who are being killed are far away and speak a different language – look for phrases like “unfortunate incident” to appear following a stock military apology while the URQ finds a way to blame it on the dead kids.
I’d say the military spokesperson’s “usually” is an admission of guilt regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
“Death to the Canadians” is kind of… I dunno… ungrateful’s not the word, but…
comprehension failure alexander is on the job and by fuck he is baffled. the little brown kids were obviously trying to steal the good white men’s expensive boom boom and got what they deserved, that’s about right eh raphael, hmm? if that is your real name and not a pretentious nom de twit.
Part of the problem. You can’t fight a war without leaving uxo all over the place. Nor can you train troops without doing the same thing. Even on Canadian training areas you can’t avoid it. So much gets thrown down range, it is literally impossible to account for it all – most of it does explode. I’ve had to move bivouac sites and mark unexploded artillery and mortar rounds with mine tape and glow sticks. Some of it recent and some of it possibly decades old. All still live. But these were on military bases, with people who knew what it was they were dealing with.
The problem is that when the great and mighty West decides to crusade somewhere not-West, we tend to leave all that UXO behind for the kids to find for possibly hundreds of years. Because they live in the training/battle area. Of course this simply does not factor into the West’s win calculus. At least until the locals dump the bodies of their dead kids on our door step. And even then, we’ll make a big show of investigating, maybe even claim responsibility. But we’ll also punch them in the face and claim the necessity of it all while we smile away into our pocket mirror.
Their dead aren’t counted. We don’t name them. We dont built them memorials, even though we’ve killed them in their own name. They don’t get ramp ceremonies. They don’t get widow’s medals. They don’t get heroes’ highways. Their maimed don’t get 57 flavours of rehab support. Instead, we might give them a few pieces of silver and thank them for their time and call them ungrateful.
Their dead aren’t counted. We don’t name them. We dont built them memorials, even though we’ve killed them in their own name. They don’t get ramp ceremonies. They don’t get widow’s medals. They don’t get heroes’ highways. Their maimed don’t get 57 flavours of rehab support. Instead, we might give them a few pieces of silver and thank them for their time and call them ungrateful.
Best comment of the year. Well said Boris, well said.
Beijing York wonders out loud:
I’m starting to wonder if we actually give a flying f*ck how many young people are endangered, maimed or killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza. While the social conservatives fret about saving every pre-born white baby, they happily applaud the slaughter of post-born brown babies.
A racist responds:
How the hell you sneaked in that non sequitur, I’ll never ever ever know.
Not really a non-sequitur in his case:
http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/11/drdawg-babies-of-terrorists-are-hungry.html
Beijing York made an appallingly stupid comment: that so-cons “applaud” the death of brown babies. I merely called him on it.
Two things RA:
1) Beijing York is female. You’d have known that if you’d bothered to check her blog.
2) “So-cons” trip over themselves cheering Israel’s right to defend itself, and the method by which it does this. It is an established fact that Israel’s chosen method of self defence kills many Palestinian non-militants, including babies. So, while [many on] the right may not directly cheer dead brown babies, they definitely cheer actions which more often than not result in that outcome. What exactly does one call someone who advocates the sort of violence that results in dead children?
Beijing York’s comment is quite responsible.
Sigh. I was being sarcastic, Boris. Maybe get off your high horse and get a brain.
So what exactly did you mean then, Sooey?
I won’t explain myself any more than I already have. But feel free to think ill of me if it makes you feel good
*sigh*
You need to correct this entry forthwith. An apology to our Armed Forces may also be in order.
[...] February 23, a post in the progressosphere and some select comments at the time: Beijing York Said in February 23rd, 2009 @9:40 [...]
Raph, dude…there are a number of bloggers whose opinion matters to me. Lots and lots. Really, there are. Listen, I know where your site is, and I promise if I ever feel I need your guidance, I’ll race right on over and ask. Truly.
Don’t wait up.
@Raphael – I guess I should thank you for the heads up – I just checked for the results of the “investigation“, what a load of rhetoric.
The bull shit rhetoric is in the second paragraph and the important part is the last.
Quite frankly no entity that is allowed to not only investigate itself, but absolve and exonerate itself as a result of its’ investigation into its’ conduct, has much credibility with me.
Three final thoughts:
[#1] I am not now, nor have I ever been generically “anti-war” as your post title is intended to indicate. If you bothered to check further into it than your own preconceptions you would discover that I did not come out against the Afghanistan action.
[#2] There will be no apology forthcoming.
[#3] Sorry, I miscounted, there were only two.
Evasion noted. Refusal to change your anti-war post that denigrates Canadian soldiers noted. Subservience to convenient propaganda that fits your neat view of the war noted.
You have shown a debacle of intellectual honesty here.
Dear Mr. Alexander:
Your notings are duly noted.
Rest assured that the official bunker archivist will ensure that your notings will be treated with all the due consideration they deserve, thank you for visiting the bunker, we hope you enjoyed your stay.
stageleft
Hahaha!
Anti-war post that denigrates Canadian soldiers?
I guess you would consider a post condemning OJ Simpson for murdering 2 people anti-black, then?
“ensure that your notings will be treated with all the due consideration they deserve…”
Stage, there seems to be something blocking the toilet.