# Kandahar Explosion



## tomahawk6 (12 Mar 2008)

A few pic's of the suicide attack today.


























Assistance Force (ISAF) secure the site of a suicide bomb attack a Canadian military convoy in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, 12 March 2008. A suicide attacker detonated his explosives-filled vehicle targeted at a Canadian military convoy killing an Afghan civilian and wounding four others, including a Canadian soldier, officials said. Around 2, 500 Canadian forces are stationed in the southern province of Kandahar, a strong-hold for Taliban militants, whose government was toppled in late 2001


----------



## slowmode (13 Mar 2008)

Amazing pictures, where did you get them from?

Best of luck to the injured soldiers


----------



## Celticgirl (13 Mar 2008)

Wow! It's hard to imagine what it must be like to be there, and even more so when these attacks happen. Incredible pictures! I hope the injured soldier heals quickly. God bless them all and keep them safe.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Mar 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Amazing pictures, where did you get them from?
> 
> Best of luck to the injured soldiers



Militaryphotos.net and I suspect they may have come from combat camera,but I havent checked to verify.


----------



## regulator12 (13 Mar 2008)

The photos as great as they are should not be on the net. We are giving the enemy great battle damage assessment. They get most of there intel off the net. I would like to see these photos off of here and off the net. Who ever got them on the net in the first place messed up.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Mar 2008)

I agree with Regulator, but they may show up in the mainstream media in the meantime.


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Best of luck to the injured soldiers



And the injured Afghans.


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> The photos as great as they are should not be on the net. We are giving the enemy great battle damage assessment. They get most of there intel off the net. I would like to see these photos off of here and off the net. Who ever got them on the net in the first place messed up.



I'd hazard a guess that the local Taliban have much more from their own sources.


----------



## 043 (13 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> The photos as great as they are should not be on the net. We are giving the enemy great battle damage assessment. They get most of there intel off the net. I would like to see these photos off of here and off the net. Who ever got them on the net in the first place messed up.



Your kidding aren't you? You don't think they knew the BDA within minutes of the attack?


----------



## regulator12 (13 Mar 2008)

No iam not kidding sure the locals know whats up, but what about other jihadis around the globe looking to see the affects of the blast on vehicles 80% of all there intel comes from the net. If you dont realize the potential danger of posting such things on the net your right out of her.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> The photos as great as they are should not be on the net. We are giving the enemy great battle damage assessment. They get most of there intel off the net. I would like to see these photos off of here and off the net. Who ever got them on the net in the first place messed up.


?

Hogwash!

I am NOT right out of 'er!

Their INT comes from the local supporters and the bad guys.

Don't you think they were watching and most likely even videoed th event??

They have their own moles and HUMINTsources. These pics mean nothing to them.

EDIT: Coming up 100 posts reg, and NO profile!


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> No iam not kidding sure the locals know whats up, but what about other jihadis around the globe looking to see the affects of the blast on vehicles 80% of all there intel comes from the net. If you dont realize the potential danger of posting such things on the net your right out of her.



By now, there are more detailed photographs and videos of the event from beginning to end already distributed amongst the networks. There could also be other information based on this incident already in use by the organizations around the world.

They are not the ignorant savages some people believe them to be. They are highly intelligent and well educated individuals that are planning these events. Their abilities to gather useful int, amongst other things should not be underestimated. This doesn't mean that you have to go into hyper vigilance mode. 

Stick to your lane.


----------



## Thompson_JM (13 Mar 2008)

agreed

having driven down the road where the bombing occured I know there are a million places that someone could sit and vdeotape the IED in comfort, and have a great view of the show..... 

this tells them nothing they dont already know....

goodspeed to the injured.

looks like the Hadjis are probing the new Roto to see how they do buisness....


----------



## McG (13 Mar 2008)

For all those who felt the need to give regulator12, shake your stupids out!  You suspect that the Taliban might have collected the intelligence, therefore you argue it is perfectly acceptable to disseminate the information to every conceivable adversary on the globe?  Maybe the trigger team got a few pictures off, but maybe the pictures lacked quality or maybe there were no pictures; then posting battle damaged photos is not only helping in dissemination, it is giving the enemy information he did not have.

And just so we are all clear, it is CF OPSEC policy that nobody is to post such pictures unless vetted by the appropriate technical authority or they found it in the media:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40907/post-674076.html#msg674076


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> For all those who felt the need to give regulator12, shake your stupids out!  You suspect that the Taliban might have collected the intelligence, therefore you argue it is perfectly acceptable to disseminate the information to every conceivable adversary on the globe?  Maybe the trigger team got a few pictures off, but maybe the pictures lacked quality or maybe there were no pictures; then posting battle damaged photos is not only helping in dissemination, it is giving the enemy information he did not have.
> 
> And just so we are all clear, it is CF OPSEC policy that nobody is to post such pictures unless vetted by the appropriate technical authority or they found it in the media:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40907/post-674076.html#msg674076



I was in no way advocating that pictures of anything be posted on the internet or any other open sources. I am merely saying that to think that those who have committed the acts have not already gotten int that are valuable to them is plain stupidity on our part. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It is all speculation and we may never really know if this or that. These pictures did not originate here from this forum. It originated from another. As long as we do our own due diligence, and let other worry about their own sites. 

WE should know better, and hence our mods control and vet the possible OP/PERSEC issues. We can't change how others operate, but we can convince members here to watch their own posts, and thus prevent them from committing the same mistakes as others. 

Obviously those who took the pictures did not think. Or they were approved, or they were taken by others who are not constrained by our policies. Either way, the pictures are out in the open, and that is the end of the story.


----------



## Shamrock (13 Mar 2008)

The photos are attributed to Allauddin Khan of the AP and have been reproduced in several media sources, including Globe and Mail and CTV.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> No iam not kidding sure the locals know whats up, but what about other jihadis around the globe looking to see the affects of the blast on vehicles 80% of all there intel comes from the net. If you dont realize the potential danger of posting such things on the net your right out of her.



Somehow I feel someone with "20 yrs TI, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia x 3, Afganistan" isn't exactly "right out of er.

You've said 80% of intell is from the internet, what are you basing this statistic off of?  IS this off of some kind of CIA fact book or are you making up this 80% figure?

When we got hit in the very same situation that convoy from the pictures was, we had aljazeria (sp?) on the scene within minutes video taping us. Their allowed.  By the time I got back to base, did our close down drills and went to check my email I saw a picture of myself on the CTV website at the IED site. (I had a talking to from my boss because I had my sleeves up while setting up the cordin and he saw the picture of it, thanks CTV!   ;D )   

Those pictures look professionally done.

PS-DAMN I love the RG. Those things save lives.


----------



## McG (13 Mar 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I was in no way advocating that pictures of anything be posted on the internet or any other open sources.


You failed to state your opposition to posting such pictures on the internet.




			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> I am merely saying that to think that those who have committed the acts have not already gotten int that are valuable to them is plain stupidity on our part.


But to assume that such pictures no longer pose an OPSEC risk would also be stupid on our part.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> We can't change how others operate, but we can convince members here to watch their own posts, and thus prevent them from committing the same mistakes as others.


Again, you missed this important part of your message in your previous post.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> Obviously those who took the pictures did not think.


It would seem.  Unfortunately, they are media so whether it belongs on the internet or not, it is out there (and why we are discussing appropriateness of the pictures as opposed to my already having taken them down)


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

MCG agreed on all fronts. We're just agreeing with each other now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2008)

Consider something else.

The Taliban may be able to take some sort of BDA away from those photos but the Canadian public ALSO have a graphic reminder that bad things are still going on in Afghanistan and the equipment their tax dollars are paying for is working and saving the lives of their sons and daughters.

Hearing on the news 'another convoy was hit today' and seeing what it looks like up close are two very different things.


----------



## regulator12 (14 Mar 2008)

I get my stats from int guys in theatre where i am right now. I am staying in my lane by stating that the photos should not be posted.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

OK Mr SME sorry to offend. 

Afterall you are getting all the guff, after not setting one foot out of Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> I get my stats from int guys in theatre where i am right now. I am staying in my lane by stating that the photos should not be posted.



So it's anecdotal evidence.


----------



## regulator12 (14 Mar 2008)

sure whatever


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

These pictures do not violate OPSEC - at least by the standard I know. These photos are no different than the bombing scene last week or the one 6 months ago or the ones from Canada's Kabul ISAF days or even bombing scenes we have have seen in Iraq. I can appreciate the need for OPSEC but that can be a broad brush where no photos would be released.

This bombing was a failure for the Taliban in that they didnt kill any Canadian soldiers and the fact that Afghan civilians were killed, they lost their hearts and minds campaign. What do these images demonstrate ? I see power - Canadian power. Armored vehicles. Alert professional soldiers going about their business. Just the images we want the world to see in my opinion.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> sure whatever



That answer shows nothing but the contempt you have for us


----------



## regulator12 (14 Mar 2008)

Well you guys are so sure your right without even trying to understand the implications posting such photos on the net could have. There is clear shots of a damaged RG sure it shows that where strong. I just think that those photos are valuable to the right people. They will be able to use photos for there propaganda for analysis for whatever. I am not trying to get into a big discussion on this topic, i simply wanted to state that posting these photos on the net is not a good idea. The Taliban are not stupid exactly so we should be careful with what we post.


----------



## Loachman (14 Mar 2008)

As was stated earlier by Shamrock, "The photos are attributed to Allauddin Khan of the AP and have been reproduced in several media sources, including Globe and Mail and CTV". They're already out there on the net.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

Here is a pic of a damaged US vehicle. Notice in the Canadian pic's damage done to the vehicle isnt up close and personal as the US photo. There is a need to report the news and pictures are part of that.






U.S. soldiers secure the area next to a damaged U.S. military vehicle after a roadside bomb explosion during the Sukhumi clearing operation in the area of Al-leg, some 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, March 7, 2008. Two roadside bombs exploded during Friday's operation, the first one in the morning, damaged a U.S. army vehicle, and the second one in the late afternoon, wounded five Iraqi volunteer civilians


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2008)

How old are you Reg12?

What do you know about OPSEC?

What is your military experience?

Those pics show nothing what would be considered OPSEC.

The enemy will continue to use EFP/IED no matter what veh's we use, as its the collateral damage which makes the news anyways.

Cant see much on YET another empty profile.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Mar 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> Well you guys are so sure your right without even trying to understand the implications posting such photos on the net could have. There is clear shots of a damaged RG sure it shows that where strong. I just think that those photos are valuable to the right people. *They will be able to use photos for there propaganda for analysis for whatever*. I am not trying to get into a big discussion on this topic, i simply wanted to state that posting these photos on the net is not a good idea. The Taliban are not stupid exactly so we should be careful with what we post.



Regulator, you are completely correct and im actually very surprised more people aren't supporting you.

Who cares what humint and int sources the Taliban have, there's no need to give them any help. It's long been policy in Afghanistan to not reveal damaged/destroyed vehicles to the public - theres a reason we tarp over the vehicles when moving them around. Come on Wesley you know better than that. Assuming the Taliban already know all about it and it's okay and who cares is an immature and unprofessional attitude.

How often do you see destroyed Canadian vehicles on TV? There are alot more of them than reported, my section went through more than one.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Mar 2008)

also, to reiterate what MCG has already stated several times:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40907/post-674076.html#msg674076

I don't care what your "professional opinion" on what is and isn't valuable to enemy int sources is, rules are rules and you'll damned well follow them because this is the army and thats what you're paid to do.
It isn't up to any of you to decide what is and isn't allowed.It's probobly a very good chance imho that the Taliban already have/had excellent BDA on the attack as soon as it happened anyway, but if for some reason they didn't why would you so foolishly take the chance just to post pictures? The fact that you would even take the risk and blatantly think nothing of it only shows alot of people what little respect you might have for the threat ...
IEDs are the #1 Killer of troops on the ground, what the hell guys . . . 

I'll go on all night if I let myself so just do yourselves a favor and read about OPSEC..

5.D.  PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS (E.G. YOU TUBE, ETC.) POSTED TO THE WEB 
*IN ANY CAPACITY*, INCLUDING DND/CF WEBSITES, SOCIAL NETWORK SITES, 
PERSONAL BLOGS, OR E-MAIL OR OTHER WEB-BASED CORRESPONDENCE (SUCH AS 
CHAT) MUST BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BEFOREHAND TO ENSURE THAT *THEY DO 
NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE OF USE TO THE ENEMY*

We do not decide what is useful to the enemy and what isn't.
It was becoming a rule when I was in theatre and im sure if it isn't already it will be soon: NO PICTURES ON THE INTRAMAWEB MACHINE


----------



## McG (14 Mar 2008)

This has gotten stupid with the "lets piss OPSEC out the window crowed."  Yes, those pictures absolutely do constitute an OPSEC risk, but they are authorized because they are from the media.  Lets not go stupid & look for other reasons to justify thier publication & the publication of similar photos ("I can find something that shows more information, so these one's must okay now").  Just like loose lips sink ships, *OPSEC breaches kill soldiers* regardless of how much you justify it to yourself.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> OK Mr SME sorry to offend.
> 
> Afterall you are getting all the guff, after not setting one foot out of Canada.


Wes,
Stop being belligerent for the sport of it.  He's told you he is in theater in the post you've quoted  If your position is so bloody weak that you must resort to attacking others' profiles then you'd best pull out of this thread.  The site has policies on ad hominem & it is not on.



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The Taliban may be able to take some sort of BDA away from those photos but the Canadian public ALSO have a graphic reminder that bad things are still going on in Afghanistan and the equipment their tax dollars are paying for is working and saving the lives of their sons and daughters.


There are other ways to provide a "graphic reminder" without handing every potential enemy in the world a battle damage photo (& source of int).


----------

