u.s. continues to win the hearts of afghans

[Guest Peeves]

"u.s. continues to win the hearts of afghans"

Now then, had someone headlined a jihadist terrorist Islamist murderer in such a manner they would be accused of tarring all Muslims as terrorists.

This 'American' must be considered a murderer of course, but he is one American of thousands laying down their lives FOR Afghans.

Presumably there will be an investigation in depth as to his actions.

If an Afghan- Pakistani- Iraqi- Iranian...etc. had done a similar thing murdering non Muslims, WHO I ask in those countries investigate as the USA WILL!

Added, afterthought. BTW I have no criticism of the headline, I agree with the sentiments. I'm simply saying how if referencing a Muslim there would be flack about the context.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest American Woman]

I agree, but it has brought closer scrutiny to the escalation of troops in Afghanistan, i.e. Obama's surge did not bring about the same perceived results as Bush's surge in Iraq, which, along with other key events, is now considered a good move in retrospect. Both venues have their share of troop and command failings, but Afghanistan is at the end of the brutal op-tempo and multiple deployments for US forces.

I think acts such as this should always bring closer scrutiny to everything that's going on, but I think it would set a dangerous precedent to start letting such acts by individual soldiers affect our policies.

[Guest American Woman]

Added, afterthought. BTW I have no criticism of the headline, I agree with the sentiments. I'm simply saying how if referencing a Muslim there would be flack about the context.

I totally disagree with the headline. This has nothing to do with the "U.S." per se, and has nothing to do with our objectives over there. It's one soldier. Odd how we never see such a headline when individual soldiers carry out acts of kindness/an American builds a school/saves a child's life or fill-in-the-blank with all of the caring, positive acts that individual soldiers have taken it upon themselves to carry out.

I think focusing on 'the evil U.S.' works in the favor of those who purposely commit atrocious acts but are not held to the same criticism/scrutiny of the U.S.; I think it empowers them.

[GostHacked]

I think acts such as this should always bring closer scrutiny to everything that's going on, but I think it would set a dangerous precedent to start letting such acts by individual soldiers affect our policies.

Should not let bad apples in government affect policies, but that happens all the time.

[bud]

there are reports coming out where some of the villagers are saying that more than one person was involved in this rampage.

‘Several drunk troops behind bloodbath, laughed on shooting-spree, burned corpses’

Gruesome new details are surfacing after 16 Afghan villagers including nine children were shot in their houses by at least one US serviceman. Witnesses to the atrocity now say that several drunken American soldiers were involved.

Neighbors at the village where the killings took place said they were awoken past midnight by crackling gunfire:

"They were all drunk and shooting all over the place," Reuters cites Agha Lala, a villager in Kandahar's Panjwayi district.

Lala's neighbor Haji Samad lost all of his 11 relatives in the rampage, including children and grandchildren. He claims Marines “poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them.”

Twenty-year-old Jan Agha says the gunfire “shook him out of bed.” He was in the epicenter of the horrible shooting, witnessing his father shot as the latter peered out of a window to see what was going on.

"The Americans stayed in our house for a while. I was very scared," the young man told reporters.

Lying on a floor, Agha says, he pretended to be dead.

He added that his brother was shot in his head and chest. His sister was killed as well. “My mother was shot in her eye and her face. She was unrecognizable,” he said.

link

[Guest American Woman]

there are reports coming out where some of the villagers are saying that more than one person was involved in this rampage.

American military officials say that the suspect - who was wearing night vision goggles - acted alone before surrendering.

survivors of the attack believed that more than one soldier was involved but Afghan officials, who intially considered this theory, now say it is likely only one attacker was responsible.

Nato officials have consistently maintained that there was only one killer.

link

[bud]

American military officials say that the suspect - who was wearing night vision goggles - acted alone before surrendering.

survivors of the attack believed that more than one soldier was involved but Afghan officials, who intially considered this theory, now say it is likely only one attacker was responsible.

Nato officials have consistently maintained that there was only one killer.

link

there are two versions. i guess we won't know until there is a full inquiry into the incident. hopefully the inquiry is done correctly.

Edited March 13, 2012 by bud

[dre]

Im not sure if you can just write this off as the actions of one person. There seems to have been a lot of incidents like this. And I think that civilian leadership DOES play a role in these things.

Obviously they didnt order this guy to kill Iraqi civilians but what they DID do is botch two major wars, by not allocating enough resources to get the job done quickly. This puts people in the armed forces under a whole lot of pressure, and we are seeing increased cases of mental health issues, suicide, etc. Some of these people snap. How many tours of duty had this guy been on? What had he been put though?

[Guest American Woman]

there are two versions.

I don't know about that; sounds as if there are several conflicting eye witness reports, which isn't unusual.

i guess we won't know until there is a full inquiry into the incident. hopefully the inquiry is done correctly.

This is true, but since Afghan officials - who initially considered the theory that there were several soldiers involved - now say it's likely that there was only one, I think the evidence must be rather strongly pointing in that direction.

[bud]

i'm sure the americans are hoping that it is only the one guy who was involved.

regardless, the afghanis are experiencing a large number of deaths of innocent afghanis by the occupier. according to United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), there have been 12793 civilian casualties since 2007. of the 12793 killed, 3120 of them were killed by pro-government forces (NATO and U.S.). that's roughly around 25% civilians killed by the occupiers. lets also not forget the many more thousands who have been injured as a result and of course, lets not forget the disrespectful acts such as burning their holy books and pissing on dead afghans.

who here thinks that the afghans can look past these experiences? how many of the relatives of these women and children who were killed will be joining the militant groups in afghanistan in order to get revenge?

i am astonished by some people in this thread who have the attitude that the afghans should somehow be grateful for america being there instead of being angry at them and wanting them out.

[bush_cheney2004]

there have been 12793 civilian casualties since 2007. of the 12793 killed, 3120 of them were killed by pro-government forces (NATO and U.S.). that's roughly around 25% civilians killed by the occupiers.

You have answered your own question as to why....who killed the other 75%?

[Post To The Left]

The incidents you refer to didn't result in US forces being taken out of Vietnam and/or Iraq - so why would this soldier think such a murderous rampage would result in US forces being taken out of Afghanistan, thus "sav[ing] his brothers in arms?" I doubt his murder spree was that calculated.

I didn't say they the American massacres of civilians made the US remove their forces. I was showing that there is very little if any penalty for killing large numbers of innocent civilians so that the shooter (or shooters) knew they faced little punishment. Looking at past events and the lack of convictions why not try a massacre to get US forces out of Afghanistan if there are no consequences.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Post To The Left

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Looking at past events and the lack of convictions why not try a massacre to get US forces out of Afghanistan if there are no consequences.

Because it doesn't work, unless you want to count Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Guest American Woman]

i'm sure the americans are hoping that it is only the one guy who was involved.

As others are hoping that it wasn't only the one guy?

The way I see it, the dead are just as dead whether they were killed by a lone gunman or two or several. Either way, ultimately it's just as tragic.

I'm sure some are hoping that there was more than one, though, because then there are more 'evil Americans' to criticize. Makes it easier to criticize the whole if it's not just the one. I truly believe that some are, in a warped way, glad for this opportunity to criticize and point fingers at the U.S. They 'care' so much more about this tragedy than they do others going on in the world because this gives them the opportunity to criticize the U.S.

As I said previously, there have been countless instances of American troops doing good deeds, saving lives. But of course that doesn't represent "the U.S.;" only incidents like this one do.

regardless, the afghanis are experiencing a large number of deaths of innocent afghanis by the occupier. according to United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), there have been 12793 civilian casualties since 2007. of the 12793 killed, 3120 of them were killed by pro-government forces (NATO and U.S.). that's roughly around 25% civilians killed by the occupiers. lets also not forget the many more thousands who have been injured as a result and of course, lets not forget the disrespectful acts such as burning their holy books and pissing on dead afghans.

Oh, we could never forget that. You and others of your mindset would never let us.

That you bring up "burning Korans" while discussing a tragedy of this magnitude confirms in my mind that it's more about the criticism than it is this tragedy.

who here thinks that the afghans can look past these experiences? how many of the relatives of these women and children who were killed will be joining the militant groups in afghanistan in order to get revenge?

Interestingly enough, the Taliban is killing innocent people in Afghanistan in response.

As far as I have seen, the Taliban (as well as other factions within Afghanistan) doesn't have any great humanitarian feelings towards the very people who were killed. They have no problem killing innocent Afghan civilians themselves. Three quarters of civilians deaths, according to you, have been at their hands. So what makes them more lovable? If Afghans are going to take revenge against America over this, why not take revenge against the Taliban et al - and get their country back? The Taliban forces their 'ideals' on the Afghans; the Taliban kills and maims innocent Afghans. It would serve them well to direct their anger and revenge towards the Taliban.

i am astonished by some people in this thread who have the attitude that the afghans should somehow be grateful for america being there instead of being angry at them and wanting them out.

I don't think it matters what any of us think; the only thing that matters is what the Afghans think, and I would wager that their feelings are quite varied, in spite of your beliefs. I don't know why you would find some people's attitude's astonishing when you seem to feel as if you know exactly how they all feel yourself.

I'm sure there are many Afghans who would prefer liberation to the forced 'ideals' of the Taliban, and if you are astonished by that, then I would say that you have a pretty closed mind. It's apparent that you see the U.S. as the enemy, but life isn't a bowl of cherries under the Taliban - and unfortunately, any liberation comes with a price. No, that doesn't mean I think the Afghans should be thrilled to have us there, but I do recognize that some have benefited by it - that it's a complicated situation.

I sincerely hope that the Afghans eventually get a decent life, but I think they are going to have to get just as angry at the controlling forces within their country as you claim they are at the Americans in order for that to happen.

Edited March 14, 2012 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

As others are hoping that it wasn't only the one guy?

bud is hoping it was the entire Americal Division.

[bush_cheney2004]

bud is hoping it was the entire Americal Division.

...led by George Washington pulling the trigger!

[bud]

As others are hoping that it wasn't only the one guy?

there is no 'as others are hoping..' in the equation.

it would obviously be easier for the PR department if they could show the latest incident is the work of 1 crazy person as opposed to the work of a group of soldiers. that's the point i tried to make.

bad news travels faster than good news. in afghanistan, there is far more bad news which is a result of the occupation. a total of 5 afghan weddings have been bombed by u.s. planes. (the number of wedding bombings is according to the afghanis. some of the bombings were denied by the u.s., which were later found to have taken place)

Oh, we could never forget that. You and others of your mindset would never let us.

That you bring up "burning Korans" while discussing a tragedy of this magnitude confirms in my mind that it's more about the criticism than it is this tragedy.

as i mentioned, it's about the disrespect the occupier shows towards those who are being occupied. koran burning, pissing on the dead afghans, keeping afghan body parts as souvenir and of course the thousands of civilians who have been killed by americans and other NATO members is what the afghans see and remember. building a school for girls in kabul is not going to cancel all the negatives.

Interestingly enough, the Taliban is killing innocent people in Afghanistan in response.

As far as I have seen, the Taliban (as well as other factions within Afghanistan) doesn't have any great humanitarian feelings towards the very people who were killed. They have no problem killing innocent Afghan civilians themselves. Three quarters of civilians deaths, according to you, have been at their hands. So what makes them more lovable?

it doesn't make them lovable. i'm sure they're as much disliked (if not more by some) and i'm sure some blame taliban's actions on america's occupation. one thing you need to realize is that there is a big difference between the taliban and the americans. that is, the taliban is not a foreign occupier.

your mentality of either them or us is the problem. why do the afghans have to pick between the americans and the taliban? let the afghans figure this out on their own. the occupation has not worked. after 10 years, what is there besides control over kabul? the number of civilian casualties per year continuse to increase since the occupation started. this is called a failure. time for the occupiers to cut their losses and get out as soon as possible. it's also time for the those who defend the occupations to accept that occupation doesn't work.

so what do afghans think? here is what some of them think:

Popular fury over the killing spree, which brought demands that the United States withdraw earlier than scheduled, could be exploited by the Taliban to gain new recruits.

"We have benefited little from the foreign troops here but lost everything - our lives, dignity and our country to them," said Haji Najiq," a Kandahar shop owner.

"The explanation or apologies will not bring back the dead. It is better for them to leave us alone and let us live in peace."

what about when the u.s. leaves and the taliban regains more control?

"The Americans said they will leave in 2014. They should leave now so we can live in peace," said Mohammad Fahim, 19, a university student. "Even if the Taliban return to power our elders can work things out with them. The Americans are disrespectful."

the hatred for the occupier runs deep.

"The Americans are not here to assist us they are here to kill us," said Najibullah, 33, a house painter in Kabul.

"I hate the Americans and I hate anyone who loves them, so I hope there is no long-term partnership between our countries."

Edited March 14, 2012 by bud

[j44]

I didn't really know where put this but thought it was noteworthy

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/13/exclusive_taliban_gitmo_deal_is_swap_for_a_westerner

[bud]

but I think it would set a dangerous precedent to start letting such acts by individual soldiers affect our policies.

you can try to sweep these incidents under the rug and pretend they don't make a difference, but:

U.S. Officials Debate Speeding Afghan Pullout

Accelerating the withdrawal of United States forces has been under consideration for weeks by senior White House officials, but those discussions are now taking place in the context of two major setbacks to American efforts in Afghanistan — the killings on Sunday of Afghan civilians attributed to a United States Army staff sergeant and the violence touched off by burning of Korans last month by American troops.

link

[Guest Manny]

I didn't really know where put this but thought it was noteworthy

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/13/exclusive_taliban_gitmo_deal_is_swap_for_a_westerner

I don't understand how they can let these 5 guys go, who are considered among the most dangerous held in Gitmo, but they insist to keep the stupid Canadian kid.

[GostHacked]

I don't understand how they can let these 5 guys go, who are considered among the most dangerous held in Gitmo, but they insist to keep the stupid Canadian kid.

A good number of the people who have been released, have been captured a second time and sent back to Gitmo. The Canadian Kid is being held for political purposes in my view. Much worse than Arar have been released from Gitmo. And they might get released a second time.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't understand how they can let these 5 guys go, who are considered among the most dangerous held in Gitmo, but they insist to keep the stupid Canadian kid.

I don't think we are "insist[ing] on keep[ing] the stupid Canadian kid" - I don't think Canada is requesting that he be sent back. I think Canada is saying "let 'the stupid Canadian kid' stay in the custody of the U.S." - I don't think Canada wants to have to deal with "the stupid Canadian kid."

[Guest American Woman]

you can try to sweep these incidents under the rug and pretend they don't make a difference, but:

And you can try to pretend that's what I did, but - reality says otherwise.

[j44]

A good number of the people who have been released, have been captured a second time and sent back to Gitmo. The Canadian Kid is being held for political purposes in my view. Much worse than Arar have been released from Gitmo. And they might get released a second time.

I know there have been cases of this but do you have any figures?

It would be interesting to know if any of those released weren't involved Al Qaeda etc before their time in Gitmo but then joined up after being released.

I don't think we are "insist[ing] on keep[ing] the stupid Canadian kid" - I don't think Canada is requesting that he be sent back. I think Canada is saying "let 'the stupid Canadian kid' stay in the custody of the U.S." - I don't think Canada wants to have to deal with "the stupid Canadian kid."

I agree. I think he would have been transferred to Canada by now if that was our policy.

[j44]

During Panetta's visit to Afghanistan today he gave a speech in front of US and Afghan soldiers. Usually Americans can take their weapons inside the tent where officials speak but Afghans can't. Today, in what must be a sign that the US is concerned an American could take a shot at Panetta, Americans were told to leave their weapons outside the tent.

American soldiers are rarely asked to disarm while they are in a war zone.