It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US soldier shoots afghan after traffic accident. Riots Erupt in Kabul

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

It was not immediately clear who fired first but the violence soon degenerated into a gun-fight between protesters and police.


From Reuters.

Not too many pics floating around, but it's being reported that protesters are exchangign fire with police. Can't exactly exchange gunfire using only rocks.

DE




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Oh, I see.

You posted a different source. From the Washington Post, it said that police and troops were shooting at people, depending on who you asked. Your post seems to reference an incident that happened later.

Of course, the guys who went and got guns overreacted. At the same time, however, I know plenty of people who would take the law into their own hands if they felt their friends or family had been wrongfully killed by someone.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Im not excusing the rioting by ANY means. But at this point these people are going to explode on anything that happens. It not because of this vague generalization:




original quote by:steve99
So, What were the soldiers supposed to do to protect themselves. These people only know violence.


these people know only violence? as if violent nature is only pertinent to peoples of arab /muslim descent? If thats your arguement, sir you dont have one.
fact is America has the highest murder rate among civilized nations and every year leads the way in gun-related murders year in and year out: gun death facts
international comparison

Please dont sit there and try to say that all these people know is violence..because when it comes to violence, sir, there is no greater perpetrator of violence then this: the United States of America. I hope these numbers help you to see the profound difference between opinion and fact and how they are so easily skewed by perspective.





original quote by:dgtempe
They are working on a statue of Bush, to bring to the parade along with the flowers. Any day now.

original quote by:steve99
Nothing to do with politics....huh.


please in the future steve99, if your going try to turn my words around on me.. since I was the first to point out to you to leave out politricks in the first place...make sure I'm the one saying it


That all being said: it DOES look as though the US soldiers were NOT the ones doing the the killing of the crowd...at least lets hope so... But its still going to be a P.R. nightmare!



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
CM, I've read same. The afghan's rage seems to be squarely pointed at their own government for now, but any foreigners sticking their heads out of the trench are bound to have someone try to knock it off.


Thanks for that information, DeusEx. From what I've seen so far I would disagree with you that this rage is being directed only at their own Government. The Washington Post article provided by the author of this thread is saying that this riot started when some Vehicles from a convoy crashed, killing some people.


Security forces opened fire on protestors on Monday after a fatal crash involving a U.S. army truck triggered the worst riots in the Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban.

Officials said five people died when the truck, part of a U.S. convoy, crashed into a dozen vehicles.



Originally posted by DeusEx
And what are Coalition soldiers supposed to do about it?
Shoot back, of course, but then the media makes them out to be monsters.

DE


Well, I really can't comment too much, because I don't know all the details, but couldn't the troops have shot in the air, or near the protestors? From what I can tell, nobody was shooting at them at that stage, they were only throwing rocks. I guess that's easy for me to say, sitting on a computer drinking Beer, reading about this on the internet...

What are the rules of engagement regarding angry motorists throwing rocks? Can you blast them?

Regarding your post about the Police and protestor gun battles, I just saw a video of a crowd of protestors (without weapons) just get shot upon by the Police. Disgusting, they fired right into the crowd. The people looked absolutely beside themselves with rage, and they are growing in number rapidly. I've never seen so many angry people congregated by a roadside just to pelt Vehicles with rockery.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Thing is, the Coalition soldiers aren't cops. they aren't trained or equipped for situations like angry crowds. As I recall, the Fallujah incident started similarly. A crowd started pelting a contractor vehicle with rocks, then someone came out the crowd with an AK and hosed down the car. Game over. Mutilated corpsed. Their only course of action is to fire above the crowd - which I'm fairly sure they did - but what happens if that fails to stop the hail of rocks? Rocks are dangerous, yo. Not as dangerous as a rifle bullet, but they can hurt you.

On the Magic Force Wheel, soldiers are stuck with lethal resposne only. And that isn't justified in the situation, despite the threat of injury. So what are they supposed to do?

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Funny...


This implies its rage towards US.



Afghans often complain about what they call the aggressive driving tactics of the U.S. military. Convoys often pass through crowded areas at high speed and sometimes disregard road rules. The U.S. military says such tactics are necessary to protect the troops from attack.

``Today's demonstration is because Americans killed innocent people. We will not stop until foreigners leave the city. We are looking for foreigners to kill,'' one protester in his late 20s, Gulam Ghaus, said near where rioters burned a police post.



Repost from page 1 of this thread.

Who do we believe? Whomever we chose to, i guess.

(For link refer to page 1 of this thread)



[edit on 29-5-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
DG, numerous reports -mainly from Reuters crewpersons ONSITE- claim that that the Afghan police are the ones who engaged the protesters. Their ire might include the Americans, but who have taken the brunt of their rage?

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Thing is, the Coalition soldiers aren't cops. they aren't trained or equipped for situations like angry crowds. As I recall, the Fallujah incident started similarly. A crowd started pelting a contractor vehicle with rocks, then someone came out the crowd with an AK and hosed down the car. Game over.


Soldiers are sent off to conquer and occupy foriegn lands without being trained how to deal with angry crowds? I don't think so, 'yo'.

Today’s incident, it seems, was nothing to do with People throwing rocks at a contractor vehicle in Iraq, then being shot by Coalition forces in self defence. Here, a vehicle in the convoy smashed into a load of civilian vehicles, killing people, and then there apparently was a shooting of a civilian by a U.S Soldier, then everyone gathered and started throwing rocks. You do not seem to be acknowledging parts of this story, or you are just outright ignoring them altogether, could I ask why? You seem to be saying the Coalition troops have a right to defend themselves if attacked when they are off Conquering other Nations, yet the Natives of those lands have no such rights, in their own country. Personally I think that sounds like something off one of those Idiotic Neoconservative talk radio stations, but never mind.





[edit on 29-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
CM, I acknowledge a traffic accident. But you don't heave rocks at folks because of a traffic accident. However, i have yet to see anything aside from wild accusations that Coalition forces fired on the protesters. And as for you allegation...well, there's a fine line between policemen and soldiers. There's also a reason for that distinction. In this case, police would be ill-equiped to handle the daily threats, and soldiers are often not trained sufficiently, particularly in crowd control. What are they supposed to do?

I do, however, see plenty of confirmation from sources like Reuters that Afghan police commited an atrocity. You, however, seem more than willing to blame it on America. The Coalition in AFGHANISTAN (this is by no means an endrosement of the Iraq War, which is ten kinds of CF) has spent the last half decade trying to keep teh peace between about seven ethnic, political and religious factions. they have built schools, hospitals, etc. and demined as much of the country as possible.

These are not the actions of 'invaders' and 'occupiers'. Occupiers do things like destroy ancient, priceless relics like the taliban did. They steal resources. However, the Coalition has poured money into Afghanistan, and haven't taken anything out but coffins. Not that there was much to take to begin with, but moot point. You want to believe that the Coalition is the bad guy, go right ahead. Ignore your own set of facts. I acknowledge that there was a traffic accident. However, reuters reporters on site would have screamed bloody murder if an American had shot a civillian.

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
DeusEx
I think the point CM is trying to make is:

What if a bunch of, let's say Chinese (no reason, just picking someone with a lot of power) military occupied your town....for no reason, but to 'bring you democracy'. Day in and day out, they drive erratically through your nieghborhoods (perhaps almost hitting children at times). Then one day, they smash into a load of vehicles, KILLING NUMEROUS PEOPLE, WHO HAPPEN TO BE YOUR FAMILY and/or FRINEDS...would you not be angry and try to take action, even if all you had were rocks?


Sad to think about, but allegedly, that's what happened...
I'm not giving in to either side here...just stating what I read and how I related to it.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

source
I've been in Kabul for nine months and there has never been anything like this before. There is a real feeling in the air that today Kabul changed. There has been a lot of fighting in the south but this has mainly been between the militias and the American forces.

Today it was angry teenagers - kids who have got nothing else to do. They are angry because they see all of the money being pumped into Afghanistan but still have no jobs.

They are angry at the Americans who they see driving around as if they own the place and who appear to have caused this accident and then tried to drive away.

I've spoken to friends who work in Iraq and they say that there was one day when it all changed. That could be the case here. They have realised that they can take on the police and take on the Americans - they could easily do it again.


We must not forget that today's riot was the worst in Kabul since US-led forces ousted the Taleban in late 2001. When the cartoons of Muhammad were published we saw maybe 300 people on the streets protesting. Today they were there in their thousands. Now it's night in Kabul and the police forces keep the city calm. What will come out of this in the days to come?

Vaak



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
CM, I acknowledge a traffic accident. But you don't heave rocks at folks because of a traffic accident. However, i have yet to see anything aside from wild accusations that Coalition forces fired on the protesters.


I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but I heard the exact same thoughts echoed on the News earlier (SKY News 24).


www.csmonitor.com...

US soldiers fired warning shots over the top of the crowd that had gathered around the accident. However, it remains unclear whether the five people who were killed at the scene were shot by the US military or by Afghan police who arrived to control the crowds


If you are not happy with that one, try this one:


BBC NEWS

There are conflicting reports over whether the US troops in the military convoy fired into the crowd.


Look at the title of this thread, if you are saying it's a wild accusation why have you not disputed it until prompted? Now, I will admit I made an error in my last post, I had said people only gathered after there was a shooting, and that was wrong, but you didn't say anything about that. Nevertheless, I apologise for that mistake.


Originally posted by DeusEx
I do, however, see plenty of confirmation from sources like Reuters that Afghan police commited an atrocity. You, however, seem more than willing to blame it on America. The Coalition in AFGHANISTAN (this is by no means an endrosement of the Iraq War, which is ten kinds of CF) has spent the last half decade trying to keep teh peace between about seven ethnic, political and religious factions. they have built schools, hospitals, etc. and demined as much of the country as possible.


If you go back and read my input several posts back, you will see I have acknowledged an atrocity by the Police, when I saw footage of them firing directly into a crowd of protestors who were carrying what appeared to be nothing more than makeshift banners. Pretty much everyone started running away, I didn't see anyone shooting back. I couldn't see if the police had hit anyone, but I don't see how they couldn't have, seeing as one of two or them were firing machine guns straight into the crowds. Furthermore, your bold statement that the Coalition in Afghanistan have only been doing good, and keeping the peace, is an absolute sanitisation of reality. Have you forgotten the Air strike that killed innocent families last week already? The coalition admitted to that, are you saying Afghans would be more incensed by a mere Road accident, than they would be by an airstrike which killed about 20 innocent people, including children? Blatantly something other than just a crash happened here today.


Originally posted by DeusEx
These are not the actions of 'invaders' and 'occupiers'. Occupiers do things like destroy ancient, priceless relics like the taliban did. They steal resources.


Occupiers also occupy. Are you now trying to deny that there was even an invasion, and that there is no occupation? Don't even try it.


Originally posted by DeusEx
However, the Coalition has poured money into Afghanistan, and haven't taken anything out but coffins. Not that there was much to take to begin with, but moot point.


POPPY HARVEST.
Don't even try and deny it.


Originally posted by DeusEx
You want to believe that the Coalition is the bad guy, go right ahead. Ignore your own set of facts.


Once upon a time I did think the Coalition were the good Guys, but they proved me wrong. They prove me wrong time and time again. How am I ignoring my own set of facts?




EDIT: Spelling



[edit on 29-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Look at the title of this thread, if you are saying it's a wild accusation why have you not disputed it until prompted?


Well, judging by all the 'maybes' and 'conflicting reports', I can hardly call it solid fact that coalition soldiers fired into the crowd. I'd call this thread inflamatory, but what would that do?


Furthermore, your bold statement that the Coalition in Afghanistan have only been doing good, and keeping the peace, is an absolute sanitisation of reality. Have you forgotten the Air strike that killed innocent families last week already? The coalition admitted to that, are you saying Afghans would be more incensed by a mere Road accident, than they would be by an airstrike which killed about 20 innocent people, including children? Blatantly something other than just a crash happened here today.


It seems like an absolute sanitization of reality because just about all the conventional media reports on are collateral damage. The reports don't say 'Pathan village gets new infirmary' or 'Medics treat injured Afghans'. They do what they're doign with this incident- screaming bloody murder at something when they hardly have all the facts. This riot might have been caused by nothing more than idle, angry teenagers seeing a traffic accident. Might have been wrong place, wrong time. But, instead, I believe you are choosing to look for fault in Coalition personnel as hard as you can.


Occupiers also occupy. Are you now trying to deny that there was even an invasion, and that there is no occupation? Don't even try it.


Occupation? This is a peacekeeping mission. A reconstruction mission. Unless you're calling the Afghan army and police forces also occupiers. There was a regime change, yes. Would you rather have the Taliban in power? Is that your argument?


POPPY HARVEST.
Don't even try and deny it.


Are you implying they're trying to prevent, or gain from the poppy harvest? Can't prevent it, too many people rely on it. How can they gain from it? Any profit from sales would just go into addiction treatment and increased policing.


Once upon a time I did think the Coalition were the good Guys, but they proved me wrong. They prove me wrong time and time again. How am I ignoring my own set of facts?


FACT: No confirmed reports of Coalition forces firing on the crowd, yet you assume they did despite my contradictory, on-the-ground report from a VALID source.

FACT: There is not so much as speculation as to an ulterior cause for the riot, and Vaak's sources claim that it was started by 'angry, idle teenagers'. Yet, you search for evidence of Coalition wrongdoing.

FACT: Soldiers are not policemen, yet you insist they should act like them.

FACT: Protesters are clearly armed, yet you are treating them like they aren't a threat.

Perhaps not your own fact, but facts presented. I apologize for that, but it really bugs me when people make out soldiers to be absolute monsters 'just because'.

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Dont we think it's about time to pull out of the middle east.. this war will never end untill all the ppl in the middle east are gone and Bush cant plant his flag in the land and call it america... Let the ppl in he middle east deal with there own problems. Untill we went over there wasnt much of a problem over there.. but of course this is a big money maker for your country so who cares who gets killed as long as the american wallet is lined with gold, money and oil.. U should all hang your heads in shame.. After awhile they will come over and creat a war on your land again and then what Remember u drove them to do this



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Well, judging by all the 'maybes' and 'conflicting reports', I can hardly call it solid fact that coalition soldiers fired into the crowd.


Where have I once said it was solid fact that Coalition Soldiers fired into the Crowd? You will notice I have used words and phrases like 'apparently' and 'it seems' with the advanced foreknowledge that someone like you, or shots, would twist my words completely out of context, or put words into my mouth that I haven't even said. I also used them because I am not 100% certain what happened. That's beside the point here though; you said you hadn't seen anything but wild accusations that the U.S forces shot these people, so I provided you with links showing otherwise. You pretty much asked for them, so you got them, and that's the end of it.


Originally posted by DeusEx
It seems like an absolute sanitization of reality because just about all the conventional media reports on are collateral damage. The reports don't say 'Pathan village gets new infirmary' or 'Medics treat injured Afghans'. They do what they're doign with this incident- screaming bloody murder at something when they hardly have all the facts.


The bad far outweighs the good, and I certainly use other sources than just the MSM when forming my overall opinion about the motives of the people who formed this coalition, and sent them out there.


Originally posted by DeusEx
This riot might have been caused by nothing more than idle, angry teenagers seeing a traffic accident. Might have been wrong place, wrong time. But, instead, I believe you are choosing to look for fault in Coalition personnel as hard as you can.


Well it might have been caused by nothing more than 'idle, angry, teenagers', I'm not certain. I'm 'choosing to look for fault in Coalition'? How do you know it wasn't the Coalition, does your own logic not apply to yourself?


Occupation? This is a peacekeeping mission. A reconstruction mission. Unless you're calling the Afghan army and police forces also occupiers.


Oh please, Karzai is a Puppet and everyone knows it.



There was a regime change, yes. Would you rather have the Taliban in power? Is that your argument?


Whether the Taliban were good or bad, if they were still in power it would have certainly made a massive reduction in the flow of Heroin Worldwide.


How can they gain from it? Any profit from sales would just go into addiction treatment and increased policing.


I think you grossly underestimate the profit in their little Heroin business. Not to mention the massive contradiction it is to the war on drugs. There is a certain level of audacity in arresting and prosecuting addicts for using drugs that you supply, and in prosecuting anyone for selling substances, when you yourself are the biggest dealers who ever walked the face of the planet. Does one not agree?


FACT: No confirmed reports of Coalition forces firing on the crowd, yet you assume they did despite my contradictory, on-the-ground report from a VALID source.
FACT: There is not so much as speculation as to an ulterior cause for the riot, and Vaak's sources claim that it was started by 'angry, idle teenagers'. Yet, you search for evidence of Coalition wrongdoing.
FACT: Soldiers are not policemen, yet you insist they should act like them.
FACT: Protesters are clearly armed, yet you are treating them like they aren't a threat.


What 'contradictory, on-the-ground report from a VALID source' have you provided again, I can't remember? Besides, when I said 'they have proved me wrong time and time again' I wasn't necessarily referring to today's incident, but something tells me I might be when more facts and further insight about it become known. The rest of your little 'facts' there are all just either inaccurate, or a twist of something I have said.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
With regard to the traffic accident: I don't know exactly how it went down, but after seeing the first news reports today on CNN, I pretty much got the impression that we're DEFINITELY not being told the whole story here. A CNN report claimed that the accident was caused when the brakes malfunctioned on a humvee, and then Coalition troops killed 50 taliban. That's what it said. It kinda gave the impression that the Taliban had set up an ambush at the very place where the humvees brakes failed.

Ridiculous, I know. But that's what it said.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
today.reuters.com...

Onsite Reuters reporters not only didn't find Coalition forces engaging unarmed targets, their reported the actions of the Afghan Police.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Said idle teenagers almost skinned this reporter alive.

Judging from my vantage point, claimign the US is the 'biggest dealer' is pretty ridiculous at the best of time. Drugs harder than pot are prettymuch guaranteed to cause 'collateral' crimes. Crackheads steal to support their habits, etc. So, this causes more spending for police forces, rehab programs and most important healthcare. Overdoses, HIV, other infections cost the taxpayer money. More importantly, they divert funds from more important things...like providing universal healthcare for citizens.

Someday, people will realize that the Coalition isn't a series of evil empires.

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatwoods
A CNN report claimed that the accident was caused when the brakes malfunctioned on a humvee, and then Coalition troops killed 50 taliban.


Two seperate incidences: Fighting in the south claimed the lives of 50 taliban fighters, and then there was the riot. At least that's my impression.

DE



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Ok, sorry about that. Reading the CNN report again, it now clarifies it as two separate incidents: the traffic accident and an airstrike that was carried out against a suspected Taliban compound in southern Afghanistan.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatwoods
A CNN report claimed that the accident was caused when the brakes malfunctioned on a humvee, and then Coalition troops killed 50 taliban.


Did CNN definatly say HUMVEE?


BBC NEWS

Coalition spokesman Col Thomas Collins said a large cargo truck in the US convoy had suffered a mechanical failure, hitting the cars at a busy intersection.


A HUMVEE isn't a large Cargo Vehicle, is it? I thought it was a JEEP type thing that carried some troops about? Probably nothing to that anyway, they may have just got mixed up or something. I think you might be on to something with the mention of the killing of 50 Taliban Fighters, though...




BBC NEWS

Air strikes

Separately, Afghan officials say fighter planes of the US-led coalition have attacked suspected Taleban fighters in the south of the country.

The deputy governor of Helmand province, Amir Mohammed Akhundzada, said he believed about 50 militants were killed in the attack.


"The Taleban were meeting in a mosque when the bombardment took place," Mr Akhundzada told Reuters news agency.

He said police had yet to reach the site to confirm any figures.



This may be nothing, but it just strikes me as a bit strange that an RTA would cause the worst riots in the country in years. Bombing the Mosque might explain it, I wonder if there were innocent people killed again? Police had yet to reach the scene to confirm any reports? I wonder what will be said when they do reach the scene, haven't heard a word yet, and they are keeping pretty quiet about it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join