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.

 

Afghan security contractor accused of killing US soldiers

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Afghan security contractor accused of killing US soldiers


www.msnbc.msn.com

Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:30 PM EDT

In a news release, the Department of Defense said the deaths occurred in Kandahar province by "small arms fire by an individual from a military security group."

The slayings bring to nine the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed by rogue Afghan security force members, whether uniformed or private security contractors, in the past two months.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
This is major BS in my opinion, wtf are natives doing working security for our soldiers?!

While in Iraq we had Ugandans conducting FOB security, not domestic native Iraqis, due to the HUGE threat of hostile infiltration. Common F'n sense...

I personally would fire, investigate and then prosecute those responsible, for criminal negligence, and make sure it does not happen else where or ever again.

This is a gross lack of operational security!

If the Joint Chiefs approved of or had knowledge of such practice, I would start there and fire every one in command, all the way to the bottom.

Sun Tzu, would consider me lenient...

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
We should fire the entire military top to bottom. This will never happen again.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well here is the rub, Internationally and domestically we are trying to sell the war in Afghanistan as something that the Afghanis want, to get rid of the Taliban to have American 'democracy' and shopping malls, and super highways etc. etc.

So to dress that pig up and put some lipstick on it, you have to pay lip service to the notion by paying Afghans to prop up the Karzai regime.

Problem is our failed open ended occupation strategy has killed so many civilians that the people on whole who actually live there do want to get rid of our troops the only way they ever seem to decide to leave and that's in body bags.

We don't belong in Afghanistan and aren't doing anything but creating an endless stream of enemies and bad blood in the process.

Not to mention bankrupting the nation morally and financially in the process, while generally making most moral people the world over fear our government and question our intelligence and integrity for supporting it and allowing these endless wars for control of resources to be carried out in our name.

It is what it is, and the best solution to not having our troops killed in foreign lands where they don't belong is to not have them in those foreign lands where they don't belong.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Outside contractors providing security at a US base? Shouldn't US forces provide for their own security? This says to me that there is to much loose money to be made with the new war machine created by the likes of Haliburton. I'm beginning to think this whole war was started as a money pit for the neocons and liberating and bringing democracy to the Afghans was the furthermost thing from their minds.






edit on 21-3-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


oj has got his due.

they will too!

lol, it rhymes!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Yes, it is called war profiteering, and exactly like disaster profiteering they (^insert^ *Halliburton lackey*) stage the "disaster", and then swoop in with the solution and or a quick fix.

The same model is used to initiate "small conflicts", and other covert wars. Much like Libya, making them public allows for the politicians to base public support. In doing such they can spend more money in a publicly allocated budget.

That in short is a quick heads up on the ins and outs.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Have you been over seas?

Have you witnessed first hand this BS oppression you so claim?
I've been active duty, and have been over in Iraq, and first things first such conduct would be an assbeating from me to who ever I saw do such. Rank wouldn't stop me, and also it would not be the first time I got in trouble for such.

So before pissing off an actual soldier, by lumping all apples in the same basket, I'll ask you respecfully to back off, and reconfirm your information, before the role is reversed.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well here is the rub, Internationally and domestically we are trying to sell the war in Afghanistan as something that the Afghanis want, to get rid of the Taliban to have American 'democracy' and shopping malls, and super highways etc. etc.

So to dress that pig up and put some lipstick on it, you have to pay lip service to the notion by paying Afghans to prop up the Karzai regime.

Problem is our failed open ended occupation strategy has killed so many civilians that the people on whole who actually live there do want to get rid of our troops the only way they ever seem to decide to leave and that's in body bags.

We don't belong in Afghanistan and aren't doing anything but creating an endless stream of enemies and bad blood in the process.

Not to mention bankrupting the nation morally and financially in the process, while generally making most moral people the world over fear our government and question our intelligence and integrity for supporting it and allowing these endless wars for control of resources to be carried out in our name.

It is what it is, and the best solution to not having our troops killed in foreign lands where they don't belong is to not have them in those foreign lands where they don't belong.



I'm not condoning the murder of anyone, but i agree with proto,
we shouldn't be there. And after all the civilian deaths and the blood money payed off, the afghans are now looking at the allied forces as a problem instead of a helper.
And this is history repeating itself.
This is ending up like Vietnam. We had Vietnamese fighting for allies then ,but after countless amounts of innocent children, women and men were killed by the fighting and our allied bombings, including that none discriminate napalm, the Vietnamese that once fought for the allies changed sides.
And we all know how history turned out.
I wonder who is going to be the Afghani, Ho chi minh?

Im just waiting for the mass global protests next



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
For "Military Security Group" read Taliban, al qaeda etc etc

You sub-contract ANY military operation and you're asking for trouble...

So, here's how it works (a good old fashioned protection racket)

The US government/Pentagon pays private security companies to do some work for them, they in turn pay "Local" security companies for safe passage through certain area's, if payment is not forthcoming there is an "accident" or a "mistake".

So the US government/pentagon is in effect, paying the Taliban, to protect them from the erm, Taliban, who are also known as "local warlords", "persons of influence" etc etc by bribing them not to open fire...

This has been going on since the invasion - I've posted a couple of threads on it a while back as well, I think...



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join