At least seven foreigners killed in attack on U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan

sorry but you are all idiots, err, i mean miss informed.

karzai blew this up all out of proportion.

lol, we in the USA weren't aware of it but hamid the K blasted it all over.

please, they murdered many people.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=Anxg.70YovOqC3_b73a3CgYBxg8F;_ylu=X3o'___'JwM3VrNmprBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDAzL 2FzX2FmZ2hhbl91bl9hdHRhY2sEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDdW5lbnZveXVud29y

and not in a good way.


stop being stupid.

reply to post by fooks


Would Karzai have anything to condemn had Jones not burned the Koran with the media in attendance? If the answer is no, then we must assume that Terry Jones used the media as a weapon of terror, and thus set in motion a chain of events that resulted in 7 UN Staffers' deaths.

If he had burned the Koran without the media, it would be freedom of speech, but when he used the media in order to incite violence in the middle east through his actions, he became a terrorist.

PEOPLE LIKE THIS PASTOR AND HIS ACTIONS ARE STUPID, looking forward and ahead is not.For every motion theres an emotion,soon will be seen tha result of this evil man,More innocents killed more americans killed,over a book,over stupidity.

someone suggested that Jones would give the treatment to the the prophet next, which i dont think is a stretch at all...maybe TPTB are using this guy to ignite a holy war to end all holy wars...if WW1 taught us anything, it is that one little thing can make some serious sht hit the fan (especially if that is the bankers plan)...

Originally posted by whatukno

Tolerating something doesn't mean you have to condone it, it doesn't mean you have to believe it. It just means tolerate it.

Unfortunately islam does not tolerate us. How much tolerance do we as a nation extend before we recognize that islam is the enemy of western culture?

reply to post by whatukno

If he had burned the Koran without the media, it would be freedom of speech, but when he used the media in order to incite violence in the middle east through his actions, he became a terrorist.

No, it is still freedom of speech. The only terrorists are those radical Islamists than murdered for a burned book. He has a goddamn right to burn whatever book he wants.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes he does, he also has the right to go get a pilots licence and fly an aircraft.

But when he uses that aircraft to crash into a building, that would be terrorism wouldn't it?

He used the burning of the Koran in the same exact way. He used it in order to get people killed.

How it went down

The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound


The failures point by point

Only about 60 police were deployed, and they appeared uncertain how to respond. Initial attempts to disperse the crowd by firing warning shots appeared only to inflame the demonstrators.

Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can't be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot. It is up to the civil police to control the crowd. If they don't hold the crowd back it is the civil authorities fault when a mob gets shot down.

They phoned for help from the nearby military bases of German and Swedish forces, according to a person briefed on the situation.

Useless. Nearby is not near enough. The UN base or compound should be embedded within ISAF bases so an attack on the UN looks like an attack on ISAF, which it is.

The U.S.-led military said the situation "escalated rapidly" and that a swift-reaction team didn't arrive until after rioters were gone.

Useless. If the UN were depending on "swift" being swift enough to save them, they were wrong and misled. The UN should have leadership which tells them - you are not safe being "nearby" you need to be surrounded by a competent military defence.

Once demonstrators flooded the compound,

Useless compound defence architecture. It should be impossible for a crowd to breach a secure compound and if they try there should be fire power to kill those attempting to breach the compound or base.

a dozen Afghan police guards—the first line of defense—dropped their weapons

Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.

Inside the compound, a small contingent of Nepalese Gurkha guards working for the U.N. faced a conundrum: They were under U.N. orders not to open fire on demonstrators. The videos show one guard feebly trying to wave an elderly demonstrator out of the compound.

Gurkhas are not useless man for man. But 4 to 6 Gurkhas is not enough to hold off such crowd who by this time are armed with guns taken from the police.

When a mob breaches a secure compound they are clearly an attacking mob not "demonstrators". The senior members of the UN should have made that clear. If the Gurkhas had been better led they would have been able to put up more of a fight, but expecting so few of them to make up for failings everywhere else is unrealistic.

Inside the building, other attackers targeted one of the safe rooms. The door proved little protection against the mob.

Useless. Defence architecture needs to be more secure areas with secure areas. Those inside a safe room or bunker within a compound or base need to be able to kill those trying to enter the safe room.

The attackers searched the darkened bunker with a lamp and discovered Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—the former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.

Useless. Any defence attache worth their salt would know they were sitting in a death trap and would have refused to be responsible for such a poorly defended UN compound and would have ordered everyone out and relocated to the ISAF base.

Norway is a sick monarchy with a King of Norway who thinks it is funny or cute to appoint a penguin in Edinburgh zoo as one of his senior officers. I am not kidding.

The Norwegian military is not right in the head to have allowed UN staff into that suicidal UN compound.

Norway is responsible for the Nobel Peace prize and that is what happens to those who trust the Norwegian King, his peace prize or his military attaches. The Norwegian King gets you killed. Remember that.

Yes you can break this down into individual failures but the failure is one of leadership at the very top of the UN organisation.

If anyone is to be held responsible over this, it should be Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General.


This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.



You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking

It is missing the point entirely to consider what the mind-set of the attacking mob might have been. Who cares what their motives for attacking are? It matters not when you are defending. What matters is to be armed and prepared to stop and repel their attack.

This importance of this story is the shocking fact that UN bases in Afghanistan are practically undefended and a mob could easily storm a base and kill those inside.

UN security is a joke.

The UN needs to sack the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon for his gross incompetence in failing to defend UN personnel.


Ban Ki-Moon: totally useless.

The UN has a lot of great principles to uphold - universal human rights etc, but these need to be upheld at the point of gun, with proper military organisation, which the UN should be able to do, in principle, but with the wrong leadership, like Ban Ki-Moon's wrong leadership, fails to do.

The world's dictators don't want UN principles imposed upon their countries - they'd rather lock up or kill their political opponents - so these dictatorial governments would rather the UN was ineffectual, defenceless and impotent, like Ban Ki-Moon is.

That is why so many of the rotten governments of the world get to together at the UN to appoint such useless "hearts and flowers" types like Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan.

We need Condi as UN Secretary General, and I'll be her head of security, if she'll have me.



Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General

Ban Ki-Moon is useless, he is failing to properly organise the military defence of UN workers in Afghanistan and elsewhere and UN workers are being killed like the 7 killed in Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday, 1st April 2011.

I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

• The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon.
  
• The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General.
  
• Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, "Myanmar"), would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the "Arab Spring" revolutions and so on.
  
• The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.

In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way "a good thing".

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.

The ANP made a token show, then handed their weapons over to the crowd.

And had there been troops with heavy machine guns, the press would be screaming about that, too.