US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar

Originally posted by Petest205

I disagree when people say that the soldier should be handed over to the Afghan authorities, for the following reasons;

1. He'd be dead in a couple of days

As with many posts your concern seems to be with the guy who killed the civilians. However, I'm sure the Afghans would give him a fair and proper trial relevant to their judicial system. After all, he murdered Afghans in Afghanistan. Further, although it's clearly just words to appease the Afghans - US soldier could face death for killing spree

2. We need to learn what triggered this event, so that new measures can be put into place to help soldiers who are close to boiling point on Op tours.

Surely the Afghans need to "learn what triggered this event" too. Don't forget that they are the victims.

3. After handing him over, what would that mean for the guys blamed for collateral damage? Would they have to be handed over too?…

Nothing would change in that respect. Collateral damage is generally considered accidental. As we have seen in the past getting the Americans to take responsibility for their wrong doings and attend trials in the country of their victims doesn't happen.

In the 1991 Gulf War, nine British soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were killed when a USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs. Public controversy arose after US military authorities refused to allow USAF pilots to give evidence at a 1992 British inquest into the deaths, saying that they had already supplied all the relevant information. The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. The families of those killed accused the United States of 'double standards' after three US military officers were reprimanded for negligence after a separate incident involving the similar death of a US soldier. Tammy Groves, solicitor for the families, said: 'We have been denied any inquiry in the US; there have been no reprimands; and the pilots have not been named. The contrast could not be greater.' Anne Leech, whose son was one of the British soldiers killed, said: 'They are supposed to be a friendly country, but it shows it only goes as far as they want it to ... Unless people are made accountable for what they do in these situations it will continue to happen.

reply to post by julmarie


Please do not tell me you believe what you hear on tv, you will see as time goes on the real truth will peek it's ugly head out, I am sure there will be enough problems with one unhinged overworked too many tours sniper, sure no one want's to overload the situation with the truth.check out( Information clearing house)

No reaction to the Afghan night raid info.

No reaction to the reports of multiple drunk soldiers.

No reaction to the impossibility of a soldier leaving the base without being noticed.

Lots of attention to the "I had an headache when I was in Iraq" excuse.

It seems to be quite clear that ATS is not interested in the truth when US nationalism and the MSM can mask it.

Originally posted by dayve
does this make us the terrorist now? paybacks a b*tch aint it

One guys actions make an entire country a terrorist?
Get over yourself man.
He'll be given a fair trial to get to the bottom of what happened, which is more than if he was in the hand's of the fundi's...

makes absolutley no sense, we send the military in their to kill...but only under certain circumstances....death penalty...fkn neo-natzi's organized political misrepresentation....what'​s good for the goose, is not good for the gander...all for one and one for one...traditional fascist #ers....I am soo outrages at the USA's BS lately, that I am embarrassed to be a US citizen...actually I can not think of one place on this earth I would feel comfy calling home.....when you take a look outside the box, sometimes you just want to crawl back inside, to a safe corner !!

This thread was a very interesting read and that was not at last because of the input from some of you guys, who have been there.

On a side note I may mention, that I never get used to those posters, who jump into every discussion to complain about the bad image of the USA and telling us, that the Muslims are the bad guys, even when they are clearly the victims and little children. But I see, that these are always the same few posters, who fill up the threads.

After reading this all, the situation seems to be more crazy than I thought before. The most powerful army in this world invades with a little help of their friends a country, which is none, but just a collection of villages, which would fall back to the 7th century or so when the invaders would leave them alone. These underdeveloped people even don’t want to be developed – at least not the man, who get all their power from being underdeveloped – but still the united western countries have to fight there, because underdeveloped men are the most dangerous terrorist threat and the west must stop them to beat their women!

The western citizens vote for evil politicians who are corrupt and make their decisions in the interest of even worse corporations and so the politicians send the young men to Village Nation to fight against the barbarians. The soldiers don’t like the politicians and the corporations, they also don’t like the village people, but they like their buddies and this is why they fight over there. They also don’t like their countrymen – who are sitting at home voting for evil politicians – and they even don’t really like their nation.

So they are over there killing civilians, because terrorists hide behind them and are angry with the world, even with their own officers, who know nothing about warfare and are cowards. The war could be over soon, if they only could kill every man. But then they would go home, where they have to get back from klling to loving.

This all is crazy. And even if my resumee is sarcastical, this is the picture I got here and indeed, I don’t wonder, when this produces psychos every now and then.

But what I don’t buy is the question of responsibilty. The decision to do this is in the hands of those, who do it.

reply to post by Procharmo

No reaction to the Afghan night raid info.

I was considered retarded for postulating that it was a night-raid gone horribly wrong, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The response: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No reaction to the reports of multiple drunk soldiers.

The individuals who carried out the reported actions could not have been drunk. It required far too much planning, communication, and coordination. The guy who was captured drunk was either in the wrong place at the wrong time (God only knows why), or wasn't really drunk (at least, not for the stated activities).

No reaction to the impossibility of a soldier leaving the base without being noticed.

I wouldn't say this is impossible. It is, however, unlikely that he would be able to leave the base with arms. I know the army is very lax on enforcing of DoD arms policies - but I'm curious to know if the man was apprehended with arms.

It is possible he was standing a post and simply wandered off - but that would likely be noticed and recorded in someone's log book (though it is also unlikely that reporters would have access to that information - and we are very limited in our sources of information, here).

It seems to be quite clear that ATS is not interested in the truth when US nationalism and the MSM can mask it.

People would rather vindicate their world perspective using events like this as opposed to finding out what really happened. Most people lack critical thinking skills and are devoid of problem solving capability.

reply to post by Aim64C

Thanks for your accurate and well thought out response. I may have been slightly frustrated and missed your post whilst I speed read 20 pages. As you can gather I have no military experience but wanted to understand the security at the base a little more.

Because the Reuters/AP eye witness confirmed reports of more than one soldier have been drowned out by the CNN/FOX/Sky reports of one lone soldier. I'd also like soldier's opinions on him walking the 3km to the furthest house and back, by himself at night.

Do you think he was alone, a malingerer of a group or the Fall Guy?

reply to post by Procharmo

Do you think he was alone, a malingerer of a group or the Fall Guy?

My opinion is that every post in this thread is made in ignorance of the full details of events (or as can be best discerned by investigating personnel); including my own.

Which is why I think many things.

My personal 'favorite' is one that many on these forums will outright reject (because the U.S. is the source of all evil), but stems from my experience both first and second hand (limited though it may be) with foreign law enforcement authorities.

Drunk soldiers are not difficult to come across. My suspicion is that the "operation" was Afghani in origin. Perhaps this village did not pay its protection money for the month, or were refusing to plant opium crops (a previous control mechanism utilized by the Taliban). That problem still persists to this day, and is a major obstacle to Missouri National Guard I have talked to who deploy in an effort to teach agricultural trades and methods for the purposes of food production in Afghanistan.

The drunk soldier was picked up hours before the operation. Perhaps he intended to desert, perhaps his buddies need to be beaten to the dirt for leaving him alone, or perhaps he was a # bag. In either case - he was apprehended by the authorities and the responsibility placed on him - either by error or diabolical intent.

Right about now, I would not want to be the armorer of that base (or anyone there, really). It's getting a fine-toothed comb run through it. Every weapon and its serial number are logged and status recorded. In all likelihood - even if the armorer is not "at fault" for anything that happened, the errors found will end up getting him sent before a court martial (if he doesn't - he is on-point and dodged one hell of a bullet). The COG (or its equivalent for that command) will also be answering some very pointed and tough questions.

I'd also like soldier's opinions on him walking the 3km to the furthest house and back, by himself at night.

For a soldier in good condition - perfectly doable. Three kilometers is a cake walk by comparison to what your average roaming sentry will complete by the end of his watch.

For a drunk soldier.... that's another story.

Although I admit that my understanding of the actions involved are incomplete. There were claims of bodies being burned - but I presume that was locally - they weren't moved 3 kilometers and then burned? If that were the case - then you are looking at a highly improbable scenario.

Either way - you are looking at a fairly high-functioning drunk. Perhaps this was an error in translation? "Under the Influence" being translated to "Drunk?" ... If he were on some kind of drug that creates a body-high, then it is quite likely a single person could have done this (and would explain the high-order, if irrational behavior).

If he were on some kind of botched night-raid... something did go horribly wrong... and I can't even imagine what. Normally - you would not even leave bodies behind (and not just out of "no man left behind" sentimentalism). People get shot and die every day in those regions (before we were there, and likely long after we will be gone). There tends to be little outrage over "phantom" events (and not just in those societies). You don't give people a uniform to blame things on. Ever. Sounds of helicopters and reports of gunmen are not uncommon, and hard to tag to any nationality. Plausible deniability, therefor, must be maintained... especially when things go bad.

Which makes me wonder if the eye-witnesses are indicating any kind of nationality when they are interviewed. From what I'm reading out of it - it sounds like the authorities are saying: "we found the one responsible" - and the witnesses don't seem to really know who was.

reply to post by Aim64C



Yes, actually they could have been intoxicated. You say it is impossible because it requires too much planning, communication, etc. When I arrived in Afghanistan the unit we were attached to currently had two soldiers in trouble(reduced rank) for drinking alcohol while deployed. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, soldiers drinking over there definately happens.

Cause Reaction Solution.
CRS.
The cause is evident in dead civilians.
The reaction will be hatred.
The solution is more war.

WHO will this benefit???
WHO would desire any escalation in war?
Who will PROFIT??

Are You AMERICANS going to carry on buying this garbage false crap???

Your enemy is within.
WAKE UP.

reply to post by SGTSECRET

Yes, actually they could have been intoxicated.

Okay.

You say it is impossible because it requires too much planning, communication, etc.

I say it is highly improbable.

When I arrived in Afghanistan the unit we were attached to currently had two soldiers in trouble(reduced rank) for drinking alcohol while deployed.

The reason we don't allow drinking in combat theaters is because it impairs judgment, coordination, and degrades overall mission capability and performance.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, soldiers drinking over there definately happens.

.... You stated that I made a claim of skepticism against the soldier(s) being drunk on the grounds of the coordination, planning, and communication it required. Then you proceed to claim I don't know what I'm talking about because people have been caught drinking in a combat theater.

... Would you like to try that one again?

How many drunks are sitting on Restriction for wandering a few dozen klicks off-base (in battle-rattle, one can only presume) and executing half a village full of people scattered over several square kilometers?

That's not drunk behavior. Further - the time necessary to complete those actions is more than enough for a considerable amount of "sobering" to occur. Was he still a-chuggin' as he set fire to dead people?

Consider the times your buddies have been drunk enough to do stupid #. As a fellow service member (or claiming to be one), I'm sure you've seen your fair share of drunk behavior. Recall getting them out of the bar and the mere four blocks back to the base?

That's why I'm skeptical a drunk completed a circuit of over three miles, shooting and burning people as he went.

Originally posted by alienones
Everyone will blast me for saying this, but it's better to get them now then when we strap a bomb on themselfs or when we get a hold of a weapon and start shooting some of our soldiers. Just my thinking.

I think your children, Jack age 12 is it? and Sandra age 9 are possible future murderers.

If you don't mind I would like to come over with some guns and shoot them, I'll probably shoot you and your wife too just for kicks because I'm drunk.

Will 2AM be fine with you?

reply to post by Aim64C


I never once said that a drunk carried out these actions, the only thing I came to let people know is that YES people do drink while deployed. Too many people are here claiming to know what they are talking about, saying it doesn't happen because its too hard to get, and it's not allowed. Whether a drunk, or group of drunks, could have carried this all out, we will probably never know. Seems like that's one of the things that would somehow stay out of the public eye. This the part where you seperate each of my sentences and type 'yes' or 'no.'...

I'm just waiting for the day Afghanis all learn a fair amount of lesson from this, unite from the broken state they've been in for centuries, and kick US presence out whence they came. But alas...they're far too high to do so..

reply to post by SGTSECRET

I never once said that a drunk carried out these actions, the only thing I came to let people know is that YES people do drink while deployed.

That's completely different from what your post implied.

Too many people are here claiming to know what they are talking about, saying it doesn't happen because its too hard to get, and it's not allowed.

I won't disagree, but where did you get that from my post?

This the part where you seperate each of my sentences and type 'yes' or 'no.'...

I'm just trying to figure out how in the hell you came to interpret what I said as: "He couldn't be drunk because he's not supposed to drink."

I've been in the military coming up on six years, now. I know, quite well, about the wheeling&dealing that goes on in the Enlisted-Underground. There's little that one cannot get with the right contacts and enough money (and that's not just limited to the military).

I am unsure if anybody has considered this or not, but did somebody burn his bible? Just saying... because if they burned his bible, it would be completely justified?

reply to post by Xcathdra


"Absolutely no mention of Afghan / Taliban murdering people"

Afghanis / local people live there. Would US citizens who killed Chinese occupiers be "murderers"..lol

People defending their home, or home land, lack malice and aforethought.. key elements for "murder" (PC 187 might look it up)

People are allowed to violently repel from their home, or home land, un-wanted trespassers / invaders... regardless of what colored cloth on a stick the invaders rally under.

GOP & DNC liars manufactured a case to violently invade their home / home land.. I'd say locals have moral high ground.. victimized for 10 years by the US military industrial complex.

reply to post by onthedownlow


Yes, son. Some idiots tried to tell us something like that before. But there are not a lot of people left outside the USA who would buy that nonsense anymore.

It's time to take responsibility for yourselves. But nowadays people over thirty still see themselves as kids, I fear. So why shouldn't you?

The troops need to come home. We know it, the afghans know it, i think most of the troops know it.

There is no justifiable reason to be there anymore. NONE! Not worth a soldier's life... let alone how many more will probably meet their maker in the coming months, especially now that things seem to be unraveling.

What a mess.