View Full Version : Who wants Afganistan to blow up?
US soldier's killing spree puts Afghanistan on a knife-edge
"Among the dead was a young girl in a green and red dress who had been shot in the forehead. The bodies of other victims appeared partially burned. A villager claimed they had been wrapped in blankets and set on fire by the killer.
It is not the first time that US soldiers have intentionally killed Afghan civilians but the toll is unprecedented for a single soldier. The soldier, who was reported to be a staff sergeant and father of three who has done three tours of duty in Iraq, was arrested after the assault. He appears to have made no attempt to cover up the shootings."
"A string of abuses has soured attitudes to foreign military. A group of US soldiers killed three Afghan civilians for sport in 2010 in a different part of Kandahar province. In January, a video surfaced showing US marines apparently urinating on the corpses of three insurgents, and in February anger flared over the burning of the Qur'an."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/us-soldier-killing-afghanistan-children
I no longer ask myself if the marines have gone crazy. I ask myself who wants this situation to explode,and why marines lend themselves to this.
Will this soldier be let off with a slap of the wrist as well, as a further means to instigate riots?
IAN 2411
03-12-2012, 01:21 PM
US soldier's killing spree puts Afghanistan on a knife-edge
"Among the dead was a young girl in a green and red dress who had been shot in the forehead. The bodies of other victims appeared partially burned. A villager claimed they had been wrapped in blankets and set on fire by the killer.
It is not the first time that US soldiers have intentionally killed Afghan civilians but the toll is unprecedented for a single soldier. The soldier, who was reported to be a staff sergeant and father of three who has done three tours of duty in Iraq, was arrested after the assault. He appears to have made no attempt to cover up the shootings."
Will this soldier be let off with a slap of the wrist as well,
In no way am I pre-empting what might or might not happen to this guy, but I do believe that the Afghan people will want justice, and justice seen to be done. I don’t think it is right to comment on something that no one knows why it took place or what state of mind this soldier was in at the time if the killing.
"A string of abuses has soured attitudes to foreign military. A group of US soldiers killed three Afghan civilians for sport in 2010 in a different part of Kandahar province. In January, a video surfaced showing US marines apparently urinating on the corpses of three insurgents, and in February anger flared over the burning of the Qur'an."
I no longer ask myself if the marines have gone crazy. I ask myself who wants this situation to explode, and why marines lend themselves to this.
Shit happens in all conflicts all around the world, it has happened since battles were reported and logged in the history books. The media and education has brought it into the home and we just have to live with it. This war it is America and the next war it will be some other country so on so forth. If the media made the same pinpoint accusations of the opposing forces atrocities, then the civilians that know damn all about warfare would not be so fast to point the finger. [But then that does not sell news papers.]
Be well IAN 2411
Shit happens. Yes it does. Shit happens when a Western soldier goes off the rails. When an Afghan murders Western soldiers, then it's an atrocity by fiendish towelheads for whom no retribution would be too severe.
As for your suggestion that people who have never engaged in conflict should refrain from commenting, that's patent nonsense. Anyone can see what this soldier did was wrong, and just because other warriors have gone berserk, doesn't mean he can be exonerated from what appears to be a cold-blooded annihilation of peaceful families who were no threat to anyone.
As one Afghan has said, if he's fit to serve as a soldier, he's fit to face an open trial. So long as the trial is under US military law, I believe it should be held in Afghanistan, and in public.
falcaner
03-12-2012, 07:53 PM
our soldiers marines sailors and airmen over there are our sheepdogs. However when one goes off the reservation then he/she needs to dealt with harshly and swiftly. This individual needs to court marshaled and the death penalty considered. I put this individual in the same category as a criminal who did the same thing. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than our opponents for a reason.
IAN 2411
03-12-2012, 10:29 PM
Shit happens. Yes it does. Shit happens when a Western soldier goes off the rails. When an Afghan murders Western soldiers, then it's an atrocity by fiendish towelheads for whom no retribution would be too severe.
As for your suggestion that people who have never engaged in conflict should refrain from commenting, that's patent nonsense.
Patent nonsense...Is it? I think you MMI you misunderstand me. I was not referring to people in general I was referring to the press. I noticed the other day when the six British soldiers got shot there was hardly anything mentioned. Oh yes the initial press release and the story behind it and now 404 British soldiers have been killed.
Get a story like this that runs the army of any nation down and shows them up to the world, and the press are over it like flies on shit. I don’t know what took place and neither does anyone outside the American Military. The only people that know are the dead, the sergeant, and the military investigators.
The press know damn all except for what a few Afghan people, that were not there while the atrocity was being carried out has told them. Yet the press go into length explaining the grisly details where the round entered the girls head and the colour of her dress. That MMI, is getting the sympathy of the public and a show of the papers disgust at what took place.
Did I want to know that the bullet shot her in the forehead? No. Did I want to know what colour dress the girl was wearing? No. Did I want to see pictures of the inside of the house where this atrocity had taken place? No. It was enough for me to know that it had taken place. The press don’t need to tell me how to be repulsed at the act that was carried out in the house. I do not need to be told by any news paper how to pick up my hand and point a finger because they say so.
If the Guardian or the other news papers carried out as much reporting on the way some of those brave British and American soldiers died, then I might just start reading papers again. Yes it was an atrocity and no you cannot put it right with a plaster. Yes, there will be repercussions so does this mean the troops will come out early? No, they will stay there all the time that Washington and London think they are winning the war.
One more thing MMI shit happens, all over Iraq and Afghanistan not by the allied forces, but by the Iraqis and the Afghans. Is it reported by the press? No, because everyone knows it is taking place and it doesn’t sell news papers.
Anyone can see what this soldier did was wrong, and just because other warriors have gone berserk, doesn't mean he can be exonerated from what appears to be a cold-blooded annihilation of peaceful families who were no threat to anyone.
Yes you are correct and anyone can see that, and no doubt everyone is just as disgusted and repulsed of the atrocity as you and I. “Warriors” what’s up MMI have you forgotten how to write American Soldiers?
As one Afghan has said, if he's fit to serve as a soldier, he's fit to face an open trial.
So this Afghan was a psychiatrist and knew all the details of what took place, and has had the soldier on the couch. The mind boggles at that statement.
So long as the trial is under US military law, I believe it should be held in Afghanistan, and in public.
However if there is damn all wrong with him I do agree with the above, I also believe that the death penalty should be made available.
Be well IAN 2411
IAN 2411
03-12-2012, 10:53 PM
U.S. soldier in Afghan massacre had brain injury - official
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army staff sergeant accused of the massacre of 16 villagers in Afghanistan on Sunday was treated for traumatic brain injury after being in a vehicle that rolled over in Iraq in 2010, a U.S. official said on Monday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was premature to state whether there was any link between the 2010 injury and the Afghanistan incident.
(Reporting by Missy Ryan; Editing by Will Dunham)
.................................................. ..
Now you should be asking...Who the hell declared him fit enough to go on a forth tour of duty?
Be well IAN 2411
IAN 2411
03-13-2012, 01:20 AM
One other thing I might as well point out about the Guardians report. The dress was Red and Green, “Good God” you say, “Not two of the colours of their national flag?” Yes those very two colours, and no doubt it was stitched with black thread. That is really pushing the point home, because if it had been yellow with blue trim, damn all would have been mentioned. Where did they get that information? Surely not off of that friendly Afghan...give me a break.
Be well IAN 2411
Who wants Afganistan to blow up?
Umm ... hasn't it already?
From what I have heard I would put that soldier in the same category as an individual who walked into a Mickey Ds here in the states and did the same thing. Criminal, possibly insane.
denuseri
03-13-2012, 02:24 PM
An interesting point concerning brain injuries is that in some individuals a direct link has been established between it's onset and certain kinds of psychosis.
StrictMasterD
03-13-2012, 02:42 PM
No, if noting else he wil be used as an Example and thrown under the Bus So To Speak
It is time we left there, if we could not win this "War" in 10 plus yeas what makes ANYONE THINK another year or 2 there wil make any difference now, noy mention howm any lives we could save and how mych money tax payers could save, it is time to bring them all home, no matter how long we remain, we wil not win and the Taliban is just lurkingin the Bushes
Umm ... hasn't it already?
I believe there was certain results with respect to co-ordination between occupying forces and the Afghans (not Taliban) forces. But now the civilians are in an uproar, and the Talibans can say 'we told you so', but whether this possible intrige was meant to get the occupying forces out sooner or keep them longer, I cannot see or say. Or maybe just to bother Obama, or sell more weapens, or whatever??? But too many things have happended of an extremely provocative nature, I just cannot see it as 'shit happens'. Maybe I am paranoid.
I believe there was certain results with respect to co-ordination between occupying forces and the Afghans (not Taliban) forces.
With results you mean a German or American-trained Afghani policeman or soldier turning around and shooting those in the back who have trained him? Happens ever more often, far as I know.
That's certainly a result, albeit presumably not one the occupying forces where hoping for.
But too many things have happended of an extremely provocative nature, I just cannot see it as 'shit happens'.
I don't think that's the root of the NATO forces getting their asses whipped. I think it was just a very bad idea to go there in the beginning, especially with the expectation of being welcomed by the Afghani population.
Also, so far no foreign force EVER has managed to conquer and pacify Afghanistan. Not the Persians, not the Brits, certainly not communist Soviet Union. Why should that be different with NATO?
IAN 2411
03-14-2012, 06:54 AM
I don't think that's the root of the NATO forces getting their asses whipped. I think it was just a very bad idea to go there in the beginning, especially with the expectation of being welcomed by the Afghani population.
Also, so far no foreign force EVER has managed to conquer and pacify Afghanistan. Not the Persians, not the Brits, certainly not communist Soviet Union. Why should that be different with NATO?
Now you have hit the nail on the head with that quote. I have been too long in thinking that after Persians, the Bitish and the Russians and NATO. Also in between those they have tried to get on with each other. The country is ungovernable because every person in the country that is not in power has their own ideas of how they want their country run. I doubt very much whether they take notice of anyone ruling them, and most probably the only way in the end to rule them will be by force. If the Teliban get their way when NATO withdraws [Meaning retreats like the Persians, British and Russians] then the force will be provided for them, and guess who they will be screaming to for deliverence from the dredded outdated sharie laws?
Be well IAN 2411
Didn't Alexander the Great manage to conquer it? But I agree, as soon as I heard the US wanted to invade Afghanistan I asked my wife why they were ignoring the lessons of history. She didn't know.
Didn't Alexander the Great manage to conquer it?
Yeah, but I think he was seriously wounded there and the power he exerted over the Hindukush was crumbling even before he croaked.
Stealth694
03-15-2012, 06:51 AM
Those that do not study History are doomed to repeat it.
Bush and his croney's never studied anything other than playboy in college.
denuseri
03-15-2012, 03:05 PM
lol Looks up one...By that faulty logic:
Apparently neither did Obama since he is still pretty much following Bush and his cronies play book for the entire middle east...including ramping up for a potential invasion or series of strikes against Iran.
He who controls the spice, er I mean oil...controls the galaxey!
Also, so far no foreign force EVER has managed to conquer and pacify Afghanistan. Not the Persians, not the Brits, certainly not communist Soviet Union. Why should that be different with NATO?
Yes, that is what I thought as well when it all started. A mess that can neither be sorted nor withdrawn from in a reasonably good way, and certainly not won. I never understood a word of that war, other than revenge and sweet money for weapons and oil.
But neither do I understand what is cooking there now! If anything.
IAN 2411
03-21-2012, 03:24 AM
Insanity defence for U.S. soldier may be tough sell
Reuters – Sat, Mar 17, 2012
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If the U.S. soldier being held for the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians faces an Army court-martial, his lawyers will likely have a hard time persuading a military jury his shooting spree was the result of insanity brought on by trauma or stress.
The soldier, identified by a U.S. official as Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, was treated for a traumatic brain injury he suffered in a vehicle rollover in 2010 while deployed in Iraq, one of three tours he served there, officials have said.
A lawyer hired for Bales has already raised health as a possible defence, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). "It is commonly used in military defence," attorney John Browne told Reuters on Friday.
Defence lawyers have not been successful in military courts arguing that a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder made soldiers legally insane at the time of a crime, a U.S. military judge advocate told reporters this week.
Hundreds of cases have been prosecuted in the military courts for crimes by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan ranging from misdemeanours to felonies including murder, though precise statistics for all military branches were not available.
The Army is investigating the killings, the first step in a lengthy military legal process. It could take weeks to draft charges and longer to determine whether the case should be referred for a court-martial.
Bales was flown to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he will be held pending the investigation.
While no charges have been brought yet, he would face life in prison at a minimum if convicted of murder at a court-martial although there is an option for parole. Bales could have to fight the death penalty, however that is rare in the military.
INSANITY DEFENSE
Courts-martial are similar to traditional criminal trials: they allow for a mental evaluation and an insanity defence, which in the military is known as "not guilty but only by reason of lack of mental responsibility." The threshold is high.
The military judge advocate who briefed reporters said defence lawyers had yet to successfully argue that a soldier was insane because of traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.
Typically, before charges are brought, military lawyers or the defence team can request that a "sanity board" determine whether the soldier can assist in his own defence and understands the nature of his actions.
"Insanity from a legal standpoint requires a significant mental disease or defect so that the person could not appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of their behaviour," the military judge advocate said.
One legal expert said the defence team could enlist psychiatrists and other mental health experts to build the case that the person was so mentally disabled he did not know what he was doing at the time of the alleged crimes.
"I don't think anyone is going to be able to get off with an ordinary post-traumatic stress disorder" defence, said Jenny Martinez, a Stanford Law School professor. "You have to show a real incapacity to understand what's going on."
DEATH PENALTY RARE
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters this week the death penalty could be sought in the Afghanistan massacre case. Browne said it was still on the table.
Such a sentence is extremely rare. The last execution in a U.S. military case dates back to 1961 and only a handful are on death row now.
Charges brought against U.S. Army Major Nodal Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 and injuring 32 others during a 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas, included a recommendation that the death penalty be sought.
In a case in which military prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, a defendant cannot plead guilty. For a conviction in such cases, a military jury must come to a unanimous decision in deciding both guilt and whether to impose the death penalty.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for details about criteria for when the death penalty can be sought.
There are other requirements. A jury can only impose a death sentence if there was an aggravating factor to the crime, such as premeditation, and any mitigating circumstances are outweighed by the aggravating factor.
Alcohol use could be considered as either an aggravating or mitigating factor, according to military rules.
Lawyers who have defended soldiers in courts-martial said there would be intense pressure to pursue a death sentence in the face of outrage from Afghan officials.
"I think the political pressure is going to be such that they would still refer it with the full authority of the death penalty," said Neal Puckett, a military defence lawyer who helped represent Marines accused in the 2005 murder of 24 civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha.
The military justice system requires a U.S. president to approve the execution of a service member and the last approval came in 2008 for a soldier convicted of multiple murders and rapes. The soldier remains on death row.
The last execution was of Army Private John Bennett, who was hanged in 1961 after being convicted of rape and attempted murder of a young girl. A Los Angeles Times article in 2000 said Bennett had a history of mental illness but it was not raised during his brief trial and his appeals failed.
Since the current death penalty system was adopted by the military in 1984, there have been 52 court-martial cases in which the death penalty was sought but only 16 received such a sentence. Six are awaiting execution, two had sentences commuted to life in prison and eight were set aside on appeal, said Dwight Sullivan, a U.S. Air Force defense lawyer.
Haytham Faraj, another defense lawyer in the Haditha case, said: "The defense strategy is probably going to be ‘yes he did it, but look at these factors that impacted his state of mind' and the goal here would be to avoid the death penalty."
Military juries typically are made up of officers though the defense could request the inclusion of enlisted service members.
COMPARISONS ABOUND
The massacre of civilians in Afghanistan has led to wide-ranging comparisons to other incidents in which civilians were killed either in random attacks or were targeted by American service members.
Legal experts said the case may bear a closer resemblance to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which involved a single soldier who started shooting indiscriminately. Defense lawyers in that case have yet to say whether he will enter an insanity plea.
There have also been comparisons to the Haditha attack in 2005, in which military prosecutors believed a group of Marines launched attacks as retribution for a roadside bomb that killed a member of their unit.
Charges were dismissed for six of the eight Marines accused of that attack, one was cleared of criminal wrongdoing and the leader of the group pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of being lax in his orders to his unit and he avoided jail time.
The shooting has also been compared to the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam in which an Army unit killed hundreds of civilians. It too was found to have been revenge for attacks on U.S. soldiers and deemed poor leadership by commanders.
The officer who helped lead the My Lai attack, Lt. William Calley, was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison for premeditated murder in 1971. He served three years under house arrest before being released by a federal judge.
Long sentences have been handed out for other civilian killings, including an attack in which a group of U.S. soldiers gang-raped and murdered a 14-year-old Iraqi girl before burning her body. They also killed her family.
Private Jesse Spielman was found guilty at a court-martial of four counts of murder and was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Two others were sentenced to 90 and 100 years in prison for what was seen as a random killing south of Baghdad in 2006.
Those cases and other similar incidents have raised another possible defense for the soldier in the present case: Was there a failure at the command level by officers to instill discipline among the soldiers and ensure non-combatants were not targeted?
Lawyers who suggested that defense also noted it could be a stretch because the Army sergeant appeared to act alone.
"You consider everything when you're defending a guy like this and you don't lightly discard any avenue," Puckett said. But he voiced doubts, adding, "This guy walked off the forward operating base which you can't just do."
(Additional reporting by David Alexander in Washington and Laura Myers in Seattle; editing by Todd Eastham)
........................................
Well no sane man would have done that...would they???
Be well IAN 2411