US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar

reply to post by sitchin


I have no problem with that letter whatsoever and agree with the content completely



Troops just dont go on patrol or operations blindly.. We talk about them, the morality of the war is a very hot topic in the barracks for sure! So is politics, and I can also assure you that when some dick wad politico comes to us on tour for his/her photo op with the "boys" that there is a palpable air of who is going to frag these clowns first..

I personally would indeed kick the crap out of any politician who darkened my door or I happened to meet on the street..

That is not a joke nor a euphemism but something I would gladly do jail time for..

However my own loyalty is to the men and women who I have served with and who are serving now.. Not my country or government.. As far as I am concerned they can both go fk themselves... I have fulfilled my oath yet they have not fulfilled their covenant with us... They broke theirs with us first..

Tommy (slang for British soldier) is not stupid, he sees, feels and has his own opinions.. That which at the moment is that if the country needs us in future they can go fk themselves...

reply to post by AnonymousFem

Maybe we can charge them over here in the UK, take them to a stadium in front of thousands and carry out an execution also.

Eye for an eye after all!

an eye for an eye...the tali kill 6 of our soldiers in a warrior tank...so we respond by killing woman and children

your response sickens me....

Taliban responsible for 77% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, U.N. says
The report said the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documented 3,021 civilian deaths in the conflict in 2011 — up 8 percent from 2010, which saw 2,790 deaths, and an increase of 25 percent from 2009, when 2,412 civilians were killed.

The U.N. said "anti-government elements" — shorthand for the Taliban and other insurgent groups — were responsible for 2,332, or 77 percent, of conflict-related deaths in 2011, up 14 percent from 2010.

The report said 410 civilian deaths, or 14 percent of the 2011 total, were caused by operations by "pro-government forces," or Afghan, U.S. and international security forces — a drop of 4 percent from 2010. A further 279 deaths, or 9 percent of civilian fatalities, could not be blamed on any side.

www.mcclatchydc.com...

what about the admitted 23 per cent?

Soldier found guilty of murdering Afghans, sentenced to life

This photo from the U.S. Army shows Sgt. Calvin Gibbs' tattoos that are suspected to represent his "kills."Army Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs has been sentenced to life in military prison with eligibility for parole in 10 years.

A military court-martial Thursday found Gibbs guilty of murdering three Afghan civilians, illegally cutting off pieces of their corpses to keep as "souvenirs" and planting weapons to make the men appear as if they were Taliban fighters killed in legitimate firefights.
articles.cnn.com...:JUSTICE

That'll teachem for giving that pipe line deal to the Russians and having billians in rare raw resources and opium

edit on 12-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Xcathdra

We werent in thier lands when they flew planes into the towers or the Pentagon, blew a hole in the side of the cole, set off a truck bomb underneath the world trade center during the first attack on it in the 90's, had our embassies bombed in Africa, etc etc etc etc.

Xcat...which of those incidents were Afghanistan responsible for?

Surely you don't think Afthanistan committed those acts.

reply to post by EvanB


i hear ya ..

reply to post by sitchin


It was not British Soldiers whom carried out the Killings so get your facts right for one.

Calling me sick when, I was just responding to the member for calling for an execution in front of thousand of Afghanistans. Now that is sick.

reply to post by forklift


I'm not sure where your getting your stats from
But I assure you 90% certainly do not want to live under the Taliban ( reverse your statement and your closer to the truth)
If your going to spout numbers - atleast be sure you know what your talking about
As there are people here that do

reply to post by Xcathdra


The US army flag has 183 campaign ribbons on it. Those 183 ribbons each represent wars. When you compare that to the 236 years the US has actually been around as a country, you're talking about a war on average of once every year and three months.

Now tell me whose the real aggressor?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

We werent in thier lands when they flew planes into the towers or the Pentagon, blew a hole in the side of the cole, set off a truck bomb underneath the world trade center during the first attack on it in the 90's, had our embassies bombed in Africa, etc etc etc etc.

Xcat...which of those incidents were Afghanistan responsible for?

Surely you don't think Afthanistan committed those acts.

Ummm Xcathdra
and surely you can't prove it

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

whos the terrorists now?

Originally posted by Neocrusader
reply to post by forklift

 

I'm not sure where your getting your stats from
But I assure you 90% certainly do not want to live under the Taliban ( reverse your statement and your closer to the truth)
If your going to spout numbers - atleast be sure you know what your talking about
As there are people here that do

Than why is Afghanistan exactly the same as what it was when the war started after 9/11?

Hasn't the US killed enough terrorists to bring a little successful working democracy into the country?

Same with Iraq and Libya, what shinning examples of democracy.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Killing is not the problem... Religion is the problem, specifically killing in its name.

Killing in the name of religion is despicable but killing in the name of corporate/nationalistic interests is equally as despicable.

Get of your soap box.

reply to post by Neocrusader

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski
Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter
admits to
the financing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet deployment of forces there[2] (allegedly either to help deter a Russian invasion, or to deliberately increase the chance of such an intervention occurring – or for both contradictory reasons simultaneously being embraced by separate U.S. officials and the arming of these rebels to counter the Soviet invasion;

en.wikipedia.org...

dunno if you have noticed all the times the Taliban turn out to be the US...
(Remember Pat Tillman for example, he ws killed by Taliban and then the army coroners proved it was by American special forces)
that might explain why they don't want to live under the Taliban

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Killing is not the problem... Religion is the problem, specifically killing in its name.

Killing in the name of religion is despicable but killing in the name of corporate/nationalistic interests is equally as despicable.

Get of your soap box.

So we both see the same picture, and yet for some reason your still going to act like an ass towards me. Or are you arguing that killing in the name of religion is acceptable?

Typical...

Islam has existed on this planet for 1400 years.

Yet it has suddenly become a 'deadly worldwide threat' after 9/11?

Someone make some sense please!

reply to post by AnonymousFem

It was not British Soldiers whom carried out the Killings so get your facts right for one.

Calling me sick when, I was just responding to the member for calling for an execution in front of thousand of Afghanistans. Now that is sick.

im well aware of the facts ..american and British are the same when it comes from the afghan prospective

tali will be gunning for our troops now with the backing of the locals....its game over time to go....

reply to post by sitchin


If thats the case and using that logic, then the Sgt. did nothing wrong when he killed the civilians. Afghanis, Taliban / Al Queida... All the same right?


The Taliban are calling for revenge, which is not a surprise after seeing their madness with the Quran issue.

reply to post by forklift


they are or were a deadly world wide threat forklift:
the Taliban had reduced the out put of opium to almost nil
the BANKERS like the ones that fund both OBAMA and ROMNEY need that drug laundering money to stay afloat after the tobigtofails lost all their money to insane derivitive trading

this threatened a world wide collapse of the financial uber lords that want to reduce the population by 85 percent.

incidentaly they are the same bankers that are palistiniating american veterans and civvies alike with illegal forclosures and lobbying for things like the NDAA which turns US soil into the same thing as Iraqi Libyan and Afghanie land

reply to post by forklift


I shall tell you why
1 we are lead by morons
2 it is a male dominated society that is run through what we would call fear and repression
3 the country is being kept intentionally unstable by a number of factions for a number of reasons
( you really aren't stupid enough to just think NATO is in there .........are you ? )
Pakistanis involved , irans involved , chinas involved, russias involved and a few more - think the whole of the cold war being fought in 1 country !
But if you had actually been there - seen for yourself - actually spoke to the people - and really .....I mean REALLY looked into Afghanistan
You might just .........maybe.........possibly........see there is a much bigger picture
Please
Deny ignorence
X

This is how beautiful democracy has turned out in Afghanistan:

The Afghan president has been accused of selling out women's rights to placate the Taliban after endorsing a religious edict that makes the country's women second-class citizens.

Hamid Karzai is supporting a ruling by Afghanistan's highest religious authority, which states: "Men are fundamental and women are secondary."

The text of the statement has not been published, but the UN and some Afghan MPs have said the Ulema Council's ruling also states women cannot refuse to have sex with their husbands, should wear full hijab, should respect polygamy, and should not mingle "with strange men in various social activities such as education, in bazaars, in offices and other aspects of life"

Sky news

reply to post by sitchin


Are they really? I would differ on that point of view. British and American soldiers are not one of the same which ever way you put it. But you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

They should never had been sent to Afghanistan in the first place.

Least we all can agree on that.