U.S. soldiers gunned down by Afghan policeman they trained SECONDS after giving him a weapon

U.S. soldiers gunned down by Afghan policeman they trained SECONDS after giving him a weapon

...And yet we justify remaining there...

To what end? Who is it helping?

Corporations.

[Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Golf66

 

Yeah, kill civilians for no reason, that is what it means to be soldier

I will go out on a limb and opine that the weepy kid in that video didn't kill some "innocent" civilian just jaunting around the free fire zone. If you are shooting at someone without a weapon you are Soldiering wrong - bottom line. I will also go out on a limb and opine that you know next to nothing about the profession of arms.

I think he is exaggerating a great deal to make a political point. If he was ordered to kill non-combatants and he followed the order he was just as guilty under the UCMJ as the man who gave it. If I were his Commander and he was firing that indiscriminately I'd initiate the 15-6 myself - there should be hardly any collateral damage from a firefight. If you can't tell if it's friend or foe don't pull the trigger John Wayne. He feels guilty because he has poor trigger discipline and poor judgment. He should. So weep to your therapist Jon...not the world on you tube. You are just a bad Soldier - its not for everyone. Doesn't make the profession bad - just him.

Anyway using Arty and Air ok, going to get some splash, which by the way is why Privates, Specialists and young Sergeants and cherries like this guy don't get to do it. Because they screw it up and then have regrets about the call and go all weepy and make themselves look stupid on you tube.

I would love to do the investigation myself as I have done in the past - if he was shooting fat unarmed Iraqis crossing the street I'd hang a charge on him so fast it'd make his head spin. Every time a Soldier dies some Field Grade Officer has to track down the why and how.

I personally have never fired on a target that was not shooting back - no one carries that much ammo. Only shoot what you aim at and never ever just spray and pray. That's some Vietnam era crap. Suppressive fire has its purpose but FFS if you can't even tell where the enemy is don't pull the trigger you are just giving your own position away and wasting ammo. Too many movies IMO.

Do you honestly think we wake up in the FOB and say - "# let's go kill some kids today I'm bored"? Have I had instances of collateral damage - you bet. Do I regret them - nope. In all instances I'd have lost our men if I hadn't called for arty or air. If it's my Soldiers or someone else - I'll vote someone else.

That's why I Command - I take responsibility for the airstrike that could kill innocents. I decide if the risk to my own Soldiers if I don't call for support would be worse than a few civilian deaths. Have I been investigated - .yep everyone who calls in an Airstrike in a populated area is investigated. Was it justified use of force...yep.

Use of assets meet the reasonable threshold of risk... that is the very reason we need these little wars so our Soldiers can get good at it.

Think how many civilians we killed in WWII and then in Vietnam even in the first gulf war... We are heads and tails above that low threshold even - we rarely have collateral damage today and the more we practice the more we improve our tech the less collateral damage there will be. War is actually good for learning how not to kill civilians.

YES! This is Awesome News! Kill Our Boys. Kill tons of em right after they train you. Keep up the good work Afghan !! Bravo!

The more of our boys you kill the more people here will wake up and one day America will stop sticking it's nose into other countries business. If it works, these boys sacrifice will not be in vain, BUT you must kill TONS MORE for this to work! I'm proud of these boys for the way they served their country in death.

It can be a Win Win situation!

The other thing that may hopefully come out of this is American boys will stop enlisting in the military to serve the agendas of a corrupt administration.

Wanna serve your country, best thing you can do is Not sign up!

reply to post by Golf66


There are a ton of soldiers that have stories like his. They can not all be lying. My cousin was in the Iraq war and I asked him they treated the Arabs and he said "like sh!t".

We are not helping the people in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Originally posted by roadgravel
It's been 11 years. Time to leave. If the job hasn't been done by now, give up.

Gotta protect them poppy fields...

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

It's simple: we won't get invaded or occupied, we would fight tooth and nail, remember, many households have more then one weapon, and don't count out the veterans and our hillbillies

And you're opposing the Afghans trying to do the same?

Originally posted by roadgravel
It's been 11 years. Time to leave. If the job hasn't been done by now, give up.

Even Russia wasn't dumb enough to stay there 11 years......Guess Americans really are stupid.....

What? You watch reality TV don't you?......proves my case right there.....

Originally posted by Golf66
Do you honestly think we wake up in the FOB and say - "# let's go kill some kids today I'm bored"? Have I had instances of collateral damage - you bet. Do I regret them - nope. In all instances I'd have lost our men if I hadn't called for arty or air. If it's my Soldiers or someone else - I'll vote someone else.

So... some of your lads got killed by foreigners while operating on that foreign land. You then think its fair game to kill "someone else" as collateral damage. Just anyone, as long as you get to kill. No regrets?

That's why I Command - I take responsibility for the airstrike that could kill innocents. I decide if the risk to my own Soldiers if I don't call for support would be worse than a few civilian deaths. Have I been investigated - .yep everyone who calls in an Airstrike in a populated area is investigated. Was it justified use of force...yep.

I understand that civilians are fair game. You will never ever receive any sort of punishment for killing innocent civilians as long as you can defend your actions with "suspicions" of "possible" activity. Which you can always do as there's no possible way to provide evidence that you didn't have those suspicions.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
YES! This is Awesome News! Kill Our Boys. Kill tons of em right after they train you. Keep up the good work Afghan !! Bravo!

Guns doesn't kill people.
People doesn't kill people.
People with guns however sometimes do.
If you don't want any killings, better not give people guns.

source: www.tomdispatch.com...

For more than a decade, the U.S. and its coalition partners have been training Afghan security forces in the hopes that they would take over the war there, defending U.S. and allied interests as the American-led international force draws down. Yet despite an expenditure of almost $50 billion on bringing it up to speed, the Afghan National Army and other security forces have drastically underperformed any and all expectations, year after year.

Today, the Afghan National Security Forces officially number more than 343,000, ... even after more than a decade of large-scale Western aid, 95% of its recruits are still functionally illiterate.


This clandestine effort has also been supplemented by the creation of a massive, conventional indigenous security force. While officially under Afghan government control, these military and police forces are almost entirely dependent on the financial support of the U.S. and allied governments for their continued existence.


Not surprisingly, this massive force, trained by high-priced private contractors, Western European militaries, and the United States, and backed by U.S. and coalition forces and their advanced weapons systems, has been unable to stamp out a lightly-armed, modest-sized, less-than-popular, rag-tag insurgency.

One of the few tasks this proxy force seems skilled at is shooting American and allied forces, quite often their own trainers, in increasingly common "green-on-blue" attacks.

both the above article
and this one:

www.tomdispatch.com...


are required reading to my sensibilities... just too much info to tell about in athread reply...
info that the MSM does not repeat or even tell the public


thanks

here's a follow up... a link to a blogger that most likely has first hand experience with the Afghani's


the message (dated the 14th...old)

Afghan blasts: Dozens killed in Nimroz and Kunduz
Posted by The Agonist on August 14th, 2012

From our partners at The Agonist

Aug 14

BBC – Forty-eight people have been killed and more than 130 others wounded in a series of bombings in the south-west and north of Afghanistan.

Many of the victims were shopping for the weekend’s Eid celebrations at the end of the Muslim month of Ramadan.

Thirty-six people were killed in four suicide bombings in Zaranj near the Iranian border in the south west.

Shortly afterwards, police in the northern province of Kunduz said 12 people were killed in another blast.

More than 30 others were reported wounded.

I await the blame it on Iran contingent..

source: rethinkafghanistan.com...





i'm not sure as to the blog/site credibility, lets some of us follow the blog for a few days to see if its' legit...

Originally posted by moniker
So... some of your lads got killed by foreigners while operating on that foreign land. You then think its fair game to kill "someone else" as collateral damage. Just anyone, as long as you get to kill. No regrets?

That's a serious straw man there - where did I say I just wanted to kill anyone. I said that if I had to choose between an air strike that possibly might result in collateral damage to save one of ours vs. not calling for it and them dying I'd call for the strike every time. An air strike btw is not some random thing If it’s the only way I can get a concealed and covered shooter out of a building I'll do it. The alternative being a frontal assault ala WWI trench warfare - that's not going to happen. If the shooter has chosen to shoot at us from a dwelling that is also occupied by noncombatants they know to unass the building immediately (that’s what MISO is for to let the non-combatants know what to do). Do they always - no sometimes because they are more scared of the Taliban than they are of us.

Originally posted by moniker
I understand that civilians are fair game. You will never ever receive any sort of punishment for killing innocent civilians as long as you can defend your actions with "suspicions" of "possible" activity. Which you can always do as there's no possible way to provide evidence that you didn't have those suspicions.

Again, no one said "civilians are fair game" war is not a game... I said that sometimes collateral damage is unavoidable. I also stated that when there is collateral damage an investigation is done by someone who is senior to the person making the call. During that investigation all possible alternative actions are investigated in excruciating detail. People do get relieved over these type things and even face UCMJ action for their excessive use of force.

Some pretty good pro US military propaganda.

No way I believe they really care other than if they can get away with it, which is of course 'yes'.

I don't understand how people just don't get this, you invade a country and kill thousands and then are suprised when people express the total outrage they feel inside about being invaded and having relatives and neighbors slaughtered. Violence begets violence. No one has ever been victorious over the Afghan people in the history of man, if you invade their country, they will kick your ass.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

It's simple: we won't get invaded or occupied, we would fight tooth and nail, remember, many households have more then one weapon, and don't count out the veterans and our hillbillies

But that's irrelevant, let's assume you DO get invaded, would you be happy about it?

How do you feel about supporting the invaders in this case? Do you expect them to offer you big macs and coke just because you're an American. In their eyes you dropped clusterbombs on their children, abused their economy and created havoc and terror.

Why are you over there? You don't have a clue do you?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

 

It's simple: we won't get invaded or occupied, we would fight tooth and nail, remember, many households have more then one weapon, and don't count out the veterans and our hillbillies

But that's irrelevant, let's assume you DO get invaded, would you be happy about it?

How do you feel about supporting the invaders in this case? Do you expect them to offer you big macs and coke just because you're an American. In their eyes you dropped clusterbombs on their children, abused their economy and created havoc and terror.

Why are you over there? You don't have a clue do you?

First off, I'm not over there, when I served in the military, it was during peacetime, between Desert Storm and 9/11, secondly, why try to use a what if scenario, it JUST WON'T HAPPEN!

Originally posted by mr-lizard
But that's irrelevant, let's assume you DO get invaded, would you be happy about it?

First of all you are making the mistake of buying into MSM portrayal of the war – which they are against btw so take that with a grain of salt. We did not “invade” anywhere. The goal of Operation Enduring Freedom was to capture/kill OBL. The people of Afghanistan overthrew the government of the Taliban with the aid of US Special Operations and Air Assets. I was there – we simply helped them get rid of the Taliban with poplar support of the majority of the people of Afghanistan.

So your vision that the people of Afganistan are a united front against a foreign invader is false. A good portion of the population wanted us to intervene – the Afghanis did most of the fighting actually. We had teams there (again I was there) but no real major engagements of large formations.

The problem arose when the absence of the Taliban created a power vacuum. We then needed our forces to stabilize the region which started the “occupation” as many people refer to it. We helped casue the vacum - least we can do is stick around until it's stable.

So let it be known that while a portion of the population consider us “invaders” that is not a universal view. Just like during our own revolution only about 10 percent of the population is actually involved on one side or the other – the rest of the people just want to get on with life.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
How do you feel about supporting the invaders in this case? Do you expect them to offer you big macs and coke just because you're an American. In their eyes you dropped clusterbombs on their children, abused their economy and created havoc and terror.

Also, be clear that any “invasion” of the US will also be at the request of some domestic group who feel the government in place is not suitable or functioning as it is supposed to or as required by law.

You will have the same situation some portion of the population will be “freedom” fighters, some others will be “regime supporters” the majority of the US population will just want to feed their families and stay safe not taking a side at all. A revolution only needs a small percentage of the popular support to gain steam.

So there will be no “unified” fight the foreign devils type meme that you seem to believe exists in Afghanistan. So some Americans will support the invaders some will not .

As with any revolution one side or the other can force people on the fence to take a side with a mistake or even on purpose with an overt action – say collateral damage or MISO.

That is after all the goal of both sides to get people to commit to their point of view. That is why collateral damage is “damage” not to the people but to the mission – it’s counterproductive so what Commander in their right mind would go around “cluster bombing children” as you put it.?

In case you were not aware almost every engagement in Afghanistan today involves Afghanis on both sides and the US is acting more often than not at the request of the local Afghani leadership when we bomb anything…. So while we are the hammer for sure since they lack the training and weaponry the will of at least a portion of the population is the anvil upon which that force rings.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Why are you over there? You don't have a clue do you?

More than 30 months in theater and I know why I was there – I think it is you who have no clue about the situation on the ground over there. Live among them, lose a few friends – I lost my interpreter to a GSW. He was an Afghani who wanted the Taliban out of power. An amazing man who died fighting for what he believed was best for his country. I was just there helping him out.

Now the tide is turning – we have overstayed our welcome with the conventional forces. I think even the eggheads at the Pentagon can figure that one out. However, there will always a place for Special Operators in helping the Afghani’s realize their own true independence as a nation.

Special Operations exists to fight for those who are oppressed my good fellow – the men women and children of Afghanistan who were tortured, raped, burnt, killed, and oppressed by the 10% of the population that was in support of the Taliban.

No one in that group of operators is a pawn, tool, victim or whatever the MSM would have you thinking. We are professionals at waging war and we do it to further the interests of the US government make no doubt.

However, along the way we teach, train and mentor developing democracies in the development of their own military capabilities – often after we helped them be free from (in this case) the medieval values of their oppressors.

reply to post by Golf66


Well said Major! :salutes:
HOOAH!!!

Maybe the Policeman was related to some slain civillians?

Originally posted by Pedro4077
Maybe the Policeman was related to some slain civillians?

I don’t think anyone will deny that guilt by association is a motivator for some green on blue violence.

However, that said there is a whole lot of difference between the crime of murder committed by an individual (as the case your video presents) and institutionalized indiscriminate violence against civilians by an Army. The media can make one seem like the other and vice versa as suits their agenda.

Granted when it’s a family member lying there dead – it likely matters very little which to the victim or his/her family.

This illustrates the point I made earlier in the thread – collateral damage is so counter to mission accomplishment that it is avoided at all costs.

Does it happen, sure it does is it intentional – no.

Are all efforts made to limit it – hell yea, no one likes having collateral death on their hands.

I don’t - I can deal with the death of an enemy, the death of a friend or comrade in arms. It's the death of a bystander that eats up a professional because they know while it was the right call for the greater good someone innocent died at your command/hands. Nothing can bring them back - even violence self inflicted or any other kind.