Wounded Afghans say U.S. forces fired on civilians after suicide bomb

[Tom Yum]

After a while, people get tired of listening to the most unscrupulous country on the planet righteously preach to the rest of the world about morals and ethics.

I don't think our country is unscrupulous; I love my country and I would fight to defend it. Personally I do not see the war in Iraq as an urgent military action; it seems more strategic. I'm sure Bush has reasons for engaging the war - what they are is becoming less and less obvious from his original intent. And as far as I can tell from press releases, he did not follow the advice of his generals. Again, a reason why one would hope future Presidents come from stronger military backgrounds.

As it stands, he is venting, not informing. He is angry at one side of the situation, Bush. And nearly everything he posts goes right back to how Bush is not only a liar and a bastard, but how Bush is responsible for making our troops into murderers and rapists. Calling that "informing the public" is like Michael Moore masquerading as a dispassionate journalist. If one is truly interested in informing anyone (most of all themselves) then it is beneficial to take a hard and rational look at all sides of the issue.

Boar comes from a long-line of military men, it seems. I suppose it makes sense that his family can compare their experiences and war politics with the commander in chief at the time, since he ultimately decides when and where we go to war - so it makes sense that he look at our current President, since this is his war.

I don't know to what extent our troops would be murderers or rapists, but when I hear stories about Marines or Soldiers firing into groups of people, its probably because some terrorist sh!t bag is using them as anonymous cover to fire off a weapon or an explosive at our men.

The civillians that die were never intended as the targets, but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I can see how the media would want to capitalize on this, since afterall, the media is a business and you either make money or go out of business. And a story titled "Iraqi Civillians Killed by US Soliders" will sell more papers among a liberal and anti-war subsription base, rather than a story titled "Soldiers Return Fire."

This is not a war like U.S./EU vs. Germany & Japan. The enemy is not clearly defined by uniform and fighting for their nation; they are fighting for an extremist cause - they wish death on infidel non-believers.

[Uke]

I have no doubt that you have no problem with people being well informed. And I don't believe everything that anyone says. I do however, believe that after reading the bulk of what you write and what Boar writes, my above posts accurately describes both of you.

Its interesting to me that I used no names in the above post, yet you assumed that you were the one that I referred to when I wrote that one of you didn't want Americans to be well informed. Hmm ... telling.

Also, just a few facts.

1 - Boarspear is very seldom the author of the articles which you dispute. Journalists are. If his posting an opposing stance makes you respect him or his views less then I'm sure he'll lose sleep.

2 - I could be misunderstanding your point about the rapes and murders that occur. How would focusing on what happens domestically change your view of Boarspear? We(you and I) once spoke about what the US is doing in the Middle East. Let's revisit that discussion.

We? Are you not an American? Why did they not fight Saddam? Was he not an oppressor of muslims as well? Why do honorable muslims there and elsewhere stand for oppressors and tyrants who pervert the holy Q'uran and allow themselves to be forced to live in poverty and need?

Couldn't the American Indians and the slaves brought from Africa make a case against America for doing a lot worse to them? I mean, more slaves and Indians were killed by American "discoverers" and so-called settlers than all the Arabs and Americans combined in these conflicts.

Again, I'm not trying to condone what any tyrant does. I'm simply pointing out that America doesn't have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to pointing fingers at tyrants. We're not number one because we play fair or avoided doing what those "other" tyrants have done.

There is a huge difference between the blacks and native americans here in this country and the subjugated minorities in Iraq under Saddam. If you can't see that, then please, ask one of the millions of wealthy and free minorities in this country how free they feel, and then ask a Kurd frim Saddam's Iraq how free they felt. As I've said before, the "moral leg" that we are standing on is that we learned more than a century ago that oppression was not the way to govern. The people we formerly displaced or oppressed are now as free as the rest of us, and can not only rise to all levels of our nation's government, but can benefit from the economy in the same way as anyone else.

Who has a need to to support an agenda now? Instead of realizing that these countries are going through the same growing pains as most countries, the United States needs them to do it on our time table. So, we intervene, kill, torture, rape, and force democracy to begin the framework for a puppet regime where the politicians, lobbyists and big businessmen can pull the strings.

Then you try to pass off lies as facts by stating that the "moral leg" that we are standing on is that we learned more than a century ago that oppression was not the way to govern." Oppression in this country, at least legal oppression existed up until the last 40 years. What history books had you been reading?

I highlighted that conversation for one reason only: To demonstrate that you bend the truth and tell facts the way you want them to be received in order to convince people that we have a moral leg to stand on. That's an agenda. And treating the atrocities that America has committed with such a "Oh get over it" attitude shows that you feel its okay when we commit all SEVEN SINS for 400 years but God forbid that another country does the same for just 50.

[Troll Virus]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The second world war was a put up job, the USA did indeed make itself very wealthy form watching the UK destroy its future by waging war with Germany, especially the Lend-lease con and post war loans business, and when there was any chance of a truce or peace with Hitler, the shadowy figures pulling the strings made sure that it didnt happen. Certainly after Dunkirk we had the option to come to an honourable agreement, Hitler had no real reason to invade us, even if it had been a viable tactical proposition, which it wasnt. In fact this country and its masters did everything they could to take the war to new lengths, it was Churchill that called for "Total War", and along with "Bomber Harris" began carpet bombing innocent civilians, which obviously Hitler was forced to retaliate. And will we ever know the real story of Rudolph Hess' peacemaking mission?, was he a madman?, if so why was he kept locked away for life, and even then he met a dubious end..murder or suicide?. The thing that galls me the most however, is this carefully scripted image of "sleepy ol' Britain , unprepared for war, which simply was'nt so. As far back as 1935 we had began building air raid shelters, developing top quality aircraft for the RAF (Spitfire and Hurricane), training underground commando units in sabotage warfare, developing chemical weapons, including Anthrax (which Churchill was desperate to use), as well as mobilizing our women into the workforce immediately the war started, unlike Germany which, although allegedly prepared for war, didnt do until 1942. Going to war against Germany was the worst thing this country ever did, it was suicide for us. Those who fought so valiantly under the promise of a better world, have paid for their mistake a million times over, as they freeze to death in winter or die waiting for operations, while the junk of the world comes and gets preferential treatment ahead of them. Sick sick sick.

It's all a bit Deja Vu to me.

[Uke]

You guys are like two heads on the same coin.

You've done similar things, forged from the same metal and are trying to make the world a better place....except that you guys face opposite directions.

Well Tom, the true difference between them(as it pertains to political posts) is that one places value on the rights of the people including their right to be informed, take part in the process and have a true impact on how this country is run.

While the other is apparently completely fine with totalitarianism where Uncle Sam calls all the shots and the people are supposed to stand by, saluting the flag and asking no questions.

After a while, people get tired of listening to the most unscrupulous country on the planet righteously preach to the rest of the world about morals and ethics.

Most of one's articles demonstrate that the USA is launching "The New Crusades", but this time instead of pushing Christianity on the masses they're pushing democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun while simultaneously stripping the rights away from Americans.

Most of the other's articles and posts have to do with condoning and justifying those actions. Blind patriotism is comforting to most who need to believe that whatever role they've played in this conflict is holier than thou. It helps them believe that they were a cog in the magnificent machine known as "Securing American freedoms" even though this war has only served to steal away American rights and make the world a more dangerous place.

And in the end, they both profess to show support. One supports the war, while the other supports the troops but not the war. In other words, one supports politicians making significant decisions that don't reflect the will of the people, while the other supports the lives of men who have been led to fight and die under false pretenses.

I think you were right, Tom! They're so similar that no one will probably know which one is which.

[Tom Yum]

You guys are like two heads on the same coin.

You've done similar things, forged from the same metal and are trying to make the world a better place....except that you guys face opposite directions.

[BoarSpear]

Purely an academic question, Boar. I just thought it was conspicuous that you would continually poke and prod at alleged (as in unproven and unverified) stories about how god-awful our troops conduct themselves. Especially in light of how "pro-troops" you proclaim yourself, and in light of how much effort you went to to find, edit, and re-post opposing views in an area that you admittedly either follow or care about.

Just seemed strange to me. That's all.

Yeah uhuh, you've done this little dance every time I posted about one of these, and every one has proven worse than I posted about...find me ONE that hasn't resulted in Convictions...I'm casting a light on an evident problem with leadership and training, this has too be addressed....LAST FUCKIN YEAR!! But NOOOO still it abounds...so yeah dammit I'm rubbing peoples noses in it!! Don't like it? Get involved in spreading the word, EMBARRASS the assholes in charge into acting, nothing else is gonna work....But by YOUR attitude Rapist arent the problem, its the people who report them...You really dont know how happy it makes me, you question MY character when I see yours.

[BoarSpear]

Out of curiosity, why is it that when you see a story about a tourist breaking a gunman's neck in the MMA forum, you immediately spend time and effort coming up with four or five opposing viewpoints that dispute the original story, but when you find a story about how US troops are allegedly doing something wrong, you can't wait to post it all by itself?

I've counted something like half a dozen "US troops and leaders are bad" threads by you in recent weeks, and not one of them offers up anything close to the kind of "opposing viewpoints" you devoted to the anti-MMA thread.

Hmmmmmm.....

Also, About 5 threads existed (with ZERO trolling) about the tourist before YOU started ANOTHER one (PURELY TROLLING) and called people names essentially picking a fight, then you whine and point fingers when you get a response...Why is that Mr Super moderator? Are all my post highlighting piss poor leadership while swaggering around throwing fuel on the fire hitting too close for comfort?

[BoarSpear]

Out of curiosity, why is it that when you see a story about a tourist breaking a gunman's neck in the MMA forum, you immediately spend time and effort coming up with four or five opposing viewpoints that dispute the original story, but when you find a story about how US troops are allegedly doing something wrong, you can't wait to post it all by itself?

I've counted something like half a dozen "US troops and leaders are bad" threads by you in recent weeks, and not one of them offers up anything close to the kind of "opposing viewpoints" you devoted to the anti-MMA thread.

Hmmmmmm.....

Welcome to the Digital Democracy...Bush's agenda is well covered by your posting....I choose to highlight the problems areas I see as needing addressing. Thought police for instance, piss me off.

[BoarSpear]

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. Marines fleeing a militant ambush Sunday opened fire on civilian cars and pedestrians on a busy highway in eastern Afghanistan, wounded Afghans said. Up to 16 people were killed and 34 wounded in the violence, officials said.

A suicide attacker detonated an explosives-filled minivan as the American convoy approached, then militant gunmen fired on the troops inside the vehicles, who returned fire, the U.S. military said.

As the Americans sped away, they treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker, said Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar. But Maj. William Mitchell, a U.S. military spokesman, said those killed and injured may have been shot by the militants.

More than a half dozen Afghans recuperating from bullet wounds told The Associated Press that the U.S. forces fired indiscriminately along at least a 10-kilometer (six-mile) stretch of one of eastern Afghanistan's busiest highways — a route often filled not only with cars and trucks but Afghans on foot and bicycles.

"They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15 vehicles passing on the highway," said Tur Gul, 38, who was standing on the roadside by a gas station and was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot."

The casualty tolls varied widely. The Interior Ministry said that 10 people were killed.

The U.S. military said eight civilians were killed and 35 wounded, after earlier saying 16 were killed and 24 wounded. It did not explain the revised, lower death toll, saying only that the new figures were "the most accurate numbers to date." A U.S. soldier was also injured. The incident was under investigation, the military said.

"We certainly believe it's possible that the incoming fire from the ambush was wholly or partly responsible for the civilian casualties," Mitchell said.

Nangarhar provincial health chief Ajmel Pardus said eight people were killed, including a woman and two boys, and 34 were wounded. Four of the wounded were in critical condition, he said.

Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said the chief of the Interior Ministry's criminal division would lead a delegation to Nangarhar province on Monday to investigate. Bashary said it appeared that gunfire from the U.S. soldiers caused most of the casualties.

The gunfire from Americans prompted angry demonstrations in the region — just 50 kilometers (30 miles) west of the Pakistan border. Hundreds of Afghans blocked the road and threw rocks at police, with some demonstrators shouting "Death to America! Death to Karzai," a reference to President Hamid Karzai.

At the Jalalabad hospital, several victims said the American convoy approached them on the highway and opened fire. As the convoy neared, many cars pulled over to the side of the road, but were still hit by gunfire.

"When we parked our vehicle, when they passed us, they opened fire on our vehicle," said 15-year-old Mohammad Ishaq, who was hit by two bullets, in his left arm and his right ear. "It was a convoy of three American Humvees. All three humvees were firing around."

Ahmed Najib, 23, lay in the next bed, hit by a bullet in his right shoulder.

"One American was in the first vehicle, shouting to stop on the side of the road, and we stopped. The first vehicle did not fire on us, but the second opened fire on our car," Najib said, adding that his 2-year-old brother was grazed by a bullet on his cheek. "I saw them turning and firing in this direction, then turning and firing in that direction. I even saw a farmer shot by the Americans."

NATO and U.S. forces are often accused of firing at Afghan civilians they fear may be about to launch an attack. Though officials say the shootings are done in self defense, they often injure or kill innocent civilians. On Dec. 3, British troops speeding away from a suicide bomb attack in Kandahar city opened fire on cars, killing one civilian and wounding six others.

U.S. forces near Sunday's bombing later deleted photos taken by a freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and video taken by a freelancer working for AP Television News. Neither the photographer nor the cameraman witnessed the suicide attack or the subsequent gunfire. It was not immediately known why the soldiers deleted the photos and videos. The U.S. military didn't immediately comment on the matter.

The freelance photographer, Rahmat Gul, said he took photos of a four-wheel drive vehicle where three Afghans had been shot to death inside.

An American soldier then took Gul's camera and deleted the photos. Gul said he later received permission to take photos from another soldier, but that the first soldier came back and angrily told him to delete the photos again. Gul said the soldier then raised his fist as if he was going to strike Gul.

The U.S. forces involved in the attack and ensuing gunfire were part of the U.S.-led coalition, not NATO's International Security Assistance Force. An official who asked not to be identified said the troops were Marine Special Forces.

A man claiming to speak for Hezb-e-Islami, a group he said is linked with the Taliban, claimed responsibility for the bombing and identified the attacker as an Afghan named Haji Ihsanullah in a telephone call to AP. The spokesman said that the attack was carried out by a breakaway faction of Hezb-e-Islami that was once led by Younis Khalis, a former mujahedeen commander who died last year. The group is now believed to be led by a son of Khalis.

The purported spokesman, who identified himself as Qari Sajjad, said the explosion "destroyed two vehicles, killing or injuring American soldiers." Sajjad said the attack was in revenge for "cruel acts" done to Afghans by U.S. forces.

Lt. Col. David Accetta, a coalition spokesman, said the attack demonstrated the militants' "blatant disregard for human life" by attacking forces in a populated area. NATO officials repeatedly say that suicide bombs aimed at international and Afghan forces kill far more civilians than soldiers.

In southern Afghanistan, meanwhile, two soldiers were killed during a combat operation Saturday, though NATO's International Security Assistance Force did not identify their nationalities or say where the violence happened.

Helmand province, where British troops operate, has seen a number of clashes the last several weeks. Canada also has soldiers in the south, in neighboring Kandahar province.
.................................................................

Where is the leadership, unit integrity and weapon control? This is EXACTLY how the bad guys wanted us to respond, hell they probably never dreamed it could turn out this well for them.