A rogue US soldier has shot dead 16 Afghan civilians

cosmos55 · 12 Mar 2012 at 14:39

nasty

realBabelfish · 12 Mar 2012 at 14:53

Robbo said:
There are always going to be loose cannons in any armed forces.

I don't see why this is being used a reflection on America when it's a lone gunman who had obviously lost the plot.

Not that the above will matter for the 'retaliatory' attacks though.

Absolutely ridiculous. Haha!

where have you been living? this is a propaganda war. the USA just shot themselves in the foot. that guy will most likely be responsible for many UK and US soldiers been attacked and killed.

all people over there will see is US man shoots 16 unarmed civilians.

realBabelfish · 12 Mar 2012 at 15:05

Dinomania said:
Yes, I think the US went over in direct response to the 9/11 attacks and hence were seeking out Al Qaeda, but removing the Taliban was also one of the priorities of the mission.

It certainly would be nice if Afghan women didn't live in a world where their fingers are chopped off if they're found wearing varnish, where they're unable to access education, where they cannot report rape or violence toward them without being accused of adultery and punished.

The Taliban also massacred its own civilians - we're not talking simple women's rights here, but an awful, awful regime. Which is coming back.

something i dont get is that the Afghans are a strong race. UK, USA, Russia and many in the past have all tried to take control there are all failed. some worse than others. they dont take **** from anyone. YET. they allow the bloody taliban to rule their lives and make their lives worse than USA/russia ever would have done. i just dont get it. its like they are strong and resilient against westerners (and soviets) yet utter pussies to the taliban... very odd

dave1983 · 12 Mar 2012 at 15:05

the Question is would this cause another taliban uprising?

We have just given them an opportunity to create another war, not only that will locals join the al-queda to seek revenge?

Fran · 12 Mar 2012 at 21:24

Justintime said:
Yea poor fella, he only killed 16 worthless mud people right?

Well yes, I'm assuming that he's had a breakdown and is therefore not responsible.
A situation our society will allow for, and an Afghanistan revenge trial probably wouldn't.

int · 12 Mar 2012 at 22:01

As far as I'm aware, the US and Afghanistan have an agreement stating that any US soldiers/personnel committing crimes in Afghanistan will be tried in the US. That being said, I also believe the Afghan government have demanded this man is tried in Afghanistan...

Also, to the person who believes this is a war for rare earth materials - I'm fairly sure those materials were discovered some time last year (or 2010), not 2001. Additionally, the Chinese are actually in a better position to buy up these resources.

Ahleckz · 12 Mar 2012 at 22:05

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17343409

It doesn't say what it says, but I'm sick to death of people being charged for saying things on Facebook.

Xordium · 12 Mar 2012 at 22:43

Ahleckz said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17343409

It doesn't say what it says, but I'm sick to death of people being charged for saying things on Facebook.

When will we get our first OcUK post arrest?

T00thBru5h · 12 Mar 2012 at 22:52

Bad day at work...

"andy" · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:26

dave1983 said:
the Question is would this cause another taliban uprising?

We have just given them an opportunity to create another war, not only that will locals join the al-queda to seek revenge?

i don't think the locals would go off joining the taliban (who i believe are mostly gone anyway) as they dislike them too but i can't imagine they will be doing the coalition forces any favours like they often do and would be more just 'leaving them to kill each other'

Tefal · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:37

RadoX said:
If your in a base with no need to immediately use your weapon within seconds what's the problem with my idea ? you could come under attack and then the person from your squad could literally press a button and unlock all ammo cabinets. giving you about 5 seconds without ammo.

Also how did this guy manage to leave with a loaded weapon ? Surely someone would have asked him what the hell he was doing.

they carry live ammo on them when on exercise in this country let alone an active war zone.

But locking the ammo in one big crate in the sleeping quarters doesn't sound smart, what happens if it gets hit?

Or the lock jams?

Tefal · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:38

Ahleckz said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17343409

It doesn't say what it says, but I'm sick to death of people being charged for saying things on Facebook.

Azhar Ahmed, 19, of Fir Avenue, Ravensthorpe, faces a racially aggravated public order charge.

Guess it's not just white people who get those though.

Iraklis F.C. · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:41

how did he got away from the psychological tests i assume the US undergoes? his mates didnt report strange behaviour? One simply does not wake up on a morning and goes on a rampage...

Tefal · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:48

Iraklis F.C. said:
how did he got away from the psychological tests i assume the US undergoes? his mates didnt report strange behaviour? One simply does not wake up on a morning and goes on a rampage...

ask that to all the school shootings and random killings in the world.

people can act very normally before they finally snap.

Also when he was tested he will have been normal.

Iraklis F.C. · 12 Mar 2012 at 23:51

Tefal said:
ask that to all the school shootings and random killings in the world.

people can act very normally before they finally snap.

Also when he was tested he will have been normal.

some people yes, but most of them show signs of insanity, isolation etc before they shoot 20 people.

drunkenmaster · 13 Mar 2012 at 01:01

One rogue soldier kills 16 civilians and the world is up in arms...... two rogue nations kill 10,000's of iraq civilians and SOLDIERS PROTECTING THEIR OWN COUNTRY FROM INVASION...... not many people seem to give a damn.

Hmm, wiki pens the rough death toll at 162,000 civilian and combatant deaths, of which 105,000 to 112,000 are counted as violent civilian deaths.

THe vast majority of people aren't going to join the taliban or oppose US/uk in iraq over 16 deaths of innocent people, the 100k+ innocent people who are dead carry a touch more weight.

We're ruining millions of lives, both innocent iraq civilians, innocent iraq soldiers(guilty ones as well but do we consider English lives lost in WW2 defending from the Germans bad people, no, of course not), and thousands, tens of thousands of uk/us soldiers and their families lives as well.

If we weren't there, the soldier would not have killed 16 MORE innocent people.

Tefal · 13 Mar 2012 at 01:06

drunkenmaster said:
One rogue soldier kills 16 civilians and the world is up in arms...... two rogue nations kill 10,000's of iraq civilians and SOLDIERS PROTECTING THEIR OWN COUNTRY FROM INVASION...... not many people seem to give a damn.

Hmm, wiki pens the rough death toll at 162,000 civilian and combatant deaths, of which 105,000 to 112,000 are counted as violent civilian deaths.

So in total we've killed fewer people than the dictator we removed?

Seems like like in the long run the right decision was made if you want to base it on pure numbers.

Mr Krugga · 13 Mar 2012 at 01:21

RadoX said:
You would have ammo in seconds as the people tasked to guarding it would allow you to use it. Or better still let everyone have ammo and just have 2 people watching the room there sleeping in. Simply no need for things like this to happen if the a correct protocol is put into practice.

You clearly are a military expert.

If only we could vote on the internet for future army generals...

albert said:
Look at all the American Friendly fire incidents that's happened ... were they ever tried for killing our boys?

How is that even remotely relevant?

The guy is a cold blooded murderer from what the media report, rounding up civilians and shooting them in the head "execution style", not having any regard for sex or age of his victims, he's clearly a nutcase however you look at it.

Friendly fire is an entirely different thing.

drunkenmaster · 13 Mar 2012 at 01:51

Tefal said:
So in total we've killed fewer people than the dictator we removed?

Seems like like in the long run the right decision was made if you want to base it on pure numbers.

It's not, MANY of those deaths are attributed to the lawlessness created by removing the government, and those deaths will pretty much keep on going.

We could have assasinated Hussein pretty damn easily, i'm 100% sure of that. We didn't want Hussein dead... we wanted access to what is there, nothing more or less.

So we could have gotten rid of said dictator with few/no casulties, and done the same to any similarly awful follow up dictator till one wasn't torturing his own people.

The 150k+ who have died are the cost of two countries illegally going to war to obtain access to resources, nothing less.

Or do we really believe in this day and age, we can't get a real time location on a Hussein, yeah much harder to find him AFTER we go to war and he's in hiding, when he's relatively out and about, making speeches, etc. I'd support removing ANY evil dictator, for that reason and that reason alone, with that as a sole goal of the action and biding time till you know his location and go with ONE precision strike.

Going after a country to take out one man is frankly entirely not needed, not welcomed by the people, and a very very poor excuse for why we were really there.

I should add, I support taking out any evil dictator when the people of the country overwhelmingly support it. Right outcome long term with the wrong goal and one that could have been achieved with a massively lower body count is still the wrong choice.

If I knew there was a rapist who escaped into a block of flats, and he lived there but I didn't know who it was but they were so violent and evil, putting everyone in that building in jail I WOULD jail the rapist....... it doesn't make it the right choice.

Tefal · 13 Mar 2012 at 01:59

drunkenmaster said:
It's not, MANY of those deaths are attributed to the lawlessness created by removing the government, and those deaths will pretty much keep on going.

well if you're sticking with the 160k figure it's far less than he got though.

and also no if you assassinate him his sons take over, you have to actually change the government not just kill the top guy.