US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17330205

 

A US soldier in Afghanistan opened fire on civilians after walking off his base in the southern province of Kandahar.

 

Provincial governor Tooryalai Weesa told the BBC 10 people had died and five were wounded in the shooting.

The soldier is reported to have suffered a nervous breakdown before the attack. He has since surrended himself to the US military authorities.

 

Nato said US and Afghan officials were working together to investigate the "deeply regrettable incident".

Local tribal leaders said women, children and men were among the dead in Panjwai district.

 

Protests over the attack have broken out in Panjwai district, and travel to the area should be avoided, the US embassy in Kabul has said.

High tensions

 

The soldier walked off the base at around 03:00 after suffering what has been described as a nervous breakdown, our correspondent says.

He then opened fire on civilians before handing himself over to the US military authorities.

 

The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said in a statement that US officials in Afghanistan would work with their Afghan counterparts to investigate what happened.

 

"This is a deeply regrettable incident and we extend our thoughts and concerns to the families involved," Isaf added.

 

The incident comes as anti-American sentiment runs high in Afghanistan following the burning of copies of the Koran by US soldiers at a Nato base last month.

 

US officials apologised, but the incident sparked a series of protests and attacks that killed at least 30 people and six US troops.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am disgusted by this piece of so-called "journalism".... I've heard of "embedded" journalism, but this is more "in bed with the military" journalism... Twice in this report, there is reference made to a "nervous breakdown", but nowhere is either the source for this claim offered, nor is there any kind of expert evidence to back this claim up, all we get is some vague reference to a "correspondent". Why is it even mentioned..? I think it's pretty obvious, it is a deliberate attempt to play down this incident and garner sympathy for the military rather than us react with the requisite horror that an incident like this should provoke. I mean, we all saw what happened in Utoya last year, how is this essentially any different..? Both involve what are likely mentally disturbed individuals with guns killing innocent people. Bottom line.

 

That is the truth, and that is how this incident should be reported, saying someone has a "nervous breakdown" is obviously put in to invoke sympathy for the perpetrator of the offence, the words are clearly chosen in that way as opposed to saying something like "mentally disturbed" or "mentally unbalanced", if THOSE words are chosen, then we're likely to feel significantly less sympathy for the person... Saying someone had a "nervous breakdown" is designed clearly to create some kind of defence, we think "oh, he had a nervous breakdown, poor guy, he'd never have done that normally".

 

Anyone else committing an offence like this would be described as a "nutter" or a "maniac" by the media. Yes, soldiers are under pressure, but ordinary people can snap under certain circumstances too, what makes their mental problems worthy of more sympathy than anyone else's...

 

One could argue that this is "sloppy journalism", but I dont think it is. I think it's deliberate, I dont for one minute believe these very smart and intelligent individuals who work at the BBC and who have degrees coming out of their ears are in any way committing "sloppy journalism", I think they're committing propaganda. They know exactly what they're doing and they know how this could play out.... This is BAD journalism, not "sloppy", it's just plain BAD, and not only that, by not treating this incident with the requisite gravity it means that you're direclty playing into the hands of muslim extremists who now have even more ammunition to say that the West are murderers and dont care about muslims being killed by the military.....

 

But this is in my humble opinion of course....

...And to add insult to to this disgusting war crime, the suspect of this massacre is now back in the US to face trial there and not in Afghanistan where he alledgedly committed his offences....

 

 

Hey, America, give us back Richard O' Dwyer then... You bast*rds..... <_<

 

Who wants to bet that this creep will spend less time in prison and get a far speedier trial than Bradley Manning....?

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the article. BBC have access to sources you don't Grimly. No reason to assume that they're trying to garner sympathy for this murderer, just reporting the facts. The 'deeply regrettable incident' quote is not even the BBC's own words. Why must you take such issue with absolutely everything?

 

And he should get a trial in the US. What he did was awful but he was probably of sound mind when he went into the military. Some people can't fully process all the atrocities they witness at war. Maybe they should be looking at why nobody had observed or done anything about his state of mind prior to the meltdown. They have a duty of care to these men after all. He's going to have to live with this for the rest of his life, there won't be a day he doesn't wake up or go to sleep thinking about the terrible thing he did, so whatever his punishment he at least deserves to be given it by the country who drove him to this.

 

He doesn't deserve to be called a 'creep' by somebody who neither knows him nor any of the facts beyond the basics reported, but I guess you need a cause right Grimly?

 

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the article. BBC have access to sources you don't Grimly. No reason to assume that they're trying to garner sympathy for this murderer, just reporting the facts. The 'deeply regrettable incident' quote is not even the BBC's own words. Why must you take such issue with absolutely everything?

 

And he should get a trial in the US. What he did was awful but he was probably of sound mind when he went into the military. Some people can't fully process all the atrocities they witness at war. Maybe they should be looking at why nobody had observed or done anything about his state of mind prior to the meltdown. They have a duty of care to these men after all. He's going to have to live with this for the rest of his life, there won't be a day he doesn't wake up or go to sleep thinking about the terrible thing he did, so whatever his punishment he at least deserves to be given it by the country who drove him to this.

 

He doesn't deserve to be called a 'creep' by somebody who neither knows him nor any of the facts beyond the basics reported, but I guess you need a cause right Grimly?

 

 

I guess you'll have just as much sympathy for the psycho currently gunning down Jewish schoolkids in Toulouse presumably...

 

Do you actually imagine any of these questions will be looked into by a CLOSED Military Tribunal. Christ, you're naive. Look at Abu Ghraib, yeah, apparently that was all down to a couple of low-level grunts. Case Closed...

 

If not Afghanistan, how about The Hague War-crimes Tribunal? If it's good enough for former heads of state, it's good enough for a bloody Army Sergeant...

 

You can logically argue that suicide bombers are also "not in their right mind".. After all, it does take quite a considerable amount of brainwashing, coercion and manipulation on the part of charsimatic "religious leaders" in order to convince intelligent, well educated young men (which a LOT of these suicide bombers actually are. FACT) to strap a kilo of C4 to themselves and detonate it on a tube or a bus. So, who's really responsible for that then..? I mean, I assume you wouldn't be suggesting that we just let one of these brainwashed sods off with a slap on the wrist and a visit from a social worker should we actually manage to catch one whose bomb doesn't work....

Where did I say he shouldn't be punished? If you're twisting my words I can only assume it's because you recognise that I make a valid point.

 

Your ranting and raving is the reason so many people can't be arsed to use perspectives anymore Grimly. You simply are not open to opposing viewpoints. It's very dreary.

 

Since this incident there has rightfully been a considerable amount of shock at the distinct lack of psych evals that the US do for their recruits. We do a proper in depth evaluation to determine if you can cope with the atrocities of war where as the American's ask 'have you ever had counselling' and that's your lot. It's why the PTSD rates are higher in the states and why you rarely hear of incidents like this involving British troops.

Where did I say he shouldn't be punished? If you're twisting my words I can only assume it's because you recognise that I make a valid point.

 

Your ranting and raving is the reason so many people can't be arsed to use perspectives anymore Grimly. You simply are not open to opposing viewpoints. It's very dreary.

 

 

You dont have a "viewpoint" though... You're making excuses for war-crimes, and IF there are mitigating circumstances then it's up to an open and transparent war-crimes tribunal to decide what those are..... ALL soldiers see really bad shit happen - my cousin saw three of his mates die in front of him in Iraq - they dont all do stuff like this, end of story...

 

I notice you dont even bother to address the point I made about a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.... My main objection is to the fact that he's back in America. That simply is not good enough, now I still dont really see why he cant be held for trial in and Afghan court, but I can accept a war-crimes hearing at The Hague, because it's a neutral venue and it's an acceptable compromise, although, clearly not to the Americans... The Americans looking after their own while they demand other give up their people to the mercy of the US court system in incredibly one-sided extradition deals... How about you address THAT point....? And specifically the point about Richard O' Dwyer... Quite frankly, I think that not only should we be demanding a re-negotiation of that treaty, we should also be demanding that ALL US service personnel suspected of war crimes should be subject to proceedings in The Hague.. And if this is not complied with, then UK should pull all troops out of Afghanistan. With immediate effect. Why should OUR troops be put in greater danger than they already are due to the fury and outrage that the Afghan people are feeling over this (and this is just one in a series of incidents that the Americans have been responsible for, this is hardly "winning hearts and minds"), which has already translated into one assassination attempt on a US politician.

 

And all the while this guy's being shown all the understanding, Bradley Manning has been held, without trial, tortured, beaten and humiliated for blowing the whistle on US war atrocities in Iraq..... Absolutely f**king disgraceful....

 

When are we going to wake up and realise that "Humanitarian Intervention" doesn't work and is an utter farce and oxymoron....?

When are we going to wake up and realise that "Humanitarian Intervention" doesn't work and is an utter farce and oxymoron....?

Tell that to Kosovo, then tell that to Rwanda.

While the bloodshed in Kosovo has long since stopped it's still in political no man's land and hasn't really made much if any progress since they first exerted their independence.

Far better than a genocidal husk...there's not much room for it to go further on their own terms. There's no reason Serbia has to accept it as independent, and it has practical self-governance which is more than enough for Kosovo's own aims.

While the bloodshed in Kosovo has long since stopped it's still in political no man's land and hasn't really made much if any progress since they first exerted their independence.

 

Precisely, the intervention has certainly not had the desired effect in Kosovo, not only that, violent flashpoints between Kosovan Serbs and Albanians still occur, there were reports on Russia Today last year of Serb civilians being targetted by Albanians... Naturally, this was not covered on any Western news agency, because then the West would have to admit that Kosovo is far from being the success story that UN and NATO have made it out to be...

I'd still say it's better than what could have happened. Conflict still occurs, yes, but it's irregular and Kosovo is largely self-governed and self-determined. I don't think it's any argument to say intervention doesn't work merely because the results aren't perfect - they merely need to be better than the alternative.

I'd still say it's better than what could have happened. Conflict still occurs, yes, but it's irregular and Kosovo is largely self-governed and self-determined. I don't think it's any argument to say intervention doesn't work merely because the results aren't perfect - they merely need to be better than the alternative.

 

But what right did NATO have to interfere in an internal Serbian matter..? It's all very easy to paint the Serbs as the comedy villains of the Former Yugoslavia, but the truth is far less comfortable and far more complicated than the "official" narrative of the NATO and the US.... For a start, many wanted Kosovan war-criminals and gangsters are now in positions of power in Kosovo... This is hardly a shining example of Humanitarian Intervention... If this is the best that Humanitarian Intervention has to offer as an example, then I'm afraid it's still a fail, IMO...

Russia Today's Alyona Minkovski actually talks about the 16 victims and gives them names... Something the Mainstream media certainly hasn't bothered itself to do, they just seem to be content to pore over every minute detail of the alledged killer and psychoanalyze him to death....