The Kill Team

[pongo]

How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: An exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon

 

Early last year, after six hard months soldiering in Afghanistan, a group of American infantrymen reached a momentous decision: It was finally time to kill a haji.

 

Among the men of Bravo Company, the notion of killing an Afghan civilian had been the subject of countless conversations, during lunchtime chats and late-night bull sessions. For weeks, they had weighed the ethics of bagging "savages" and debated the probability of getting caught. Some of them agonized over the idea; others were gung-ho from the start. But not long after the New Year, as winter descended on the arid plains of Kandahar Province, they agreed to stop talking and actually pull the trigger.

[Drivel]

I was reading about this at the weekend and it knocked me sick I tell you. What's also scandalous is that there has been very little reporting of it, particularly in the US. These 'soldiers' are a disgrace to the real heroes who put their lives on the line to protect innocents. Sadly this type of thing is cropping up more and more. I hope the scumbags rot.

 

We really shouldn't be interferng in these countries anyway. No good comes of it. The 'war' in Afghanastan was meant to be about getting rid of the Taliban but the new government has been paying Taliban members to come back on side! All those lives lost, and for what?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sadly this type of thing is cropping up more and more. I hope the scumbags rot.

It has happened often throughout history

 

We really shouldn't be interferng in these countries anyway. No good comes of it. The 'war' in Afghanastan was meant to be about getting rid of the Taliban but the new government has been paying Taliban members to come back on side! All those lives lost, and for what?

I think they realise now that the only way to resolve the issue is to not simply work to exterminating the Taliban, because they are not going away. The only way seems to be to have a dialogue with them. Members of the Afghan government have been wanting this for a long time, it has only been American and Britain opposition to it that has made come so late.

[pongo]

It certainly puts the equivalent failings of other regimes (eg Libya) in perspective and context.

 

@LDV you should watch the second episode of the series I linked to on the Libya thread for more on the relatively recent history of Afghanistan ( - and on the over hyping of radical Islam in general).

[P.K.]

I have to say I didn't bother reading any of it as I got the gist of it a while back.

 

Let's get real. War is about killing the enemy. It's not nice. Ideally you want to be able to massacre the enemy whilst not losing any of your own side. Unfortunately in places like Afghanistan the population are both civilians and Taliban i.e. they are one and the same. By the way, the Afghan civilians Taliban don't take prisoners.

 

Due to plea bargaining Morlock was sentenced to 'only' 24 years.

[pongo]

@PK - it is too simplistic to think in terms of Taliban as one single entity. It is doubly simplistic to assume that the entire population is somehow the enemy. Afghanistan, like everywhere, is much more complex and layered than that.

 

But you know that.

[P.K.]

I've just finished reading WAR by Sebastian Junger. He and a cameraman spent a year with a platoon based in OP Restrepo in the Korengal valley. All the Taliban jihadist graffiti sprayed on the rocks was not in Pashto, the local dialect, but in Arabic along with Pakistani cellphone numbers for Taliban recruitment. As the Yanks started to win the "hearts and minds" battle the Taliban responded by being even more brutal to the locals.

 

Then, despite all the blood that had been shed, the US withdrew from the Korengal and left the locals at the mercy of the Taliban. There is a dvd of the experience called "Restrepo" after the US medic who was killed there. Worth a look.

 

ETA

for the National Geographic documentary "Restrepo".

[midnight]

Thanks for highlighting this issue and bringing it to our attention!

 

Well yes sum of the images within the link are very seriously disturbing, sum horrific images in there! well there is a warning before you enter the site!

 

But I noticed within the report , which showed a photo of a soldier posing with a little child., this particularly disturbing paragraph , which made me go cold and sickened me!

 

At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets.

 

THESE ARE INCOCENT LITTLE CHILDREN FOR GOODNESS SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If consenting adults want to rage wars and actively seek to murder each other and attempt to justify there evil acts because they are “at war” then thats one thing, but to throw sweets to little kiddies and then shoot them dead is just.... well I can even find the words!!!!!!!!!! I just cant!!!!!

 

Monsters exist im afraid ,and that includes within the armed forces!

I don’t think psychopaths, who have an abnormal lack of empathy and compassion for others, combined with an immoral sense to cause hurt and pain ect, should be allowed to join the armed forces as they just seek to murder everyone! including innocent children!

 

But I think any country ie the USA, that has a “death penalty” (which is basically “legalized murder”) as part of there “justice” system are an un-civilised society and are long way back in evolutionary terms towards a world of peace .

Corpral justice cannot be justified all at!

 

This may explain certain things about the Americans!.

[spook]

I would never go to war because to do so would run counter to my being a Christian. For myself I would die for my beliefs. Our enemy would have it another way. He would say that I must die for HIS beliefs.

 

But while I would not engage in war by the same token I would not condemn the actions taken by people who do in order to protect me and allow me to live as a Christian. There is such a thing as a just war. Very few, but such things do exist.

 

As for this story the only surprise to me is how so many people today don't realise just what horror takes place in war, all war and by all sides to varying degrees, and especially so when one side couldn't even find Switzerland on a map much less comply with the Geneva conventions.

 

In this particular case the misbehaviour by a tiny number of people facing armies of uncivilised immoral sons of dogs who delight in such things as filming themselves decapitating prisoners, and then publishing those films, is only worth note because of them being amongst the very few examples of reprisals being taken by a very few.

 

To condemn the Americans because a foe is repaid coin with coin is utter hypocrisy, and as for atrocities conducted against civilians, that's a thing that takes place on all sides but sadly in this case only the very few by our enemies ever sees the light of publicity let alone the light of day.

 

What is worth note is not what is done, instead it is the reaction by the upper echelons wherein on the Western side of conflicts misbehaviour is rigorously investigated, and anyone found to have acted in what is viewed as an inappropriate manner is severely punished. This is especially worth note when what is done by the “other” side is actually lauded by their leaders.

 

If that was all it would be bad enough but it isn't. Using ones own kids as suicide bombers is infinitely worse than the admittedly rotten (if true) case of what must have been at least an isolated, or very nearly so, example of abuse by allied armed forces.

 

Or use of people from one's own side as human shields and in effect hiding behind the skirts of their womenfolk while making cowardly attacks against an enemy who they know will be reluctant to return fire for fear of killing apparent noncombatants.

 

There is a story here, but it's not a story about men doing a rotten job against rotten people. It's that war is hell and unless you don't get down and dirty against your enemy then he will see you off by getting down and dirty against you.

What is also sure is that the basic cowardice of terrorists will result in them being at least demotivated out of raw fear of knowing what fate awaits them, and that terrorists don't wear uniforms. There's a bitter “joke” that still does the rounds. “How do you change a murdering scum terrorist into a civilian? Kill him.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would never go to war because to do so would run counter to my being a Christian. For myself I would die for my beliefs. Our enemy would have it another way. He would say that I must die for HIS beliefs.

In respect of the Taliban, we made them our enemy.

 

But while I would not engage in war by the same token I would not condemn the actions taken by people who do in order to protect me and allow me to live as a Christian. There is such a thing as a just war. Very few, but such things do exist.

I don't disagree. Which ones are those?

 

 

 

 

To condemn the Americans because a foe is repaid coin with coin is utter hypocrisy

Is it? Aren't the Americans forces supposed to be representing the enlightened, democratic will of the American people?

 

...and as for atrocities conducted against civilians, that's a thing that takes place on all sides but sadly in this case only the very few by our enemies ever sees the light of publicity let alone the light of day.

Because there is no requirement to. They have already considered the enemy. We know what they get up to already. But we went to war against them, not the civilians.

In fact, not a great deal of attention is given to civilian deaths and welfare.

Most coverage focuses on the deaths and glory of British servicemen.

 

What is also sure is that the basic cowardice of terrorists will result in them being at least demotivated out of raw fear of knowing what fate awaits them, and that terrorists don't wear uniforms. There's a bitter “joke” that still does the rounds. “How do you change a murdering scum terrorist into a civilian? Kill him.

You claim to understand raw and clearly don't understand the type of war being faught, particularly as to why people use civilians as human shields.

Commenting on why terrorists don't wear uniforms and presuming they should shows your misunderstanding of what the war was about.

[spook]

In respect of the Taliban, we made them our enemy.

The forces of Islam started and have continued a war of colonisation against the Christianity (and against anything that was not Islamic for that matter) well over a thousand years ago. It is a war that can only have occasional armistices but never peace because their religion demands of them to impose Islam across the whole world.

Just wars? How about WW2? A war against pure evil, a war that was not started by us even though formally declared by us but one which had it not been fought would have seen Nazism and other forms of Fascism spread at least across Europe, us included.

 

The Americans are representing the Free World. This isn't a war of enlightenment, it is a war against darkness and in any war nice guys come second. Coming second in a war is not a good thing. What we see is that war taking place on a number of battlefields.

We know what they (sic. the enemy) get up to already. But we went to war against them, not the civilians. In fact, not a great deal of attention is given to civilian deaths and welfare.

Most coverage focuses on the deaths and glory of British servicemen.

For one thing you really should widen your choice of news sources, for another we have very little visibility of the atrocities that the enemy get up to, and such as we do is grossly out of proportion with the publicity of relatively minor misbehaviour by forces fighting against them. In addition to that is a civilian who supports a terrorist really a civilian? Or is he part of the machinery of terrorism and therefore a legitimate target?

You claim to understand raw and clearly don't understand the type of war being faught, particularly as to why people use civilians as human shields.

 

I understand that the war being fought is bound to fail because the people that are intended to be able to live in a democratic world simply don't want to live in a democratic world as we know it. I also know that using human shields is disgusting, especially when it's people from ones own side,

 

Commenting on why terrorists don't wear uniforms and presuming they should shows your misunderstanding of what the war was about.

 

Terrorists don't wear uniforms because they are terrorists. It also allows the creation of propaganda because the moment a terrorist is killed or injured he, or she, so often immediately becomes a civilian.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Terrorists don't wear uniforms because they are terrorists. It also allows the creation of propaganda because the moment a terrorist is killed or injured he, or she, so often immediately becomes a civilian.

 

As mental as spook is, he does have a point.

 

Have you noticed when ever a target is attacked not matter what it was (missile silo, command bunker, etc) less than 20 minutes later there is footage of people carrying mangled children out of the ruins and wailing women waving pictures around of the supposed lost.

 

Either the enemy has surrounded military target with civilians as human shields or they have put on a bloody good show for the camera.

 

By the way, do those wailing women always carry around a portait sized picture of all their loved ones in case Bob, or Billy or Fredo gets bombed?

[pongo]

More likely the target never was a missile silo or a command bunker.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The forces of Islam started and have continued a war of colonisation against the Christianity (and against anything that was not Islamic for that matter) well over a thousand years ago. It is a war that can only have occasional armistices but never peace because their religion demands of them to impose Islam across the whole world.

And the connection with the Taliban? Not aware that they were planning on colonisation.

 

The Americans are representing the Free World. This isn't a war of enlightenment, it is a war against darkness and in any war nice guys come second. Coming second in a war is not a good thing. What we see is that war taking place on a number of battlefields.

And all you to go off is the Afghanistan war in making your conclusion that there is an overall conflict against Islam?

 

For one thing you really should widen your choice of news sources, for another we have very little visibility of the atrocities that the enemy get up to, and such as we do is grossly out of proportion with the publicity of relatively minor misbehaviour by forces fighting against them.

But we don't visibility. You seem to think that atrocities committed by the Taliban need to be emphasised to make the actions of those who fight on behalf of the free world acceptable.

 

In addition to that is a civilian who supports a terrorist really a civilian? Or is he part of the machinery of terrorism and therefore a legitimate target?

The machinery of terrorism? Never heard of that term before. Do explain.

 

I understand that the war being fought is bound to fail because the people that are intended to be able to live in a democratic world simply don't want to live in a democratic world as we know it.

Maybe they don't. It is hardly a perfect system and is specific to western societies where liberalism, individualism, and capitalism are far stronger.

 

I also know that using human shields is disgusting, especially when it's people from ones own side,

Yes, but you don't seem to understand why it is being done.

 

Terrorists don't wear uniforms because they are terrorists. It also allows the creation of propaganda because the moment a terrorist is killed or injured he, or she, so often immediately becomes a civilian.

No, it is primarily because it is a more effective war of fighting against their enemy. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with not wearing uniforms.

 

If a country declared war on another, the people of the attacked country need not feel obliged to don a uniform in order to fight back, if they are on the weaker side.

[spook]

And the connection with the Taliban? Not aware that they were planning on colonisation.

 

Do you actually understand what Taliban means and what the Taliban are members actually are? Maybe if you did you would begin to understand a bit better what is taking place.

 

And all you to go off is the Afghanistan war in making your conclusion that there is an overall conflict against Islam?

 

Close but not close enough. There is a Jihad against those of us who are not Muslims. There has been for over a millennium. From time to time it flares up. History doesn't seem to be a strong point of your education.

 

But we don't visibility. You seem to think that atrocities committed by the Taliban need to be emphasised to make the actions of those who fight on behalf of the free world acceptable.

 

Not emphasised, simply publicised to the same extent. However if such was to happen then our newspapers would need to be many times the size they are in order to present the atrocities giving equal column inch to each atrocity if all the dreadful acts perpetrated by our enemies.

 

The machinery of terrorism? Never heard of that term before. Do explain.

 

Does it really need explanation? It includes logistics, provision of comfort for the actual protagonists, support, harbouring, clothing and feeding, encouragement, fund raising, and even putting oneself in harms way either as shield or as a propaganda tool to be used by the terrorist group to change the perception of what is taking place in order to gain undeserved kudos in the outside world.

 

(sic. Human shields) Yes, but you don't seem to understand why it is being done.

 

I believe that I do, but why don't you let us know why YOU think it's being done?

 

No, it is primarily because it is a more effective war of fighting against their enemy. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with not wearing uniforms.

 

When confronting a military force under military discipline and who are further constrained in their action by rules of engagement as well as conventions of warfare there is everything wrong with it. It is the conduct of cowards.