Execution of 3000 Taliban in 11/2001 covered up by US in Afghanistan

3000 Afghans, suspected of association with the Taliban, were killed by Afghan Warlords operating under the direction of the US, and burried in shalow graves.

Does the US owe an explantion of these events? An Apology?

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people would require a better explanation.

30% of Afghans answered opinion polls that they supported military action against US soldiers.

The Patraeus manuel on fighting an insurgency wouild not recommend leaving thse charges uninvestigated, and covered up.



Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - by Christopher Deliso

Gladiator said:

3000 Afghans, suspected of association with the Taliban, were killed by Afghan Warlords operating under the direction of the US, and burried in shalow graves.

Does the US owe an explantion of these events? An Apology?

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people would require a better explanation.

30% of Afghans answered opinion polls that they supported military action against US soldiers.

The Patraeus manuel on fighting an insurgency wouild not recommend leaving thse charges uninvestigated, and covered up.



Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - by Christopher Deliso

Click to expand...

* "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 51)

Samuel Huntington

Click to expand...

Are you a non-Westerner?

In November 2001, there were very, very few American soldiers in Afghanistan. Almost all of the Americans in country at that time were CIA para-military operatives. A few SF (about 40, IIRC) were in-country, but not very many. There have been a couple of very good documentary books written on this period, including "Jawbreaker." Look them up and examine Dostum's role, examine the role of US personnel (both CIA and SF). Maza-I-Sharif is discussed extensively.

Notice that the date of the article you cited is 2004? What has happened with respect to these allegations since then? Nothing that I know of. Do you know of anything more recent? Unless you can come up with something more substantive, something with some corroboration from someone without an anti-US axe to grind, your cite appears to be another attempt to excite and manufacture anti-US feeling by exaggeration and hyperbole.

Dear bh kad,

I try to keep an open mind, I try to view the situation from all ides. If the Afghan Massacre movie is being distributed to the East, it seems to me that the West would do well to have some explanation or attonement.

If the West is intersted in improved relations with the people in Afghanistan, it seems that some response is in order.

Some people posting on the Debate Forum wish only to see one side or the other, East or West. I am more intersted in solutions, rather than sides.

I looked for thread titles covering this issue and did not find any.

.

General Afgans hate the taliban.I dont know how accurate the data is but why do people always attack at their own weaknesses its like "you people treat all muslims the same" and then when something bad happens to psycho taliban members you make the accusation it insults all muslims.

Dear Mik Hail,

Here is the article on the survey of Afghans in 2005 that think attacks on Western Military are justified:

ABC News: 2005 Poll: Four Years After the Fall of the Taliban, Afghans Optimistic About the Future

I am sure if you did a poll of Adfghans on whether they ever heard of the execution of 3000 suspected Taliban in Nov 2001, you would get a fairly high percentage. If the US thinks that sweeping this Massacre incident under the rug is the way to handle the situation, they have not read the Patraeus manual.


.

Gladiator said:

If the US thinks that sweeping this Massacre incident under the rug is the way to handle the situation, they have not read the Patraeus manual.

Click to expand...

The allegations of "sweeping this incident under the rug" are totally inconsistent with the accounts detailed in "Jawbreaker" and "First In". Both are first-person accounts written by CIA para-military operators who were the very first Americans into Afghanistan in 2001 (Gary Berntsen and Gary Schroen, respectively). IIRC, other than a handful attached to and under the direct supervision of the CIA operators, there were no Special Forces in the northern part of the country at this time, though a few A teams were in southern Afghanistan. Neither Berntsen nor Schroen covers up anything. Both provide eye-witness accounts of action in and around Maza-I-Sharif. You will find their accounts and descriptions of their relationship with Dostum and the Northern Alliance commanders quite interesting.

To your credit, you seem to be very willing to engage in research on topics that interest you. Before accepting the account of those with a demonstrated antipathy toward the US at face value on this matter, you really should do a little more reading on it, as you appear to have done on other topics.

Dear Old Reliable,

I found a few video clips on the Afghan Massacre movie. The eye witnesses describe only a few US military were involved, but they were in conference with the the Warlords who were commanding the Afgan fighters, working for the US interests.

The incident in the Road to Guantanamo movie was described as less than 3000 dead, maybe becuase they only showed in the Road movie what the Three witnesses saw, from their experience. The Afghan Massacre movie is a similar story though, prisoners were being transported in trucks with limited ventillation, and the US paid Afghan fighters fired bullets into the upper sections of the container trucks, to provide ventillation through the bullet holes, for the prisoners.

What attonement has been provided by the US? A Monument? Compensation to the families of hte dead?

My research is sporadic, and mostly limited to what I get from the Web. I can see about getting the books from a library. It seems that the US should be more aware of public realtions, which was probably given short shrift under Rumsfeld. I searched the Pentagon Website, and found no public relations stories of the incident.

I think this incident warrants more than a few lines in a book on memoirs.

Here is a link to a DP Thread discussion of the movie ROAD TO GUANTANAMO


http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/11875-road-guantanamo.html

If the US wants lesss than 30% of the afghans wishng them death, then the US should probably come up with a better, Public explanation, even if these are exagerated rumors.


.

Gladiator said:

3000 Afghans, suspected of association with the Taliban, were killed by Afghan Warlords operating under the direction of the US, and burried in shalow graves.

Does the US owe an explantion of these events? An Apology?

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people would require a better explanation.

30% of Afghans answered opinion polls that they supported military action against US soldiers.

The Patraeus manuel on fighting an insurgency wouild not recommend leaving thse charges uninvestigated, and covered up.



Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - by Christopher Deliso

Click to expand...

Even if the story is true which sadly I'm sure it isn’t. Only 3000?
Must have been a slow day…

Well this isn't very glorious, but you say they were killed by local warlords, not by US soldiers.

Why would we cover it up when it was what we went there to do ?

I am only upset by your story in that 3000 seems too few.

If you even say "Taliban" I am ok with a U.S. Soldier putting a round through you. I do not really care how deep he buries this garbage either.

Gladiator said:

The eye witnesses describe only a few US military were involved, but they were in conference with the the Warlords who were commanding the Afgan fighters, working for the US interests.

Click to expand...

It seems there is a very basic misconception here: "working for the US interests" is at most, only partly correct. The Taliban had been warring against the Islamic State of Afghanistan forces since the defeat and subsequent withdrawal of the Russians. After the defeat of the Russians, the new Islamic gov't came under attack by the Taliban, who basically felt that the new Islamic gov't was not sufficiently fundamentally Islamic. After the Taliban took Kabul and ousted the gov't forces, which had themselves been fighting each other, thus helping ease the Taliban's task, various of these muj groups, then united to quit fighting against each other and to oppose the Taliban. Though still pretty fragmented and operating with scavenged and abandoned Russian equipment, the charismatic leadership of Defense Minister Ahmed Shah Massoud made them a formidable force, referred to by western media as the Northern Alliance.

Note that, during this period of time, many countries still recognized the Islamic gov't ousted by the Taliban as the legitimate gov't of Afghanistan, even though it only controlled about 25- 30% of the country, while a few Islamic-dominated countries recognized the Taliban gov't.

The US role was never to command or direct the activities of the Northern Alliance per se. Even if we had wanted to do that, it was logistically impossible. More importantly, the muj warlords were way too independent and tribal to cede command. Rather, prior to 9/11, we sporadically funded their acquisition of arms and supplies, sometimes working directly with them, sometimes working through the Pakistani ISI. After 9/11, when we initiated our actions against the Taliban, we provided increased logistical support and direct air support directed by CIA paramilitary operators and a few SF teams. It is not correct, according to all that I have read, to say that the US commanded or directed the Northern Alliance forces. We helped with logisitics, coordination and planning and air power (which made all the difference), but did not command any indigenous forces. In fact, as witness the events around Tora Bora, the warlords often ignored US advice, reneged on agreements with both the US and each other, and did what they wanted to do, regardless.

Indeed, it was our decision to not put troops on the ground and to continue to rely on the Afghan warlords, that permitted OBL to escape Tora Bora.

Your descriptions leave me with the impression that the "Afghan Massacre movie" is nothing more than a Micheal Moore-ish attempt to propagandize an event for which the US bore no responsibility. It appears to me, based on what I've learned thus far, that the US has absolutely nothing for which to atone.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

oldreliable67 said:

the US has absolutely nothing for which to atone.

Click to expand...

Many in the US probably share your "Absolutely" Blamless opinion. The Muslim world is also an opinion pool upon which success by the West in the Middle East is dependant.

What would be wrong with the US saying something like, "This was a regrettable incident, and the US was involved in a minimal manner, but did not have command and control capabilities or powers. Yet because the US was involved in an expanding support role, in the mistreatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan, after 9-11, the US wishes to make attonement for the incident, and the US proposes to build a monument to the men who died as prisoners of war in the Afghan conflict in November of 2001."


How much could a monument cost?




.

Gladiator said:

Many in the US probably share your "Absolutely" Blamless opinion. The Muslim world is also an opinion pool upon which success by the West in the Middle East is dependant.

Click to expand...

Have any former Northern Alliance warlords such as Dostum apologized for excesses that occured under their command in 2001?

Gladiator said:

What would be wrong with the US saying something like, "This was a regrettable incident, and the US was involved in a minimal manner, but did not have command and control capabilities or powers. yet because the US was involved in an expanding support role, in the mistreatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan, after 9-11, the US wishes to make attonement for the incident, and the US proposes to build a monument to the men who died as prisoners of war in the Afghan conflict in November of 2001." How much could a monument cost?

Click to expand...

It is now 2007 and the Taliban are still involved in killing US and NATO soldiers. Atonement? Your suggestion is ludicrous and insulting.

You'll get not a penny for any Taliban memorial from me.

OldReliable's points through this thread are outstanding. A high quality debate job, if you ask me.

And to the point - of course, nobody involved in anything is blameless. The question becomes whether the actions taken by the US in this case were egregious enough to warrant an out of character apology (or even acknowledgment) that in truth would probably hurt our image rather than help. I think the answer is no.

Gladiator said:

Many in the US probably share your "Absolutely" Blamless opinion. The Muslim world is also an opinion pool upon which success by the West in the Middle East is dependant.

What would be wrong with the US saying something like, "This was a regrettable incident, and the US was involved in a minimal manner, but did not have command and control capabilities or powers. Yet because the US was involved in an expanding support role, in the mistreatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan, after 9-11, the US wishes to make attonement for the incident, and the US proposes to build a monument to the men who died as prisoners of war in the Afghan conflict in November of 2001."


How much could a monument cost?

Click to expand...

Cost would be the very least of any consideration.

First, what would be the point? We have nothing for which to atone. Period. End of story.

Second, no matter what the inscription, no matter what the explanation, no matter what the discourse surrounding it, any such effort would be interpreted as an admission of guilt and thereby fulfill the most fervent wishes of those who initiated this propaganda piece.

Thirdly, if you want to influence a "Muslim world [which] is also an opinion pool upon which success by the West in the Middle East is dependant," this would most certainly be counterproductive. You seem to be fan of the COIN manual; while I haven't read the latest edition of that manual, I doubt you'll find such as this in it.

Finally, if you want atonement, seek atonement from those responsible for those that the Taliban publicly stoned and/or shot to death in the name of religion. Remember that video of executions in the soccer stadium? Incontrovertible, no doubt about it, evidence of brutality and oppression. Refresh your memory here. Be sure and watch all the way through, so you don't miss the interview with the Taliban official who rejoices in the public executions in the soccer stadium.

Dear Old Reliable,

I understand your concerns about the US admitting fault in the events of October to December 2001.

See If there are some changes you might suggest to this wording, that attempts to avoid the issue of blame.


Proposed Draft Inscription:

The United States of America erects this monument in dedication to the efforts of all who work to give safety and respect to all suspects of violence, who peacefully surrender. After September 11, 2001, the United States began a process of supporting many Afghans who favored a legitimate, democratically elected Government for Afghanistan. In October, November, and December, of 2001, some suspects of violence, trustingly surrendered to forces supporting peaceful elections. Through no fault of their own, some prisoners, who had peacefully surrendered, perished. Through this Monument, the United States extends condolences to the families, friends and acquaintances of those innocent prisoners who died, or who suffered any injury.



The wording advocates peaceful surrender of all who are suspected of violence, and restates the US support of non-violence, and peaceful elections. The inscription implies a promise of safety for those who surrender today.


167 views, 10-24-07
.

“Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden has called for a holy war against a proposed peacekeeping force in Sudan's war torn region of Darfur.”
The Press Association: Bin Laden urges holy war in Darfur

“’This is a brazen occupation, and only an infidel apostate seeks it or agrees to it,’ Bin Laden said.”
Bin Laden: Fight Darfur peacekeepers - Telegraph

“Execution of 3000 Taliban in 11/2001 covered up by US in Afghanistan” :shock: :think: :2rofll:

Dear Divine Comedy,

I compliment you for your succinct post.

Because the Bad guys advocate violence, does not mean that the Good guys should adopt the evil practices of the Bad Guys.

If there is a peculiar situation in which violence is necessary, that should be the Unusual Situation. The Good guys are good because they avoid violence. Being Good does not, in itself, justify violence.

The West should be constantly attempting to prove themselves the Good Guys by avoiding violence, when possible. When violence has occurred, the West should look for ways to avoid the situation in which Violence seemed reasonable to the West.

When opponents have surrendered, Good guys try to keep the prisoners safe. In Afghanistan, 10-12/2001, prisoners, who had peacefully serrendered, died. A Monument is a reminder to try to do better.


.

Gladiator said:

trustingly surrendered to forces supporting peaceful elections.

Click to expand...

No. I doubt very much that the Taliban "trustingly surrendered." They surrendered to the forces of opposing Afghan warlords, whose soldiers remembered very clearly when the shoe was on the other foot. They may have been hoping for the best, but they knew very well that they were likely to receive harsh treatment: their own previous executions and torture of prisoners had left them in a very bad spot, and they knew it. Hence, their willingness to revolt and possibly become martyrs in the prison at Mazir-I-Sharif.

There were times in Afghanistan when warlords simply changed sides. There were times when whole groups of combatants agreed to simply walk off the battlefield and go home. Mazir-I-Sharif was not one of those times. Remember, we're talking about the Taliban here. When considering the adversaries, consider what you know about the Taliban and their treatment of those considered infidels or apostates. Revisit their treatment of women, for example.

With regard to this incident, there is no monument nor apology necessary or deserved.

Dear Old Reliable,

Neccesary or Deserved are your words.

I say the issue is out there, working against the West, and is easy to spin. What is your suggestion for handling the 30% of Afghans who believe that violence against the West is justified.

You mention stoning as a reason for retribution against the Taliban. Many of the Old religions preached Stoning. The Zoroastrians and some other religions still resisting the Muslim takeover, preach, or use, stoning. I suggest the US work around that by advocating Habeus Corpus, Due Process, and Rule of Law, as a replacement for Stoning. Jesus reportedly refused to take on the issue of Stoning. Since religions opposed to the Muslim Militants believe in Stoning, I would say that Stoning is a cultural issue for the West to steer around.

The use of Stoning is not unique to the Taliban or Muslim Militants.



.

Gladiator said:

Neccesary or Deserved are your words.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are my words, and I stand by them.

Gladiator said:

What is your suggestion for handling the 30% of Afghans who believe that violence against the West is justified.

Click to expand...

It isn't only the 30% of Afghans that we need to be concerned about; rather, it is the entire Muslim religion. That is, we should be very concerned that Muslims, especially younger Muslims, are being attracted to the fundamentalist cause.

In some of your other posts, you offer your thoughts on how this might be countered. Some of thoughts were, well, quite thoughtful.

Unfortunately, this is an area where we in the West, not only the US, but the entire western community, are falling down. Yes, we have this program and that program, but none that are offering any concrete results. None that I can see, anyway. Maybe there are more positive results out there that are simply not evident. I hope so.

Gladiator said:

You mention stoning as a reason for retribution against the Taliban.

Click to expand...

You are taking my use of stoning too literally. Stoning is but one illustration of the cruelty inflicted on those considered infidels or apostates by the Taliban. There were others, as demonstrated by the video of the woman in the stadium being made to kneel and then shot in the back of the head by a Taliban executioner.

Gladiator said:

3000 Afghans, suspected of association with the Taliban, were killed by Afghan Warlords operating under the direction of the US, and burried in shalow graves.
Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - by Christopher Deliso

Click to expand...

Following up on Old Reliable's note, are there articles corroborating this assertion from objective sources?

Dear Iremon,

There were a couple of Links posted, I thought on this thread, but I don't find them now.

Here is a link I found searching Afghan Prisoners 2001:
US war crime in Afghanistan: Hundreds of prisoners of war slaughtered at Mazar-i-Sharif

I have watched the Road to Guantanamo movie and parts of the Afghan Massacre movie, and listened to the men who claim to have been eye witnesses.

To me, it is irrelvant whether the massacres actaully took place, or how many prisoners died, or to what extent the resistance of the prisoners created the problems resulting in deaths. The problem is the West has a public relations challenge.

The witnesses are sufficiently believable, and there are no credible stories that these witnesses are making up lies.

The prisoner deaths in Oct-Dec of 2001 is part of the West's problem to convince Muslims that the West should be trusted.

Some posting here espouse the belief that all Muslims are Bad. Some Muslims are moderates, and the Western Military would create less resentment, to the extent that the Military can avoid offending those Muslims with whom reconciliation can be achieved.

.

Gladiator said:

Dear Divine Comedy,

I compliment you for your succinct post.

Because the Bad guys advocate violence, does not mean that the Good guys should adopt the evil practices of the Bad Guys.

If there is a peculiar situation in which violence is necessary, that should be the Unusual Situation. The Good guys are good because they avoid violence. Being Good does not, in itself, justify violence.

The West should be constantly attempting to prove themselves the Good Guys by avoiding violence, when possible. When violence has occurred, the West should look for ways to avoid the situation in which Violence seemed reasonable to the West.

When opponents have surrendered, Good guys try to keep the prisoners safe. In Afghanistan, 10-12/2001, prisoners, who had peacefully serrendered, died. A Monument is a reminder to try to do better.


.

Click to expand...

“Throughout the year, the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin--indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa--despite US and UN sanctions, a unanimously adopted United Security Council resolution, and other international pressure to deliver him to stand trial in the United States or a third country. The United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that they will be held responsible for any terrorist acts undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in their territory.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/asia.html#Afghanistan

The MUSLIMS (East) should be constantly attempting to prove themselves the Good Guys by delivering up responsible Taliban and Al Quacka. That will take violence. When the satanic verses explain why the MUSLIM (East) will not use violence against Al Quacka, but they can use violence against us, and you want me to support avoiding violence against Taliban, I spit. {spit}

I do not see the MUSLIMS (East) trying to win our hearts and minds. The longer it takes the more I think of Islam as needing my spit. {spit}

Try and get this though your MUSLIMS (East) thick skulls, the instant we “adopt the evil practices of the Bad Guys” the MUSLIMS (East) as well as the Islamifascists will know it, because our words will match what comes out of your MUSLIMS (East) snake in the grass forked tongues:

Praise be to reason, which is the Book, explains the clouds, philosophizes about factionalism, and says in the Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Muslim black stone idolaters wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Science, which says: “I have been sent with the sword of reason between my ears to ensure that no Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of a spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who obey reason.”
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

A spy‘s lot is an ancient thing older than the black stone idolater’s MUSLIMS (East) so-called religion. How clear it is, justice for spies cries out to the highest heavens for a rope and no monument!

Not killing a squat to pee Taliban or an Al Quacka, after it has been captured, and before it has completed its mission, would be an evil disrespect of men like John Andre:



Do you understand?

In all these years your MUSLIMS (East) has done absolutely NOTHING to win my heart or my mind. It would go a long way to winning my heart and my mind if just one out of all the Muslims (East) would put one Al Quacka head on a silver platter; here is the picture:

http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp

http://www.dargate.com/240_auction/240_images/3433.jpg

It is not that hard to win our hearts and minds.

“i will write more tomorrow when i have a better chance to read your post in it's entirity.
muslim.” (posted by Taliban defending muslim, August 31, 2001 11:22 PM)

{Spit!}