• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

I don't think anyone's sugesting apologising to the enemy, but to the innocent civilians who lost their loved ones. Do you believe that all Afghan civilians are the enemy? I suspect the shooter did.

This is an excellent point.
 
It's frustrating to us when we hear people say we need to leave Afghanistan, because we ARE leaving. We've been leaving for over a year, "force reductions" are ongoing, and all ISAF forces will be completely out by the end of 2014.

Well, for some the change isn't happening quickly enough. You'll understand that if we're going to be leaving soon anyway, isn't every soldier or Afghan civilian that dies from this point forward a wasted life? I think that's how most Americans feel, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Just asking for a little parity here. Why should our enemies expect an apology from us if it's so unreasonable for us to expect one from them?

We will not be apologizing to the enemy. We are apologizing to the Afghan civilians who have been harmed. Unless you think the two are somehow equal. Once again, there is no double standard because you are not comparing apples to apples.
 
"I wish to convey my profound regrets and dismay at the actions apparently taken by one coalition member in Kandahar province, said a statement from Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, the deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.
"One of our soldiers is reported to have killed and injured a number of civilians in villages adjacent to his base. I cannot explain the motivation behind such callous acts, but they were in no way part of authorized ISAF military activity," he said, using the abbreviation for NATO's International Security Assistance Force.

There.

In the meantime, our "friend" says:

"This is an assassination, an intentional killing of innocent civilians and cannot be forgiven," Karzai said in a statement. He said he has repeatedly demanded the U.S. stop killing Afghan civilians.

US soldier kills 16 civilians in Afghanistan
 
Well, for some the change isn't happening quickly enough. You'll understand that if we're going to be leaving soon anyway, isn't every soldier or Afghan civilian that dies from this point forward a wasted life? I think that's how most Americans feel, like it or not.

Thats even more madining! Exactly how long would you expect it to take to move an at least 2 whole divisions, with equiptement?
 
Thats even more madining! Exactly how long would you expect it to take to move an at least 2 whole divisions, with equiptement?

During Iraqi Freedom it took a matter of months, if not weeks! Our not withdrawing fast enough is not a matter of ability. It is a matter of pragmatic considerations and political will.
 
Last edited:
Slight difference, they haven't invaded your country, you (or rather 'we', as I'm a UK subject) have invaded theirs.


The US are not invaders in Afghanistan any US involvement is done by agreement with the Afghan government.

"In 2002, the United States and Afghanistan, by an exchange of notes, entered into an agreement regarding economic grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Additionally, the agreement allows for the furnishing of defense articles, defense services, and related training, pursuant to the United States International Military and Education Training Program (IMET), from the U.S. Government to the Afghanistan Interim Administration (AIA)...On May 23, 2005, President Hamid Karzai and President Bush issued a “joint declaration” outlining a prospective future agreement between the two countries. It envisions a role for U.S. military troops in Afghanistan to “help organize, train, equip, and sustain Afghan security forces” until Afghanistan has developed its own capacity, and to “consult with respect to taking appropriate measures in the event that Afghanistan perceives that its territorial integrity, independence, or security is threatened or at risk...On December 16, 2010, the Obama Administration, as part of its Afghanistan-Pakistan annual review, stated that it, as part of the NATO coalition, remains committed to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan. As such, the Administration maintained that U.S. forces would commence a transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan government in 2011 and conclude the transfer in2014.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34531.pdf
 
During Iraq it took a matter of months, if not weeks![/QUOTE
] Bull****,weJUST NOW finished pulling out of iraq....as in just this past month.

I'm talking about the initial invasion - you said it takes a long time to move 2 divisions and equipment. We moved FOUR divisions (plus a couple more smaller units) and equipment INTO Kuwait in a matter of a months. Now I understand withdrawing isn't exactly the same thing because you've got more equipment and tons of infrastructure built up over time, but my point remains that the quickness of our withdrawal is not a matter of ability.
 
Terrible tragedy. I do not think an apology to the civilian families is out of the question though.
 
I'm talking about the initial invasion - you said it takes a long time to move 2 divisions and equipment. We moved FOUR divisions (plus a couple more smaller units) and equipment INTO Kuwait in a matter of a months. Now I understand withdrawing isn't exactly the same thing, but my point remains that the quickness of our withdrawal is not a matter of ability.
Kuate and Iraq have sea ports. afghanistan is land locked. We used Pacistan sea ports to enter Afghanistan. Today we arent friends with Pacistan and cant use their sea ports. The whole reason my unit is here at all is to build an exit through turkey to sea ports we can use.
 
Too bad the the Libs and the MSM didn't have the same sympathy during the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting. They could care less about thoise victims and families. Their main concern was to downplay the fact that the shooter was a radical Muslim.

i was put on lockdown when that shooting happened,and a few of my coworkers were at the site the time of the shooting.our goal of lockdown was to present other people from dying in the even there would have been a second shooter.


the army and other service branches have strict ways of dealing with psychological problems.in the case of the fort hood shooting,most people saw him beforehand as a little screwed up in the head,but did nothing about until he came in guns blazing.that was no surprise to alot of us his problems were ignored,after he was an officer,officers are perfect and cant have problems.

a soldier that should have been under watch for psychological problems in afghanistan should have had their weapon taken away,and left with the buddy system to make sure he couldnt do anything without supervision.this ofcourse never happens they usually take away their firing pin then send them on missions like nothing has changed,and the last thing you want is to leave someone unstable unsupervised in a base with a minimum of 1 weapon per person,some people had 2 firearms.

most likely the military did not fail in this situation but rather it was probably a failure at the unit level to follow sop(standard operating procedure)much in the same in how the fort hood shooter was left to do his business no matter how many red flags he raised.military units tend to ignore sop for mission convenience,to them just because your crazy doesnt mean you cant do your job,but in reality the military says if your an emotional wreck,you cant do your job and will not be allowed to work until cleared by a mental health specialist to do so.


i can already say the military will not hand him over to afghanistan,he will likely be sent to a military prison for life,and be tried under court martial,which doesnt work in the same manner as civilian court.also knowing the military they will take numerous sworn statements and try to punish the lowest ranking person that admitted to seeing any mental problems with that soldier,as far as the military is conserned if you saw a problem and said nothing your just as guilty.
 
Kuate and Iraq have sea ports. afghanistan is land locked. We used Pacistan sea ports to enter Afghanistan. Today we arent friends with Pacistan and cant use their sea ports. The whole reason my unit is here at all is to build an exit through turkey to sea ports we can use.

This is true. My point remains that if someone lit a fire under the military's ass and told it to withdraw completely with all due haste and no concern for Afghan political ramifications, it could do so in a matter of months. I have a hard time believing that it takes en entire two years to move all that equipment, sea ports or not. The reason we aren't withdrawing as quickly as most Americans would like is because of the fear that a quick withdrawal would lead to chaos when it comes to the stability and security of the country. It is not a matter of ability.
 
This is true. My point remains that if someone lit a fire under the military's ass and told it to withdraw completely with all due haste and no concern for Afghan political ramifications, it could do so in a matter of months. I have a hard time believing that it takes en entire two years to move all that equipment, sea ports or not. The reason we aren't withdrawing as quickly as most Americans would like is because of the fear that a quick withdrawal would lead to chaos when it comes to the stability and security of the country. It is not a matter of ability.

do you realize the massive amount of equipment in afghanistan that would need to be moved,even with a new seaport we still have alot of sensitive and classified items that need to be sent through air,and last time i checked the military doesnt just have end endless supply of c-17 and c-5 laying around to do 24-7 chalk movements to move all equipment in that short of a time.
 
do you realize the massive amount of equipment in afghanistan that would need to be moved,even with a new seaport we still have alot of sensitive and classified items that need to be sent through air,and last time i checked the military doesnt just have end endless supply of c-17 and c-5 laying around to do 24-7 chalk movements to move all equipment in that short of a time.

I realize that. I just don't think it would actually take two years.
 
This is true. My point remains that if someone lit a fire under the military's ass and told it to withdraw completely with all due haste and no concern for Afghan political ramifications, it could do so in a matter of months. I have a hard time believing that it takes en entire two years to move all that equipment, sea ports or not. The reason we aren't withdrawing as quickly as most Americans would like is because of the fear that a quick withdrawal would lead to chaos when it comes to the stability and security of the country. It is not a matter of ability.

Oh so it's that we're lazy.
 
Oh so it's that we're lazy.

That's not what he said, though.

What nota said.

Compared to you, I'm relatively new to this site. From what I've heard from other posters, you have the reputation of a solid debater. Building straw man arguments doesn't really behoove you, unless you're here just to troll.
 
Last edited:
What nota said.

Compared to you, I'm relatively new to this site. From what I've heard from other posters, you have the reputation of a solid debater. Building straw man arguments doesn't really behoove you, unless you're here just to troll.

Right, according to you we're just lackadaisical, ho-humming around Afghanistan in our boxers and Hawaii shirts just because it's such a lovely place to visit what with all the IEDs and motor fire. Yes, some know-nothing armchair-quarterback such as yourself should come over here and yell at some brass to "light a fire", I'm sure that will instantly clear up the logistical problems with large military movements in actively hostile territory (unlike Iraq and Kuwait, which were conquered territories with no major engagements) instantly.
 
Right, according to you we're just lackadaisical, ho-humming around Afghanistan in our boxers and Hawaii shirts just because it's such a lovely place to visit what with all the IEDs and motor fire. Yes, some know-nothing armchair-quarterback such as yourself should come over here and yell at some brass to "light a fire", I'm sure that will instantly clear up the logistical problems with large military movements in actively hostile territory (unlike Iraq and Kuwait, which were conquered territories with no major engagements) instantly.

Alright, since nothing you said here actually addresses my argument, none of the claims you made in this post about what I said are actually things I said, and you're clearly trolling at this point, this discussion is over.
 
Afghans killed in rampage by US soldier

Afghans killed in rampage by US soldier
Afghans killed in rampage by US soldier - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

Sixteen civilians including women and children shot dead in their homes as President Karzai demands an explanation.

Sixteen Afghan civilians including three women and nine children have been shot dead in their homes by a rogue US soldier in a pre-dawn rampage.
President Hamid Karzai condemned the slaughter on Sunday as "unforgivable" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington.

"When Afghan people are killed deliberately by US forces this action is murder and terror and an unforgivable action," Karzai said in statement.

Senior US officials were scrambling to determine what caused the soldier to go on a shooting spree after leaving his base in southern Afghanistan, apparently heavily-armed and carrying night-vision equipment.
Officials confirmed that the soldier was being detained in Kandahar and that the military was treating at least five wounded.
One US official said the soldier, an Army staff sergeant, was believed to have acted alone and that initial reports indicated he returned to the base after the shooting and turned himself in.



I had seen this around, but of course Al-Jazeera had to tell me he shot children in their homes.

Wonder what's going to happen to the guy?
 
U.S. servicemember allegedly opens fire on Afghans; 16 dead

American servicemember reportedly shoots, kills Afghan civilians

[h=1]U.S. servicemember allegedly opens fire on Afghans; 16 dead[/h] [h=3]By Jim Michaels, Oren Dorell and David Jackson, USA TODAY[/h] Updated 24m ago




A U.S. servicemember left his base in southern Afghanistan on Sunday and allegedly went on a shooting spree that killed 16 civilians, plunging U.S-Afghan relations into a fresh crisis.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the act an "assassination" and demanded an explanation from the United States. U.S. officials, who have not confirmed details of the incident, issued immediate apologies.

That's going to cause some serious problems. Evidently, the guy went into people's houses in the middle of the night, woke them up, and executed them. No word on who/why, I assume it was someone who cracked from combat stress, but teh Taliban is going to get a lot of mileage out of it.

Edit: I just noticed it's posted here http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...u-s-soldier-opened-fire-afghan-civilians.html

I assumed this would be the right subforum. Sorry for the repost.
 
Back
Top Bottom