• 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

Stormageddon said:
It wasn't just Taliban rioting and killing over the Koran burning.
Click to expand...
Ah....you get a bit closer to what you are actually talking about...

Unfortunately for your argument, the Taliban did take credit for the deaths of the US personnel in Kabul after the Koran burning.

So...you are trying to draw a parallel between the general Afghan population reacting to the burning of their holy text...and the US soldier(s) who were reacting to what we don't know?

Again, it seems you believe Karzai is supposed to be responsible for the actions of the Afghan population AND the Taliban.
 
Connery said:
The US are not invaders in Afghanistan any US involvement is done by agreement with the Afghan government.
Click to expand...
The AIA was not the government of Afghanistan when the Allies invaded. It was installed by the invading forces.
 
Andalublue said:
The AIA was not the government of Afghanistan when the Allies invaded. It was installed by the invading forces.
Click to expand...

Actually the present government of Afghanistan was installed by the Afghanistan people through the electoral process.
 
Andalublue said:
The AIA was not the government of Afghanistan when the Allies invaded.
Click to expand...

I agree.


Andalublue said:
Connery was referring to the AIA.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to legitimacy of those agreements regarding the treatment and jurisdiction of US military personnel survived the AIA through today. In reference to your post regarding "American exceptionalism". "Absolutely not, it was a bargained for right that the US has jurisdiction over it's military personal whether acting in a military capacity or outside the course of their duties. There is not an example of "American execptionalism", rather, relinquishing custody is the cost of doing business for Afghanistan." (from post 17)

Further, as tghis was an agreement once the new government was in place I do not see that the US can be considered invaders. This was done by agreement.

An agreement exists regarding the status of military and civilian personnel of the U.S. Department of Defense present in Afghanistan in connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities. Such personnel are to be accorded “a status equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staff” of the U.S. Embassy under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Accordingly, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction except with respect to acts performed outside the course of their duties. In the agreement, the Islamic Transitional Government of Afghanistan (ITGA) explicitly authorized the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and the Government of Afghanistan is not permitted to surrender U.S. personnel to the custody of another State, international tribunal, or any other entity without consent of the U.S. government. Although the agreement was signed by the ITGA, the subsequently elected Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan assumed responsibility for ITGA’s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to provide immunity for contract personnel.

"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.
Click to expand...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34531.pdf
 
Absolutely tragic. This soldier clearly had a breakdown, and his immediate superior should have seen it coming and done something about it. Now more than a dozen Afghans are dead, the soldier's life is basically over, and this all could have been avoided if we hadn't mired our poor soldiers in a decade-old war where they are unable to tell friend from foe.

As for Obama apologizing, sure. Just as soon as Karzai starts apologizing every time our soldiers are murdered by Afghan police and Afghan military, which has been happening for years.

The only thing Obama needs to do is grow a pair, say **** this to Karzai and pull our troops out. Now.
 
DiAnna said:
Absolutely tragic. This soldier clearly had a breakdown, and his immediate superior should have seen it coming and done something about it. Now more than a dozen Afghans are dead, the soldier's life is basically over, and this all could have been avoided if we hadn't mired our poor soldiers in a decade-old war where they are unable to tell friend from foe.

As for Obama apologizing, sure. Just as soon as Karzai starts apologizing every time our soldiers are murdered by Afghan police and Afghan military, which has been happening for years.

The only thing Obama needs to do is grow a pair, say **** this to Karzai and pull our troops out. Now.
Click to expand...


Absolutely!


j-mac
 
I disagree. While an apology may not be exactly warranted in this case, condolences and perhaps blood money is

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
DiAnna said:
As for Obama apologizing, sure. Just as soon as Karzai starts apologizing every time our soldiers are murdered by Afghan police and Afghan military, which has been happening for years.
Click to expand...
The comparison of killing military to killing defenseless civilians is a ridiculously false one.

The only thing Obama needs to do is grow a pair, say **** this to Karzai and pull our troops out. Now.
Click to expand...

Honorable people and nations apologize when they or someone officially representing them commits callous acts outside the scope of war. This act was completely outside of that scope. And I personally think not being so prideful and unable to acknowledge wrong so that you can apologize is "growing a pair". It's being unable to recognize and acknowledge wrong that makes one a coward.
 
... we went into Afghanistan... took out the Taliban, killed Bin Laden, gave them billions in aid when we have millions of Americans hungry - and they're mad about this? Well **** them. Time to peace out.
 
Hatuey said:
... we went into Afghanistan... took out the Taliban, killed Bin Laden, gave them billions in aid when we have millions of Americans hungry - and they're mad about this? Well **** them. Time to peace out.
Click to expand...
They should be upset, these individuals were in no way related to the liberation effort. Good deeds and our humanitarian nature don't absolve responsibility and blame when heinous acts like this occur.
 
Hare said:
They should be upset, these individuals were in no way related to the liberation effort. Good deeds and our humanitarian efforts don't absolve responsibility and blame when heinous acts like this occur.
Click to expand...
Yeah. If someone provided police protection for my family, gave me a crap ton of money, got rid of my enemies and then shot my mother in the face, I'd be pretty upset.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The comparison of killing military to killing defenseless civilians is a ridiculously false one.

.
Click to expand...

And the Taliban hasn't killed any civilians?

In what world are you living in!
 
Mya said:
And the Taliban hasn't killed any civilians?

In what world are you living in!
Click to expand...
Are you saying they should thank America for this murderous thug?

either way, when bad things are done by ones own country people are willing to accept it more then when done by a foreign occupying power
 
Who were the, "civilians", exactly?

They might have been Taliban supporters/sympathizers/operatives and needed killin'.
 
apdst said:
Who were the, "civilians", exactly?

They might have been Taliban supporters/sympathizers/operatives and needed killin'.
Click to expand...
You're suggesting that anyone who supports or sympathizes with the Taliban should be killed? Not to mention the fact that they were killed in their homes not in conflict with our troops and there were reportedly women and children among the victims.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
You're suggesting that anyone who supports or sympathizes with the Taliban should be killed? Not to mention the fact that they were killed in their homes not in conflict with our troops and there were reportedly women and children among the victims.
Click to expand...

Sort of like the drone strikes that bomb civilians en masse regularly that are promoted by Obama and his cronies. Oh wait, this was just a "rogue element"; nothing to see here, move along.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are you saying they should thank America for this murderous thug?

either way, when bad things are done by ones own country people are willing to accept it more then when done by a foreign occupying power
Click to expand...


No, I'm not saying, that but i get what you are saying... you accept murderous thugs ONLY if they are by the own country people! is that what you are saying?

Enquiring minds want to know :shrug:
 
Mya said:
No, I'm not saying, that but i get what you are saying... you accept murderous thugs ONLY if they are by the own country people! is that what you are saying?

Enquiring minds want to know :shrug:
Click to expand...

In general yes


If a foreigner is a murderous thug it will generate more outrage then if a local is a murderous thug



So while the Taliban are murderous thugs, they will not generate as much outrage as this soldier did among many Afghans
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In general yes


If a foreigner is a murderous thug it will generate more outrage then if a local is a murderous thug



So while the Taliban are murderous thugs, they will not generate as much outrage as this soldier did among many Afghans
Click to expand...



Your opinion.


I do not agree.
 
Mya said:
Your opinion.


I do not agree.
Click to expand...


And how do the Afghans appear to feel on the issue?

Do they seem more outrage by the Taliban killing people or by US soldiers killing Afghans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom