• 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

Ockham said:
I hesitate to call him a terrorist. Terrorists have a political purpose... the act of killing or horrific things are meant to promote something political as well as to promote shock and fear. Killing is just a means to an end to accomplish that goal. This guy - I don't see anything that shows he killed these people for a political reason. He's a murderer... maybe psychotic murderer. But I don't see how the label of "terrorist" can be levied at this time.
Click to expand...


I agree, the soldier is not a terrorist. That is sensationalized and nonsensical babbling for those that wish to look under their beds for the Bogeyman.
 
Ockham said:
I hesitate to call him a terrorist. Terrorists have a political purpose... the act of killing or horrific things are meant to promote something political as well as to promote shock and fear. Killing is just a means to an end to accomplish that goal. This guy - I don't see anything that shows he killed these people for a political reason. He's a murderer... maybe psychotic murderer. But I don't see how the label of "terrorist" can be levied at this time.
Click to expand...

This may not be a lone act. The Afghans claim they heard simultaneous shots. U.S. is denying this.
 
RDS said:
This may not be a lone act. The Afghans claim they heard simultaneous shots. U.S. is denying this.
Click to expand...

So naturally: we trust the Afghanistanis. . . yes - that make sense.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So naturally: we trust the Afghanistanis. . . yes - that make sense.
Click to expand...

"Neighbours said they had awoken to crackling gunfire from American soldiers, who they described as laughing and drunk.
'They were all drunk and shooting


Read more: US soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians in deadly shooting rampage | Mail Online

US soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians in deadly shooting rampage | Mail Online

Did the Army have a breathalizer? Did the US Army check the suspected soldier for Alcohol consumption? Is it possible that the Afghan witnesses thought there was more than one US soldier shouting, but that there was only one who was involved, and he was shouting, maybe with varied intonations?

Do the Afghan Villagers ever invite soldiers for late night pot parties? Did this soldier misunderstand what he thought was an invitation to a pot party?




//
 
Last edited:
Connery said:
The correlation between TBI and PTSD is being studied. Having had someone, ex-military, I knew quite well with both was a life of internal torture for the man and rife with medical problems. At times he was unpredictable, unable to have close relationships for any extended time and was issued a medical dog to alert him before seizures would come.



DVBIC - Families & Friends
What Role Did Accused Soldier's Brain Injury Play in Afghan Massacre? (UPDATED) | Danger Room | Wired.com
MMS: Error
Click to expand...


Once again, hat tip Connery.....I think it is a shame that this solider was not monitored more closely due to how many deployments he has been in...

this sounds like a failure of leadership as much as the fault of the solider himself.


j-mac
 
Catawba said:
The same flags flown by the invading armies responsible for all the civilian deaths in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by the Taliban.
 
Peter King said:
John Kerry did not call the troops terrorists. And the killer in Afghanistan is also not a terrorist but a murderer.
Click to expand...


He's only a murderer when he wears the uniform of this country...Over here had he gone on a spree, he'd likely be classified as insane and in need of rehabilitation right?


j-mac
 
Stormageddon said:
The vast majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by the Taliban.
Click to expand...

I would be curious to see your source for that claim.
 
Stormageddon said:
The vast majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by the Taliban.
Click to expand...

"The Taliban and other anti-government elements have been blamed for 2,332 of the 3,021 civilians who were killed in Afghanistan last year - a rise of 8% on 2010. "

Afghanistan civilian casualties: year by year, month by month. Visualised data | News | guardian.co.uk


The Taliban is repsonsible for about 75% of civilian deaths over the last 10 years.


Where is the Taliban apology for all the civilian deaths they have caused?


"The official says it's unclear whether the suspect had been drinking before disappearing from his military base in Kandahar province or whether alcohol was simply found in his living space at the base.Military rules prohibit the use or possession of alcohol in a war zone."

The Associated Press: AP source: Possible alcohol link to Afghan deaths


Afghan witnesses reported that the soldier was shouting, while shooting, like he was drunk.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-fire-afghan-civilians-33.html#post1060288620



//
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Or bring back a republican and then all the fake anti-war leftists will come trapsing out against the war again. face it the anti-war movement is a fashion statment, while you may be the extreme, all your backup, seems to have vanished...... instead cheering for wars such as lybia.... Must really burn you to see that crap. eh?
Click to expand...

Most anti war liberals aren't antiwar for its own sake, but follow just war theory. Lybia would be considered a just "war" as was Bosnia, desert storm, Kosovo, and if we got involved, darfur.

ReverendHellh0und said:
I agree.... Too bad Obama wants to increase the co-pay these soldiers and thier families have to pay. :doh
Click to expand...

The first increase is going on the retired military personnel which, IMO (im military btw), its justified considering the Co party is so low that it may as well not exist. Furthermore, medical (not related to war) and other cost is bloading the DoDs budget, possibly preventing other improvements or getting the best equipment to people outside the SF community.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
xpiher said:
Most anti war liberals aren't antiwar for its own sake, but follow just war theory. Lybia would be considered a just "war" as was Bosnia, desert storm, Kosovo, and if we got involved, darfur.
Click to expand...


really? i see little difference other than Who is in charge for most of these campaigns.




The first increase is going on the retired military personnel which, IMO (im military btw), its justified considering the Co party is so low that it may as well not exist. Furthermore, medical (not related to war) and other cost is bloading the DoDs budget, possibly preventing other improvements or getting the best equipment to people outside the SF community.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


So you are suggesting you make the families of e-2's, have thier copays increased, three-fold while the civillian gs scale types, have no such triple increase?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
He's only a murderer when he wears the uniform of this country...Over here had he gone on a spree, he'd likely be classified as insane and in need of rehabilitation right?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't put words into my mouth. Wether or not he was wearing his uniform is of no importance to me. He could have been cross-dressing or been dressed in a g-string, it is not his clothes that determine if a person is a murderer but his actions. Going into a town and gunning 9 children down and a few more people is murder no matter who, how, what, where and because of what.

A killing spree is just as much murder as any other murder. And being insane is a legal term to describe why a murderer has done what he has done, it does not alter his status as murderer.

If you feel someone like that is in need of rehabilitation that is your issue, I think he needs to pay for his crimes, if he was a murderer that did so because he was insane he needs to first serve a prison sentence and then needs to be remanded until he no longer poses a threat to the population. I could care less if that means he has to be locked up until he is dead or that he can with treatment be seen as cured.
 
Gladiator said:
"The Taliban and other anti-government elements have been blamed for 2,332 of the 3,021 civilians who were killed in Afghanistan last year - a rise of 8% on 2010. "

Afghanistan civilian casualties: year by year, month by month. Visualised data | News | guardian.co.uk


The Taliban is repsonsible for about 75% of civilian deaths over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

From your source: " the continued annual rises has seen over 12,793 killed in the past six years."

So in just 6 years of our war on Afghanistan, 12,793 civilians were killed of which you stated the Taliban killed 75%.

In those same 6 years by your source, Coalition forces killed 3,198 Afghan civilians. How does that compare with the number of American civilians killed by the Afghans?
 
American said:
Liberal didn't vote for any of that of course. :roll:
Click to expand...

The majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq vs an almost unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for it.

A majority of Democrats support reregulating the banks while an almost unanimous majority of Republicans oppose it.

A majority of Democrats support eliminating the tax cuts for the rich, and a unanimous majority of Republicans oppose it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
really? i see little difference other than Who is in charge for most of these campegins
Click to expand...

I don't know the personal reasons of members in Congress, I was taking about liberal in general. What I do know is that a lot of the anti lybian action rabble came from democrats in Congress. I suggest you read more about just war theory.




So you are suggesting you make the families of e-2's, have thier copays increased, three-fold while the civillian gs scale types, have no such triple increase?
Click to expand...

Im don't know what gs scale means. however, I do know that "fringe" benefits are becoming a larger share of the DoDs budget and things need to change. I say start with those who are going to retire within the next 10 years, and alter some befits of those who are retired first. For instance, collecting military pension prior to the retirement age (a 38 year old who collects full 20 retirement for instance).

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Catawba said:
From your source: " the continued annual rises has seen over 12,793 killed in the past six years."

So in just 6 years of our war on Afghanistan, 12,793 civilians were killed of which you stated the Taliban killed 75%.

In those same 6 years by your source, Coalition forces killed 3,198 Afghan civilians. How does that compare with the number of American civilians killed by the Afghans?
Click to expand...

Your point is that few US Civilians have been killed by Afghans.

Searched NGO deaths:


"At least 100 relief workers in Afghanistan have been killed so far this year, far more than in any previous year, prompting a debate within humanitarian organizations about whether American military strategy is putting them and the Afghans they serve at unnecessary risk. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/world/asia/14afghan.html




From 2006 to 2011, there were 2516 Coalition Forces killed in Afghanistan.

Afghans Dispute NATO Casualty Figures | GroundReport

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
Your point is that few US Civilians have been killed by Afghans.

Searched NGO deaths:


"At least 100 relief workers in Afghanistan have been killed so far this year, far more than in any previous year, prompting a debate within humanitarian organizations about whether American military strategy is putting them and the Afghans they serve at unnecessary risk. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/world/asia/14afghan.html




From 2006 to 2011, there were 2516 Coalition Forces killed in Afghanistan.

Afghans Dispute NATO Casualty Figures | GroundReport

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties
Click to expand...


You misunderstand, I am talking about the comparison of people that come here from other countries and kill American civilians compared to the number of civilians we kill in other countries.
 
Catawba said:
The majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq vs an almost unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for it.

A majority of Democrats support reregulating the banks while an almost unanimous majority of Republicans oppose it.

A majority of Democrats support eliminating the tax cuts for the rich, and a unanimous majority of Republicans oppose it.
Click to expand...

They aren't tax cuts for the rich, save that bull**** for your liberal circle-jerks. Democrats voting plenty for the war.
 
Catawba said:
I would be curious to see your source for that claim.
Click to expand...

I already showed them to you and you replied with utter nonsense, but here they are again let's see what ridiculous tripe you post in response this time:

Taliban Causes Most Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan, U.N. Says
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: March 9, 2011

KABUL, Afghanistan — Last year was the deadliest of more than nine years of war for Afghan civilians, the United Nations reported Wednesday, attributing 75 percent of the deaths to attacks by Taliban and other insurgents rather than coalition forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/asia/10afghanistan.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) attributed 1,167 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by anti-government elements in the first six months of 2011, up 28% from the same period in 2010 and representing 79.8% of the total 1,462 Afghan civilian deaths they recorded in the conflict during this period.

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human rights/March PoC Annual Report Final.pdf
Click to expand...
 
American said:
They aren't tax cuts for the rich
Click to expand...

What are not tax cuts for the rich?

Democrats voting plenty for the war.
Click to expand...

Check the historical record? More Democrats voted against the war in Iraq than voted for it, vs an near unanimous vote for the war by the Republicans.
 
Stormageddon said:
I already showed them to you and you replied with utter nonsense, but here they are again let's see what ridiculous tripe you post in response this time:
Click to expand...

Yes, I know within 6 years, we killed zero Afghan civilians over there and we've not had the first civilian killed here by an Afghan. Thank you for proving my point.

The numbers of civilians we killed in Iraq were even greater, and we had no Iraqi attacks on civilians here.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, I know within 6 years, we killed zero Afghan civilians over there and we've not had the first civilian killed here by an Afghan. Thank you for proving my point.

The numbers of civilians we killed in Iraq were even greater, and we had no Iraqi attacks on civilians here.
Click to expand...

Stop shifting the goal posts, the bottom line is that the vast majority of civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been at the hands of the insurgents not the U.S. military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom