First the Koran Burnings, Now This; I Think We're Donesies in the 'Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

I see people talking about a signed agreement regarding the deployment of troops, etc... such an agreement would only be relevant if the US and it's allies were invited in, in the first place...

---

Says who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

Or is this a debate where we just pretend the Karzai regime is legit and just take it from there...?

---

The U.N. pretends he's legit. That makes anything he signs legit. That's good enough for me. Public opinion on this is inconsequential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The U.N. pretends he's legit. That makes anything he signs legit. That's good enough for me. Public opinion on this is inconsequential.

---

I see... so if he's good enough for you and the UN, that's fine, the Afghan people don't even factor... that pretty much says it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

I see... so if he's good enough for you and the UN, that's fine, the Afghan people don't even factor... that pretty much says it all.

---

Yes. Welcome to the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yes. Welcome to the real world.

---

No thanks I'm happier in "fantasy land"...

What kinda bothers me, this guy murdered a lot of people, just shot them including a 2 year old. Why would you do such a thing, and most of all why is American law so important here. It was a a two year old that got killed, she knows nothing about law. Why such trust in it, it can be so ugly, rip kiddie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What kinda bothers me, this guy murdered a lot of people, just shot them including a 2 year old. Why would you do such a thing, and most of all why is American law so important here. It was a a two year old that got killed, she knows nothing about law. Why such trust in it, it can be so ugly, rip kiddie

---

Yes, what happened was horrible, but that's not a reason to feed the guy to the lynch mob. Let the tribunal do its thing, the guy will get his date with the firing squad and we'll call it a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Perhaps there is a term you are not familiar with: SOFA.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I wonder... though no doubt there's some other clause...

Would that apply to say... abandoning your post and heading off to butcher 16 civilians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

An agreement with a now infamous puppet regime and corrupt president - not an agreement with the Afghan people, the various tribes, etc...

---

That is how government has to operate cynwulf. If most of the Southern and Western states say that Obama is a corrupt president and that he is no longer representing the Country, does that mean they have the right to not abide by US treaties and to make their own laws? If you are going to get the benefits of being in a country and under a government, you have to follow the rules. In any county and under government you will have a significant body of people are unhappy with the current regime and think it dictatorial (you did with Bush, you do with Obama, you did with Clinton, etc, etc, etc). That does not mean that the people in that country don't have to obey their country's laws.

Vuk there is a huge difference - unlike Karzai, Obama was not installed into office by an occupying force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Indeed. I've known many men and women in my life who suffered from severe PTSD. Flashbacks are real and they do happen, but they don't cause someone to sneak out and assassinate two houses full of people. That's for the movies. Closest thing to that which actually happens would be someone freaking out in a crowd and taking a few shots.

---

A schizoid break would do it though.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

A schizoid break would do it though.

~:smoking:

---

Like that Breivik guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yes. Welcome to the real world.

---

That would be true if said government actually had the authority to back up and enforce its agreements internally. It hasn't, so your argument is, as they say, invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

That would be true if said government actually had the authority to back up and enforce its agreements internally. It hasn't, so your argument is, as they say, invalid.

---

Says who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Says who?

---

Well last I looked, shooting at American soldiers whilst in your official capacity of Afghan cop in response to Koran burnings wasn't exactly part of stated mandate by the Karzai government. Could be wrong, though.

Occording to NPR, the locals believe that there were many American soldiers involved.
Listen to the Morning Edition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well last I looked, shooting at American soldiers whilst in your official capacity of Afghan cop in response to Koran burnings wasn't exactly part of stated mandate by the Karzai government. Could be wrong, though.

---

Just like I'm sure that this guy who offed 16 people got a direct order from Washington to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

Occording to NPR, the locals believe that there were many American soldiers involved.
Listen to the Morning Edition.

---

That's even more of a reason to ignore what they "believe" or "think".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

Yes... but if the countries were invaded in the first place, then how exactly is that worth the paper it's printed on?

---

Because the de facto government agreed with it, regardless of your opinion. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Just like I'm sure that this guy who offed 16 people got a direct order from Washington to do so.

---

Yeah, well haven't seen them actually bothering to try and prosecute the Afghan cops. I'm not Mitt Romney, but I think this is a safe bet: the USA does have a government which is able to enforce its laws on its own even when they're widely unpopular, and Afghanistan doesn't. So if you make an agreement with a government that doesn't actually have the means to reign in the populace then that agreement isn't worth very much.

I haven't seen the American soldiers walk around freely in Afghan villages or cities, safe in the knowledge that the Afghan government runs a functioning law and order department. By contrast, as I recall, the Afghan government relies on the USA to be its enforcer.

So... it's a good enough government when it comes to being able to state foreign troops are OK to be stationed there - but not good enough to enforce law and order or other things that are what makes a government. I think that is called having one's cake and eating it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

So if you make an agreement with a government that doesn't actually have the means to reign in the populace then that agreement isn't worth very much.

---

It's worth whatever you can get out of it. For us it means that *our* soldiers will be prosecuted by *our* military tribunals. That's all that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Strawman!

---

Oh really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Completely different scenarios. Bin Laden is an established enemy of the country engaged in armed resistance and attempting to kill us with his legions of men and resources. This guy is one single man.

---

:laugh4:

Bin Laden isn't the Taliban, or wasn't. Bin Laden was the head of a terrorist/criminal group, it's like saying the mafia in New York are an established enemy of the country and then firing away at them with drones.
Flying airplanes into a building and going to a village and shooting 14 people are both acts of terrorism and mass murder. By your standard the soldier is an enemy of the afghan state and they should just blow up his prison and say the guards are collateral damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

More importantly this man turned himself in and surrendered willingly. Bin Laden died in combat. Do you think we should shoot him in the head now to make it more comparable to Bin Laden?

---

Oh yes, surrendering surely makes it better. I don't see why you should try to make it more comparable to Bin Laden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I didn't see you complaining when the norwegian shooter was taken into custody? Is that man due a fair trial?

Then why isnt this man?

---

He surely is, I just liked the hypocrisy concerning Bin Laden, if it's an afghan who is the criminal he is demonized and shot without trial, but if the criminal is an american then he deserves a fair trial.
Don't the people in gitmo deserve a fair trial? What about the people who were abducted and sent to secret CIA torture camps? Didn't they deserve a fair trial? Or does that depend on the passport one owns?

I didn't see you argue loudly that the people sent to gitmo would deserve a fair trial, why now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Please bring something more substantial to the table next time.

---

Please try to apply a universal standard next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... it's a good enough government when it comes to being able to state foreign troops are OK to be stationed there - but not good enough to enforce law and order or other things that are what makes a government. I think that is called having one's cake and eating it.

~:smoking:

---

Yes, and I think that is exactly what the Karzai government has been trying to do. To sit on the throne an extract revenue whilst using the Americans to legitimise their rule, instead of doing it by themselves with American aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It's worth whatever you can get out of it. For us it means that *our* soldiers will be prosecuted by *our* military tribunals. That's all that matters.

---

Oh I don't disagree there. But the line of reasoning which you use to arrive at the conclusion is still wrong, and crucially you don't know what you'll get until you have it. That is to say, if the Taliban successfully blow up the guy (along with how many innocents) with an IED then you're not actually going to get much out of it after all; which is something to keep in mind. The Taliban or for that matter the Afghans don't necessarily feel equally bound to honour any obligations Karzai might have incurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Oh I don't disagree there. But the line of reasoning which you use to arrive at the conclusion is still wrong, and crucially you don't know what you'll get until you have it. That is to say, if the Taliban successfully blow up the guy (along with how many innocents) with an IED then you're not actually going to get much out of it after all; which is something to keep in mind. The Taliban or for that matter the Afghans don't necessarily feel equally bound to honour any obligations Karzai might have incurred.

---

If the fact that not everyone follows government regulations is a sufficient reason to de-legitimize a government, then there are no legitimate governments in the world. No government has a 100% compliance rate.

On the surface sounds like he had a mental breakdown.

An investigation should make sure there wasn't other reasons like an affair or pregnancy.

What ever happened to that squad in Iraq that raped the girl then murdered her and her family?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

No I just believe in fair and western justice. He WILL die if found guilty by the military. And he will receive a FAIR trial. If he is tried by the barbarians he will not receive a fair trial and he will die all the same albeit in a more gruesome manner which is completely irrelevant.

---

Bin Laden? Oops shoulder cam failed, "watch out that wild animal is charging" bang, shoulder cam back on "He went for his gun, honest guv"

My Lai, one of several apparently, at least 347 killed by US troops (500+ according to the locals). One guy paroled for 3 and a half years. 25 other soldiers let go because they had left the service.

Gitmo, nuff said.

We ain't exactly above looking after our own and giving payback to those that have crossed us. Totally natural and understandable, just not a 100% case of we are the just and free.

Blessing in disguise. Lets leave.

Preferring death to tyranny is a quaint idea that a lot of Americans might hold dear (especially macho chest pounding/hawkish types), but its not something we can or should decide on behalf of an entire country, with a completely alien culture, without asking them. Most of them would rather have their whole family alive under theocratic rule than half of it wiped out with a corrupt joke of a "democracy" in place. Just leave them alone.

The "war on terror" would have gone much better being fought just with beefed up FBI (who has done much more to protect Americans since 9/11 than the military has breeding a generation of terrorists) and CIA, not M1A2 Abrams with TUSK kits and AC-130 Spectre gunships.

I think Rory is stating that a sczhoid break would have this sudden and deadly onset that no amount of Pre pep talks could have prevented.

People and systems fail. If he was mentally ill than deal with him compassionately if he was of sound mind then throw the book at him.

Article I read said that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury in a vehicle accident, was on his 4th deployment, and had marital problems.

In my opinion, the people calling for this soldier's head are being extremely short-sighted. From what we have learned about him thus far, it appears that he is just as much of a victim as the Afghans he killed. This was an organizational failure, and emblematic of a military force pushed to its limits after a decade of constant warfare with no clear goals and no discernible way to measure progress. There is absolutely no reason a soldier who has suffered a traumatic brain injury should be on his fourth tour in a combat zone, and yet the Army had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with the troop numbers needed for the surge. Assuming that this was a mental breakdown, this soldier - who has been serving continuously in Afghanistan for nearly a decade - deserves to live the rest of his life in a mental institution, not an Afghan prison. I sincerely hope he is not executed in the name of US-Afghani relations.

traumatic brain injuries are a very serious business.

they are new to this war because of the nature of things like ieds with such large bomb radii. They slam the soldiers brain around and mix up the circuitry often while leaving the man who suffers the injury seemingly unharmed. This has been a real issue that the army has been trying to adjust too.

If it results in things like this dear god those poor men.

As I see it this is just going to push Iraq and Afghanistan vets even farther down the road of being treated like those of Vietnam. Shunned and looked down upon and now we can add the general public thinking they are all about to go Rambo on everyone.

And then the sadness of one man serving !4! tours of duty! And there are plenty like that even among reserves and national guard. People want less money for the services while we are STILL fighting a war and it results in more men dying and being destroyed by the rigors and horror of war with nary a break in between.

I suspect this soldier who was a relatively senior NCO probably had something knocked loose and that finally manifested itself with this killing spree.