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

The Koran burnings were confirmed as an accident, yet severely damaging to our relationship with Afghans.

Now a (insane and possibly drunk) US soldier is accused of murdering 16 civilians, including a two-year-old child. I think we're going to be shown the door pretty quickly.

The gunman, believed to be a lone rogue soldier, went from house to house in two villages in southern Kandahar during the night.

Shooting began at around 3am, according to officials. Among the victims were at least three women, a child aged just two and elderly men.

Neighbours said the soldier had appeared drunk and relatives of the victims claimed chemicals were poured over the dead bodies to burn them. Pictures of the scene appeared to show the remains of burning in at least one of the houses. [...]

The gunman, reported to be an Army staff sergeant, returned to his base after the spree and is said to have turned himself in. US officials have confirmed he is in custody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

...I think we're going to be shown the door pretty quickly...

---

Sounds good to me. Let's get outta there pronto and leave it to the vultures.

He did what no other American soldier was brave enough to accomplish.

He is the perfect American. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

He did what no other American soldier was brave enough to accomplish.

He is the perfect American. :cry:

---

Must ... not ... feed ... troll post ...

Gah! I can't resist. Are you seriously proposing that mindless, wanton slaughter of civilians is considered desirable on any level of the American military or American society? Can you back that up in any way whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The Koran burnings were confirmed as an accident, yet severely damaging to our relationship with Afghans.

Now a (insane and possibly drunk) US soldier is accused of murdering 16 civilians, including a two-year-old child. I think we're going to be shown the door pretty quickly.

The gunman, believed to be a lone rogue soldier, went from house to house in two villages in southern Kandahar during the night.

Shooting began at around 3am, according to officials. Among the victims were at least three women, a child aged just two and elderly men.

Neighbours said the soldier had appeared drunk and relatives of the victims claimed chemicals were poured over the dead bodies to burn them. Pictures of the scene appeared to show the remains of burning in at least one of the houses. [...]

The gunman, reported to be an Army staff sergeant, returned to his base after the spree and is said to have turned himself in. US officials have confirmed he is in custody.

---

We leave when we want this people have no more ability to "force" us out as we do to impart some sort of civilized behavior upon them.

A disgusting tragedy regardless and a disgrace to us armed forces. This man will suffer the brunt of ucmj and military justice is very strict thankfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

We leave when we want this people have no more ability to "force" us out

---

Well, they do have a civilian government; we gave it to them. And while I agree that they could not force us out directly, they could make it entirely too absurd and costly for us to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Must ... not ... feed ... troll post ...

Gah! I can't resist. Are you seriously proposing that mindless, wanton slaughter of civilians is considered desirable on any level of the American military or American society? Can you back that up in any way whatsoever?

---

That you would speak thus of a saint and hero of America such as this fellow only serves to demonstrate your lack of patriotism.

Why do you want to the evil Afghan Muslim terrorists to dismantle our beautiful nation? You should probably be deported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, they do have a civilian government; we gave it to them. And while I agree that they could not force us out directly, they could make it entirely too absurd and costly for us to stay.

---

I said nothing about civilian governments, I referred to civilized behavior. You stretch to compare the corrupt entity they describe as a national government to a functioning civilian government. We are trying to impart 21st century thought upon a population hell bent on remaining within the 1300's.

Frankly, I'm amazed that more don't crack. Driving around every day, trying to help people. Getting shot at and and mates blown to pieces as a "thank you". Years pass and nothing lastingly good has been achieved, merely a load of corrupt politicians line their own pockets and promote their family. I get pissed off enough at people throwing litter into my garden.

End of the day, he's guilty of multiple murder. It looks premeditated. Is that life in prison or executed?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

End of the day, he's guilty of multiple murder. It looks premeditated. Is that life in prison or executed?

---

Under the UCMJ, that's most likely a death sentence. There are also provisions for manslaughter and negligent homicide, but very little about extenuating circumstances, of which this man appears to have few.

Don't think the USA will be out of Afghanistan quite so easily, or so quickly. Think Yemen, or Pakistan.

Either way he probably is very much done in Afghanistan, as his mere presence now puts the people around him in danger.

Can't he just quit the army to avoid a court marshal?

All this means is that we need to stay another year to regain the trust of the locals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Must ... not ... feed ... troll post ...

Gah! I can't resist. Are you seriously proposing that mindless, wanton slaughter of civilians is considered desirable on any level of the American military or American society? Can you back that up in any way whatsoever?

---

Not troll, sarcasm. Seriously Lemur, that was pretty obvious. :stare:

Either way it was a horrible thing to do, but I'm not going to guess what the response will be as I'm honestly not sure it will be the same as with the quran burnings.
It's certainly an option of course but this is different from attacking their god. The Taliban blow afghans up and noone protests. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Frankly, I'm amazed that more don't crack. Driving around every day, trying to help people. Getting shot at and and mates blown to pieces as a "thank you". Years pass and nothing lastingly good has been achieved, merely a load of corrupt politicians line their own pockets and promote their family. I get pissed off enough at people throwing litter into my garden...

---

Very much so. I am very curious as to what his motivation was, but it wouldn't surprise me if he just went berserk from stress or lost a buddy of his to a "friendly" afghan "ally". We'll just have to wait and see what the investigation unearths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Can't he just quit the army to avoid a court marshal?

---

Then he should be handed over to the Afgans, and probably hanged. Actually, they should do that anyway - but they won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Then he should be handed over to the Afgans, and probably hanged. Actually, they should do that anyway - but they won't.

---

Of course not. Trying one of our guys in an Afghani kangaroo court? No, thanks.

I've read that it might not be as bad as the Koran burnings. After all, we've been making mistakes like this for years. And I think the Afghans perceive the Taliban as being about as bad as us despite the fact that we've killed far less of them than the Taliban.

A tragedy on both sides of the coin.

The soldier will at least likely receive better "justice" than the kangaroo court that tried a 15 year old Canadian for being a "found-in".

War destroys people and our facade of civility; win or lose there is a cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Very much so. I am very curious as to what his motivation was, but it wouldn't surprise me if he just went berserk from stress or lost a buddy of his to a "friendly" afghan "ally". We'll just have to wait and see what the investigation unearths.

---

Maybe the family members of the people he killed may also "just" go berserk in response and kill 14 american women and children each and so on.
That would really help the situation.

He should be executed.

The public response will not be as bad as the burnings, which shows how messed up these people are. Afterall, Afghans pop all the time and kill each other and us. A few of the blue on blu shootings of NATO troops have been guys who were lsoing their marbles, like the pilot who offed a room full of afghans and americans, he just went berserk due to personal issues.

What I find amusing is Karzais speed at the annual Womens Day gathering, where he says they do not need foreign troops because their army can stand on its own. Of course, we would still pay their army since the country generates only about 2% of the tax revenue it needs and they have no standardized tax base or collection method.

I am also amused at us handing over the detention facility to the Afghans, because the caveat is that we will continue to provide "logistics support" for it in the coming years, which is fany talk for "we pay for your prison"

I would actually love to see this guy handed over to the Afghans if the miltary justice system deems that he is guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

This sick, disturbed, evil individual deserves the firing squad and I hope he gets it.

If I understand this correctly, it wasn't a mission gone wrong but rather a pre-meditated act by one guy.

---

I would agree with the terms sick and disturbed but based on what little I know so far I think that it is a bit of a leap to call him "evil". First off, he gave himself up for punishment opposed to nicking someone else's rifle and doing it. Secondly he "only" killed everyone in two houses. I imagine he could have killed a far greater number if he'd wanted to.

Although it is possible that he joined the army, worked his way up from the ranks in some 10 year strategy to kill two families, but it seems much more likely that he is sick and disturbed by what he's been through.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Secondly he "only" killed everyone in two houses. I imagine he could have killed a far greater number if he'd wanted to.

---

https://i.imgur.com/IUSQi.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Although it is possible that he joined the army, worked his way up from the ranks in some 10 year strategy to kill two families, but it seems much more likely that he is sick and disturbed by what he's been through.

~:smoking:

---

Very much possible but it's still possible that it is premeditated, like a revenge for his buddies or something like that.

You can kill our people, but you can't kill our book! :laugh4:

Terrible thing though, regardless of the Afghani priorities. Didn't know they executed soldiers anymore, I thought they just got jailed for some ungodly amount of time instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

As a Soldier he would have had constant re-enforcement on what the right thing to do was. He would be asked regularly about his mental state, he would attend constant sensitivity classes, and every single mission briefing would contain something like "please don't hurt the civilians." There is no excuse for not being able to discern right and wrong in this case. Not even a PTSD flashback is excuse enough for this, as he would have had ample opportunities to describe his feelings to someone who could help. The Army doesn't hold your career back for that sort of thing any more, the stigma is not what it used to be.

---

He's asked about his mental state. If that is as reliable as the health screening I do, then people... lie - "no sir, not a drop" then presented with end stage liver failure and was dead in 2 weeks.
Awww, sensitivity classes. That makes everything OK... You might as well say that classes to detect Non Accidental Injury in children stops all child abuse.
Please don't hurt the civilians. That stops people who suddenly snap...

Some people talk. Some don't. There are ample ways for people to seek help if they are depressed. That doesn't mean some don't commit suicide. The system might be stopping 99 out of 100 persons who might have done this, but this is that one person who the system didn't catch. It happens. No system is perfect.

I'm not defending him. He did it. Perhaps a very good lawyer will argue temporary insanity and when he realised what he'd done he immediately gave himself up. He not only killed a load of locals, but far more importantly our troops might get injured or killed as a result of this.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Of course not. Trying one of our guys in an Afghani kangaroo court? No, thanks.

---

And there it is... reason one why it isn't working over there.

All they'll do is hang him, so why not hand him over?

Nice to know you value his life over the people he killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And there it is... reason one why it isn't working over there.

---

I would wager that there are a fair number of much larger issues at play in the failure to make progress in Afghanistan than American stateside arrogance. COIN, for better or worse, is centered on winning over the locals and great efforts have been taken to attain that goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And there it is... reason one why it isn't working over there.

All they'll do is hang him, so why not hand him over?

Nice to know you value his life over the people he killed.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ridiculous. You're basically saying that because he didn't take the options he had seriously that his choice is valid? What?

---

No... I was stating that those things that are put in place might help. To think that a few classes are going to manage to offset the hell of that country is is, well, ridiculous.

That I can understand what he did does not mean I condone what he did. The validity of what he did surely depends on one's personal stand. I don't think it's valid but then I don't think that the whole enterprise is either.

~:smoking:

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 didn't get a fair trial, so why should this mass murderer get one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial, so why should this mass murderer get one?

---

Strawman!

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.

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?

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?

Please bring something more substantial to the table next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ridiculous. You're basically saying that because he didn't take the options he had seriously that his choice is valid? What?

---

It may not have been as simple as not taking the options available to him, mental illness is not always something easy to talk about. It may well be he didn't even realise himself, and he suddenly snapped. He could have found it difficult to talk about, or perhaps was afraid of what was happening. Calling it a choice may well be invalid. Then again, he may have planned it in a rational and calculated manner. We don't know.

As has been said before, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often, the unique nature of this case should be a mark of the professionalism of the forces in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Bin Laden died in combat.

---

As long as the term "combat" means that there was a gun in the same room as Bin Laden, as I believe that he was unarmed at the time he was assassinated in an illegal raid in a foreign sovereign power (illegality as defined by both Pakistani, UN and American law).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As long as the term "combat" means that there was a gun in the same room as Bin Laden, as I believe that he was unarmed at the time he was assassinated in an illegal raid in a foreign sovereign power (illegality as defined by both Pakistani, UN and American law).

~:smoking:

---

We're not equating illegal with bad are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No... I was stating that those things that are put in place might help. To think that a few classes are going to manage to offset the hell of that country is is, well, ridiculous.

That I can understand what he did does not mean I condone what he did. The validity of what he did surely depends on one's personal stand. I don't think it's valid but then I don't think that the whole enterprise is either.

~:smoking:

---

How can you defend something like this? That is the entire problem with liberals right there, they try to absolve the individual of responsibility. When you murder two entire families, you have to take responsibility for it. Does it even matter if he was in a messed up mental state? There are plenty of service men and women who have severe PTSD and don't go around killing civilians. Whether or not he had mental problems, he is still a dangerous murderer who needs to be put down. Plain and simple.

No. But if one gets into basing who can go around killing people on whether it is "bad" nor not, whose definition of "bad" do we use? That is one of the main reason for having laws in the first place. Most countries answer this question with "mine", so of course every one plays by the rules unless they don't feel like doing so.

~:smoking:

Have the Afghans offially trial him, what better way to distantiate from this, no longer army, no longer American. Symbolism of course but a gesture nonetheless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Have the Afghans offially trial him, what better way to distantiate from this, no longer army, no longer American. Symbolism of course but a gesture nonetheless

---

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there), and then if he is found guilty, put him down ourselves in a humane manner. Hanging is a barbarous, torturous, way of killing that has no place in the modern world.
If he was one of their, I would say let them do whatever they want, because it is not our responsibility. But he is not one of theirs, so we have a duty to ensure that there is a fair trial and (if found guilty) a humane execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there), and then if he is found guilty, put him down ourselves in a humane manner. Hanging is a barbarous, torturous, way of killing that has no place in the modern world.
If he was one of their, I would say let them do whatever they want, because it is not our responsibility. But he is not one of theirs, so we have a duty to ensure that there is a fair trial and (if found guilty) a humane execution.

---

He will be hanged by Afghan officials. Like it or not in their eyes he's an American soldier not a drunk psychopath. Denouncing his citizinship of the US is a way out of this, both for Obama and Karzai

I'd rather be hanged than the chair, gaschamber or injection by the way, just not Iranian style.

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

~:smoking:

---

Don't let the locals have him, turn him over to Afghan authority. Karzai needs to show that he's not a puppet and can actually make a fist, and Obama can get away with 'he really shouldn't have done that', few pics of the victims on TV et voila,

I just solved this crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there),

---

I don't know... Outcomes of trials where Americans judged Americans for murders of people of other nationalities usually ended with a slap on the wrist for the accused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

~:smoking:

---

Because I know that if I were a relative, I would aim for the stomach or nads. You shouldn't have that much passion being involved with an execution.
Professional firing squad, aiming for the head would do just fine. Of all the ways one can be executed, I think I would find that the easiest and least humiliating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I don't know... Outcomes of trials where Americans judged Americans for murders of people of other nationalities usually ended with a slap on the wrist for the accused.

---

Depends, are the victims someone unimportant, or are they someone incredibly important like muslims? When they are muslims, and something like this that threatens an important diplomatic balance has happened, I think we can count on a just punishment if guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Because I know that if I were a relative, I would aim for the stomach or nads. You shouldn't have that much passion being involved with an execution.
Professional firing squad, aiming for the head would do just fine. Of all the ways one can be executed, I think I would find that the easiest and least humiliating.

---

Fair point. But if you had 4 professionals, it would not really matter what the relatives did or didn't do. They'd still be nigh on instantly dead in a hail of bullets.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Fair point. But if you had 4 professionals, it would not really matter what the relatives did or didn't do. They'd still be nigh on instantly dead in a hail of bullets.

~:smoking:

---

But you could still have an instant or two too much or excruciating pain. We are not the Medieval Catholic Church, and we should not be torturing prisoners.
To quote my favorite game of all time:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unatco Troop

Bullet to the head, now that's justice!

---

Anything else is revenge.

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions. If this happened in Germany, our soldier would still be 100% immune from German prosecution (at that point he'd wish he wasn't, but that's another story). That's the way we run things everywhere, not just in Afghanistan. If some country doesn't like that, it's their prerogative, that just means that we will not station our troops there (as was the case with Iraq last fall).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions. If this happened in Germany, our soldier would still be 100% immune from German prosecution (at that point he'd wish he wasn't, but that's another story). That's the way we run things everywhere, not just in Afghanistan. If some country doesn't like that, it's their prerogative, that just means that we will not station our troops there (as was the case with Iraq last fall).

---

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions.

---

If I was a Afghan village chief in a remote village who thinks all soldiers are Russian, how would you explain that to me after this ( supposed) spree of uncalled viollence. Sorry have some goats? Tell me how you are not being just conquering the place exactly, and why said chief should see it any differently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

---

Oh, it's fine as the new (puppet) government that was instated is as pleased as punch to have the opportunity to embezzle as much money as he and his extended clan can get away with whilst a war is fought over the barren wasteland that is his country.

If they say no, hit 'em and ask 'em again. Eventually you'll get the right answer.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

---

Iraq did have a choice, it expressed its choice, which is why we're out of there: they refused to extend the agreement. Same agreement is in place with Karzai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If I was a Afghan village chief in a remote village who thinks all soldiers are Russian, how would you explain that to me after this ( supposed) spree of uncalled viollence. Sorry have some goats? Tell me how you are not being just conquering the place exactly, and why said chief should see it any differently

---

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[QUOTE=rvg;2053431081I'm not sure I understand your question.[/QUOTE]

What do you want from them, to suddenly leave everything to you? Trust your courts? You are a foreign invader, you expect grattitude because you mowed their lawn but it's still your boot that really affects them more directly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Iraq did have a choice, it expressed its choice, which is why we're out of there: they refused to extend the agreement. Same agreement is in place with Karzai.

---

So now Iraq and Afghanistan chose to be invaded...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What do you want from them, to suddenly leave everything to you? Trust your courts? You are a foreign invader, you expect grattitude because you mowed their lawn but it's still your boot that really affects them more directly

---

I don't really care what the average Nasratullah wants. Our government has an agreement with their government on how to handle these cases. Thus, the case will be handled according to the agreement. Public outcry over this while understandable is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Our government has an agreement with their government

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynwulf

So now Iraq and Afghanistan chose to be invaded...?

---

Did I say that?

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...

---

The "infamous puppet regime" is what the U.N. recognizes as a legitimate afghan government. They'll do.

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...

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

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.