Mass Slaughter of Thousands Of Taliban Prisoners Still Not Our Concern...

[Formaldehyde]

You just don't get it, do you?

What? That you can't find any "crimes against humanity" committed by the people who used to be the legitimate and US-supported government of Afghanistan? No, I got it.

I also get that you are condoning, and even advocating, war crimes committed by an ally of the US while in the pay of the CIA. But that's no surprise to me.

 

[Bill3000]

What? That you can't find any? No, I got it.

I got one on the first damn page of google.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/world/asia/16iht-afghan.1.5304686.html

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hmm. I didn't realize they were deliberately targeting civilians. I thought that was all the Al Qaida or other terrorist groups. My bad.

But it's still apparently nowhere near the number of Taliban massacrred in this one instance...

Not to mention the current government, the US, and NATO have their own onging war crimes to rationalize or ignore:

http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/afghanistan

And past known war criminals have never been prosecuted. Instead, they currently have positions power in the current US-backed government.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0707-21.htm

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A leading rights watchdog is urging that alleged war criminals holding top posts in Afghanistan's government be brought to justice, and that steps be taken to bar human rights abusers from official positions.

Many high-level officials and advisors in Afghanistan's current government are implicated in major war crimes and human rights abuses that took place in the early 1990s, Human Rights Watch said in a new report to be released in Kabul Thursday.

The organization said it based its 133-page report, ''Blood-Stained Hands: Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan's Legacy of Impunity,'' on extensive research over the past two years. This included more than 150 interviews with witnesses, survivors, government officials, and combatants.

It documents war crimes and human rights abuses during a particularly bloody year in Afghanistan's civil war, from April 1992 to March 1993, following the collapse in Kabul of the Soviet-backed government of Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai.

Some of the perpetrators are dead or currently in hiding, Human Rights Watch said, but many leaders implicated in the abuses now serve as officials in Afghanistan's defense and interior ministries or are advisors to President Hamid Karzai.

Some are running for office in parliamentary and local elections scheduled for September 2005. Others operate as warlords or regional strongmen, directing subordinates in official positions, the report said.

''This report isn't just a history lesson,'' said Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Asia division. ''These atrocities were among some of the gravest in Afghanistan's history, yet today many of the perpetrators still wield power.''

It's really tough to take the moral high ground in Afghanistan. It doesn't appear to even exist, much as in Iraq.

 

[amadeus]

But then, somehow, he always blames America first.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But then, someohow, you advocate war crimes.

Wow, I had no idea this had happened... good on them.

Too bad they aren't still that ruthless against the Taliban today... might have saved our boys a few lives and Afghanistan would be further on the road to stabilization.

You see, that's the difference between us. Unlike you, I am more than willing to condemn anybody for committing reprehensible acts.

 

[amadeus]

Maybe, but you're certainly more likely to condemn the U.S., and then claim that you had no idea the Taliban was targeting civilians.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I'm "more likely" to blame anybody, including the US, because I don't have an obvious agenda.

On the other hand, you rationalize and even support war crimes based on your own personal opinions and prejudices.

 

[MobBoss]

You see, that's the difference between us. Unlike you, I am more than willing to condemn anybody for committing reprehensible acts.

Really? Why then do I only see you ever pointing a finger at the USA?

 

[illram]

Can we all agree that summarily executing 2,000 POWs is a war crime? Is this something we can reach a consensus on here?

 

[amadeus]

Can we all agree that summarily executing 2,000 POWs is a war crime? Is this something we can reach a consensus on here?

You do what has to be done... do you think they had the resources to house 2,000 POWs? And then even once the war "ended", what do you do with them then? If you let them go, they'll start fighting you again and civilians would be caught in the crossfire.

 

[illram]

You do what has to be done... do you think they had the resources to house 2,000 POWs? And then even once the war "ended", what do you do with them then? If you let them go, they'll start fighting you again and civilians would be caught in the crossfire.

Assuming all this is true, those responsible should nonetheless be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. War crimes are war crimes. You can't just round up your prisoners and kill them because you had nowhere better to put them than in a large ditch.

 

[MobBoss]

Can we all agree that summarily executing 2,000 POWs is a war crime? Is this something we can reach a consensus on here?

We executed a lot of people after WWII also. Wasnt a warcrime either.

As to this situation, could it be a warcrime? Possibly. Again, trying to get legitimate proof of anything from that part of the world is a job unto itself. But since no US troops were involved or had anything to do with this why is it a US problem? Is there any reason the international warcrimes tribunal cant pursue it?

 

[Bill3000]

We executed a lot of people after WWII also. Wasnt a warcrime either.

Yeah but that was after the war when they had trials and stuff and they weren't POWs anymore. Also, they weren't killed merely because they were POWs.

 

[illram]

We executed a lot of people after WWII also. Wasnt a warcrime either.

As to this situation, could it be a warcrime? Possibly. Again, trying to get legitimate proof of anything from that part of the world is a job unto itself. But since no US troops were involved or had anything to do with this why is it a US problem? Is there any reason the international warcrimes tribunal cant pursue it?

Well executing someone after a trial is a little different than putting them in shipping containers and shooting them full of holes. I am assuming this was done for the expediency of then dumping the bodies into large ditches.

If there are allegations this guy was on the US payroll then we do have some obligation to investigate I think. We invaded this country and were/are involved in a war there. If anyone is going to investigate, we are the ones best situated to do so.

And if there are legitimate allegations we knew about it/covered people/did anything else related to hiding it, you have a whole host of other crimes that should be investigated.

I'd be all for an international court/tribunal shouldering the load if it was shown they could competently do it AND we agreed to cooperate and abide by their decision.

 

[MobBoss]

Well executing someone after a trial is a little different than putting them in shipping containers and shooting them full of holes.

Well, gee....dont you think prisoners need air holes too?

Geez...cant win for losing here.

If there are allegations this guy was on the US payroll then we do have some obligation to investigate I think. We invaded this country and were/are involved in a war there. If anyone is going to investigate, we are the ones best situated to do so.

Where did it say he was on the US payroll?

EDIT: nvm, found it. I would like to know what extent he was on the payroll and what his ties to the CIA and military were. That could mean a lot of different things honestly.

 

[amadeus]

Assuming all this is true, those responsible should nonetheless be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. War crimes are war crimes. You can't just round up your prisoners and kill them because you had nowhere better to put them than in a large ditch.

If we tried to do that, then we'd have two insurgencies on our hands instead of one... besides, the entire Afghanistan fiasco has shown that we either need to be ruthless or get out altogether; I knew it was going to be a train wreck from day one when they started to call it the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. No surprises into what it has since become.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Still advocating war crimes, I see.

And how dare a country that consists almost entirely of Muslims put the name of their religion in the title of their own country. What nerve. Next, they will be putting religious slogans on their money.

 

[amadeus]

Still advocating war crimes, I see.

I have no qualms about executing armed members of the Taliban, whether or not you give it the ridiculously naive designation of a "war crime". That's blowback in action, Formaldehyde...

 

[Formaldehyde]

They weren't armed. They were POWs. And you are obviously no better than they are for advocating such obvious crimes against humanity.

And no, that's not blowback. 9/11 was blowback, and the acts you think are so great are ironically going to cause even more 9/11s.


Link to video.

 

[illram]

Well, gee....dont you think prisoners need air holes too?

Geez...cant win for losing here.



Where did it say he was on the US payroll?

EDIT: nvm, found it. I would like to know what extent he was on the payroll and what his ties to the CIA and military were. That could mean a lot of different things honestly.

1) Making light of mass murder is in poor taste; 2) I agree, I'd like to know to what extent he was on the payroll and what his ties to the CIA and military were. Hence the need for some sort of investigation.

If we tried to do that, then we'd have two insurgencies on our hands instead of one... besides, the entire Afghanistan fiasco has shown that we either need to be ruthless or get out altogether...

Point is still war crimes are war crimes. I'd prefer fighting two scumbags than hiring scumbag 1 to kill scumbag 2. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan would also prefer living under no scumbag than the one scumbag left standing who also happens to think rounding people into shipping containers in order to be shot and then dumped into a ditch is an effective method of dealing with prisoners.