Bomb kills 9 Afghan children, 2 NATO troops
Source: Associated Press
By KAY JOHNSON, Associated Press | June 3, 2013 | Updated: June 3, 2013 10:15am
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A suicide bomber targeting an American military delegation outside a government office in eastern Afghanistan killed 12 people on Monday, including nine schoolchildren who were walking nearby and two international service members, officials said.
The attack comes as the Taliban and other militants step up bombings and raids on police posts nationwide in a major test of the ability of Afghan soldiers and police to hold their ground without international military forces, who are withdrawing.
Gen. Zelmia Oryakhail, provincial police chief of Paktia province, said the bomber on a motorcycle detonated his explosives in Samkani district as American forces passed. He said a local school had just let pupils, who were between 10 and 16 years old, out for the day.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Bomb-kills-9-Afghan-children-2-NATO-troops-4570817.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tabasco
(22,974 posts)The taliban are the most depraved scum of the Earth and should be annihilated.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)But I support anyone who does.
As far as the NATO effort, it seems to be going pretty well. Knocked off some big shots a week ago and the scumbags are fighting among themselves now. Droney ruined their fucking day -- LOL!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And they're leaving. And the Taliban is still there. And will probably be part of the next government.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Bomb-kills-9-Afghan-children-2-NATO-troops-4570817.php
If you want to attack the Taliban for NOT carrying about killing children, that would be a valid attack, given that the INTENT OF THE BOMBER WAS TO KILL NATO TROOPS, but you can NOT say the Children were the intended targets, not from THAT ARTICLE.
maxsolomon
(33,417 posts)the killing of innocent bystanders is always part of the intent of bombings. terror of this type is intended to discourage any cooperation with the occupying forces. to whit:
KURTZ
I remember when I was with Special
Forces. Seems a thousand centuries
ago. We went into a camp to
inoculate some children. We'd
left the camp after we had
inoculated the children for polio.
And this old man came running after
us, and he was crying. He couldn't
say. We went back there, and they
had come and hacked off every
inoculated arm. They they were,
in a pile. A pile of little arms.
And, I remember, I cried, I wept
like some grandmother. I wanted
to tear my teeth out. I didn't
know what I wanted to do. And I
want to remember it. I never want
to forget it. I never want to
forget it. And then I realized,
like I was shot, like I was shot
with a diamond bullet through my
forehead. And I thought, My God,
the genius of that! The genius.
The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline,
pure. And then I realized, they
were stronger than we. Because
they could stand it. These were
not monsters. These were men,
strained cadres. These men who
fought with their hearts, who have
families, who have children, who
are filled with love...that they
had the strength, the strength to
do that. If I had ten divisions
of those men, then our troubles
here would be over very quickly.
You have to have men who are moral,
and at the same time, who are able
to utilize their primordial
instincts to kill without feeling,
without passion. Without judgment.
Without Judgment. Because it's
judgment that defeats us.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)While the Viet Cong could be vicious, nothing like what your report states seems to have occurred in Vietnam. The actual example of retributions tended to be out and out killings not chopping off of arms. Furthermore such acts would have outdone Mao's rule that the guerrillas must be a fish in the sea of peasants. Thus the killing of Government agents (including teachers) was standard operation procedure, killing of peasants were not.
As to village leaders, most were pro Viet Cong, and thus the US came up with operation Phoenix to have Special Forces operators to kill such leaders till the village picked one acceptable to the Government of South Vietnam. It is believed the Viet Cong Adopted a similar policy, but no evidence of it has ever been produced.
Just a comment that it takes a very hard person to cut off the arms of children (or even an adult). On the other hand it is a lot easier psychologically to kill one's adult enemy,
As I said, the killer was either careless, setting himself up to kill the children and the Soldiers OR the Soldiers decided it was safe to be outside ONLY WHEN CHILDREN WERE PRESENT. If that is the case, who actually arranged to kill these children??
It appears the intent was to kill NATO soldiers, and that what happened. The Children were with being used as cover by the NATO Soldiers OR the Killer cared less about them. More details are needed, but NATO is not talking and since this was a suicide bomber, neither is the killer.
maxsolomon
(33,417 posts)Apocalypse Now was not factual, I am aware. I'm discussing the tactic of terror, not the facts of the Vietnam War. Kurtz's speech crystallizes why, to me, America cannot "win" in these wars we've started - we're not willing to kill more brutally than Al Qaeda/Taliban/Sunni Insurgents, to cow them and the populace into submission. And we have the technical ability, to be sure, to depopulate Afghanistan.
The Taliban attacks plenty of civilian targets in Af/Pak, they attack collaborators in the Afghan Government/Police/Army/etc. They also have no issue with attacking non-Pashtun ethnicities.
If discouraging any association with the occupiers is a secondary effect of a suicide attack (and the main planners are most certainly still alive, so maybe they'll weigh in, do you think?), I think they're comfortable with that. They have never cared if they kill children/women/muslims praying/UN workers.
Why do you need to draw such a disctinct line for intent?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Please explain how the writer could know the intent of a murdering suicidal asshole. Thanks.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Other times when the Children were present, no attacked occurred. Which goes back to my point, how do we know the SOLDIERS were NOT hiding behind the Children? We do not, just like we do NOT know which was the primary target of the Killer. You are claiming I am downplaying what is going on, but you are the one jumping to conclusions that the killer wanted to kill the Children.
I have to defer to the people on the ground, and they opinion seems to be it was an attack on the Soldiers not the Children. Until I have hard evidence the contrary, I have to go with the opinion of the people in the Ground.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)And kills a bunch of children, does that make Americans the depraved scum of the Earth who should be annihilated?
Not that what happened in the OP is ok, but there have been more stories like mine coming out in the last 10 years.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)This is the rationalization offered by the usual suspects if this was the result of a NATO airstrike on some house that killed a comparable ratio of fighters/non-combatants. I wonder if anybody will offer a similar argument now, or will their hypocrisy trump the memory of their own arguments?