Log in

View Full Version : U.S Occupation Troops Handcuff and Execute Eight School Children



Mindtoaster
2nd January 2010, 17:35
After dragging them from their beds while they slept


American-led troops were accused yesterday of dragging innocent children from their beds and shooting them during a night raid that left ten people dead.

Afghan government investigators said that eight schoolchildren were killed, all but one of them from the same family. Locals said that some victims were handcuffed before being killed.

Western military sources said that the dead were all part of an Afghan terrorist cell responsible for manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have claimed the lives of countless soldiers and civilians.

“This was a joint operation that was conducted against an IED cell that Afghan and US officials had been developing information against for some time,” said a senior Nato insider. But he admitted that “the facts about what actually went down are in dispute”.

RELATED LINKS
Afghans turn to Taleban for justice
Three more troops honoured as bodies returned
Bomb disposal squad is Times’s Team of the Year
The allegations of civilian casualties led to protests in Kabul and Jalalabad, with children as young as 10 chanting “Death to America” and demanding that foreign forces should leave Afghanistan at once.

President Karzai sent a team of investigators to Narang district, in eastern Kunar province, after reports of a massacre first surfaced on Monday.

“The delegation concluded that a unit of international forces descended from a plane Sunday night into Ghazi Khan village in Narang district of the eastern province of Kunar and took ten people from three homes, eight of them school students in grades six, nine and ten, one of them a guest, the rest from the same family, and shot them dead,” a statement on President Karzai’s website said.

Assadullah Wafa, who led the investigation, said that US soldiers flew to Kunar from Kabul, suggesting that they were part of a special forces unit.

“At around 1 am, three nights ago, some American troops with helicopters left Kabul and landed around 2km away from the village,” he told The Times. “The troops walked from the helicopters to the houses and, according to my investigation, they gathered all the students from two rooms, into one room, and opened fire.” Mr Wafa, a former governor of Helmand province, met President Karzai to discuss his findings yesterday. “I spoke to the local headmaster,” he said. “It’s impossible they were al-Qaeda. They were children, they were civilians, they were innocent. I condemn this attack.”

In a telephone interview last night, the headmaster said that the victims were asleep in three rooms when the troops arrived. “Seven students were in one room,” said Rahman Jan Ehsas. “A student and one guest were in another room, a guest room, and a farmer was asleep with his wife in a third building.

“First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That’s why his wife wasn’t killed.”

A local elder, Jan Mohammed, said that three boys were killed in one room and five were handcuffed before they were shot. “I saw their school books covered in blood,” he said.

The investigation found that eight of the victims were aged from 11 to 17. The guest was a shepherd boy, 12, called Samar Gul, the headmaster said. He said that six of the students were at high school and two were at primary school. He said that all the students were his nephews. In Jalalabad, protesters set alight a US flag and an effigy of President Obama after chanting “Death to Obama” and “Death to foreign forces”. In Kabul, protesters held up banners showing photographs of dead children alongside placards demanding “Foreign troops leave Afghanistan” and “Stop killing us”.

Hekmatullah, 10, a protester, said: “We’re sick of Americans bombing us.” Samiullah Miakhel, 60, a protester. said: “The Americans are just all the time killing civilians.”

Nato’s International Security Assistance Force said that there was “no direct evidence to substantiate” Mr Wafa’s claims that unarmed civilians were harmed in what it described as a “joint coalition and Afghan security force” operation.

“As the joint assault force entered the village they came under fire from several buildings and in returning fire killed nine individuals,” he said.

• Eight Americans were killed in an attack in eastern Afghanistan yesterday (Jerome Starkey writes). Nato’s International Security Assistance Force said that the dead were not uniformed soldiers. Afghan sources said that they were civilians killed in a suicide attack on a compound in Khost province. The US Embassy in Kabul said: “Eight Americans have been killed in an attack on RC-East,” referring to the military region of eastern Afghanistan that includes 14 provinces.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6971638.ece

Hope there isn't already a thread on this... I was a bit surprised noone had made one yet

RedSonRising
2nd January 2010, 19:36
Ugh.

rebelmouse
2nd January 2010, 21:06
I will have to spread this news. People must get information what's happen there.

Lyev
2nd January 2010, 21:30
This is fucking disgusting. Eight school children? The real terrorists are NATO troops, not the Taleban. What makes me even more angry is the support "our boys in Afghanistan" get, without any analysis of the situation, at all. However, a lot of people that support our "boys", as they're called, have relatives, husbands or friends in Afghanistan and Iraq so it's a awkward situation.

But, the fundamental point remains: the USA and UK can shoot as many "terrorists" as they want, but they can't shoot the ideas behind the terrorism. Ie. you cannot simply stop extremist Islam by the shooting the people that espouse it. These conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are very similar to the Vietnam war on lots of levels.

Rjevan
2nd January 2010, 22:12
What the hell??? Seriously, just what the hell?
Are they really suggesting now that 12 year old school boys are terrorists and deserve to be shot at night immediately in their house? Wow, great way to fight the Taliban and terrorism in general, I'm sure this will bring huge sympathies for the USA and will make people turn away in disgust from the Taliban!

manic expression
2nd January 2010, 22:24
Holy sh*t.

I didn't even...wow.

Wow. I don't even know what to say.

Axle
2nd January 2010, 23:45
This is sickening.

And maybe the military should explain to all of us the relevance of shooting civilians when we're fighting "terrorism"?

The Douche
3rd January 2010, 00:02
The article first refers to "american led troops" but then infers that it was american troops themselves that do the shooting.

I'll say this, if US troops did in fact execute these people then they will be prosecuted, it happend in Iraq. But what I think is more likely is that it was a joint team of US/Afghan troops and once they restrained the targets the afghans (probably at the behest of the US advisors) executed the prisoners, and they'll probably get away with it if that is the case.

Also, I won't speculate as to whether or not the kids were involved in making IEDs (nor will I condemn them if they were) but its absurd to think that they werent just because of their age. I met plenty of pre-teens in Iraq who killed coalition troops.

Saorsa
3rd January 2010, 00:32
The investigation found that eight of the victims were aged from 11 to 17. The guest was a shepherd boy, 12, called Samar Gul, the headmaster said. He said that six of the students were at high school and two were at primary school. He said that all the students were his nephews. In Jalalabad, protesters set alight a US flag and an effigy of President Obama after chanting “Death to Obama” and “Death to foreign forces”. In Kabul, protesters held up banners showing photographs of dead children alongside placards demanding “Foreign troops leave Afghanistan” and “Stop killing us”.

Anyone on the left in the US who has any confusion about the real nature of President "Hope" Obama should read this.The Afghan people in that area have NO illusions about him.

Mindtoaster
3rd January 2010, 00:45
The article first refers to "american led troops" but then infers that it was american troops themselves that do the shooting.

I'll say this, if US troops did in fact execute these people then they will be prosecuted, it happend in Iraq. But what I think is more likely is that it was a joint team of US/Afghan troops and once they restrained the targets the afghans (probably at the behest of the US advisors) executed the prisoners, and they'll probably get away with it if that is the case.



Hmmm.... Well, the Afghani investigator cited in the article refers to the soldiers as "foreign troops", but perhaps its maybe just rhetorical?


“First the foreign troops entered the guest room and shot two of them. Then they entered another room and handcuffed the seven students. Then they killed them. Abdul Khaliq [the farmer] heard shooting and came outside. When they saw him they shot him as well. He was outside. That’s why his wife wasn’t killed.”

Proletar Communist
3rd January 2010, 23:18
USA number of legal executions since 1976 is 1188.

The proletariat will bring peace to the humanity.

The Red Next Door
4th January 2010, 06:04
The article first refers to "american led troops" but then infers that it was american troops themselves that do the shooting.

I'll say this, if US troops did in fact execute these people then they will be prosecuted, it happend in Iraq. But what I think is more likely is that it was a joint team of US/Afghan troops and once they restrained the targets the afghans (probably at the behest of the US advisors) executed the prisoners, and they'll probably get away with it if that is the case.

Also, I won't speculate as to whether or not the kids were involved in making IEDs (nor will I condemn them if they were) but its absurd to think that they werent just because of their age. I met plenty of pre-teens in Iraq who killed coalition troops.
We are lucky that we have you inside the system know as the army.

The Red Next Door
4th January 2010, 06:08
sick sad twisted world.

Jimmie Higgins
4th January 2010, 06:25
The worst part is that I haven't been able to find any coverage of this in US papers. They're still talking about the little boy that wasn't in a balloon though and they are still talking about the guy who didn't blow up a plane.

FOX news is sooooo right... all the US media does is cover the negative stories about the war - oh yeah, right.

Sleeper
4th January 2010, 07:00
I'm sorry to be from this country.

Woyzeck
6th January 2010, 17:27
And some on the "left" would have us believe these people are "workers in uniform". Disgusting.

ckaihatsu
6th January 2010, 22:32
“The delegation concluded that a unit of international forces descended from a plane Sunday night into Ghazi Khan village in Narang district of the eastern province of Kunar and took ten people from three homes, eight of them school students in grades six, nine and ten, one of them a guest, the rest from the same family, and shot them dead,” a statement on President Karzai’s website said.


This may be the puppet Karzai emerging from off of his strings -- this could be a turning point in whether Afghanistan as a whole is welcoming of the U.S. presence or not....

The Douche
6th January 2010, 23:38
And some on the "left" would have us believe these people are "workers in uniform". Disgusting.

:glare: What are soldiers?

Who maintains a line that they are "workers in uniform"? (this is wrong, but its no more wrong than the assnine and immature teenage "anti-imperialists" who refuse to analyze what a soldier really is and the class composition of the armed forces)

KC
7th January 2010, 01:11
Edit

Woyzeck
8th January 2010, 16:22
This is wrong, but its no more wrong than the assnine and immature teenage "anti-imperialists" who refuse to analyze what a soldier really is and the class composition of the armed forces

Enlighten me, please.

NecroCommie
8th January 2010, 16:54
I can't say I am surprised. If someone is, it tells more about western media than the american occupation force.

Jimmie Higgins
10th January 2010, 03:12
Enlighten me, please.Officers are careerists (in Vietnam they were rewarded and could advance in rank for high kill ratios) and are often not directly killing or at risk of being killed; Generals have careerist as well as class interests in the victory of imperialist forces.

In imperial armies, the low-ranking troops have no class interest in the victory of the imperialist forces. Often the "grunts" are drawn from the most oppressed groups in the society of the imperialist "home-country". England used Irish troops in Africa, US GIs have always overwhelmingly been from poor rural areas and urban working class areas. In In the early years of the US war in Vietnam, black soldiers were made to do the most dangerous grunt work. In Iraq, the US offered immigrants citizenship in exchange for fighting and the first US casualty was naturalized Latino immigrant (if I am remembering correctly).

Because imperialist armies must use troops who do not benefit from imperial conquest, these troops can potentially become the Achilles heel of modern warfare. Not only are troops in combat faced with having to commit brutality and atrocities while generals sit in fortified bases away from danger, but if the "home country" win the battle, this gives more power to that power to repress them once they get home. If Irish troops help the British empire pacify rebellions in Africa or US black troops help the US empire in Vietnam, then they come home and have to face an even more powerful enemy that uses the power from imperial victories against oppressed groups at home.

ls
10th January 2010, 04:30
Considering that the author of this article also writes for The Sun and The Daily Mail I'm going to hold back from assuming this is true.

Your scepticism is understandable, however the image of the protests on the article is from Reuters, which while a bourgeois source is generally trustable on something like this.

Another source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jZLcZIbVpHgLpHnS3KLbbQqfYsVQ

You notice that it's actually more idiotic sounding than that tabloid shitrag the times even though it's a "professional news source", ha, so much for the canadian press.

The act is horrific itself, it's yet more proof of the sick and twisted mindset of NATO (they were responsible not just US troops, but _US-led_ NATO troops from many countries) - the most brutal terrorists on the planet.

All I can say is all those killed, RIP.

KC
10th January 2010, 14:30
Edit

ls
10th January 2010, 21:37
Uh, it's pretty obvious that the protests happened...

Also, your source merely states that they were killed, which sounds like more of the same, as opposed to the Times article that claims intent (i.e. "they were bound, gagged, and murdered").

We may not have concrete information on what they actually did before they killed them, but it seems quite clear to me that a UN investigation has concluded that US-led NATO forces have killed 8 school children. What possible justification could there be for this? They were all fighters? NATO never even dared claim this, because we all know it simply isn't true.

KC
10th January 2010, 22:53
Edit

ls
10th January 2010, 23:00
In popular conception there is a difference of intent between intentionally killing people and accidentally having them die due to a military operation.

NATO themselves have admitted the details are "unclear" and have not even attempted to debunk the allegations beyond that, it seems to be true that the victims were asleep..

Woyzeck
11th January 2010, 14:50
Officers are careerists (in Vietnam they were rewarded and could advance in rank for high kill ratios) and are often not directly killing or at risk of being killed; Generals have careerist as well as class interests in the victory of imperialist forces.

In imperial armies, the low-ranking troops have no class interest in the victory of the imperialist forces. Often the "grunts" are drawn from the most oppressed groups in the society of the imperialist "home-country". England used Irish troops in Africa, US GIs have always overwhelmingly been from poor rural areas and urban working class areas. In In the early years of the US war in Vietnam, black soldiers were made to do the most dangerous grunt work. In Iraq, the US offered immigrants citizenship in exchange for fighting and the first US casualty was naturalized Latino immigrant (if I am remembering correctly).

Because imperialist armies must use troops who do not benefit from imperial conquest, these troops can potentially become the Achilles heel of modern warfare. Not only are troops in combat faced with having to commit brutality and atrocities while generals sit in fortified bases away from danger, but if the "home country" win the battle, this gives more power to that power to repress them once they get home. If Irish troops help the British empire pacify rebellions in Africa or US black troops help the US empire in Vietnam, then they come home and have to face an even more powerful enemy that uses the power from imperial victories against oppressed groups at home.

Thanks.

One question: what's your point? Who are more likely to adopt revolutionary consciousness; the oppressed or the oppressor (or agents of the oppressor if you prefer)? I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to win over people who have been recruited into imperialist armies, but first and foremost we must stand with the world's most oppressed peoples against imperialism and all forms of discrimination as it is their struggles that will reinvigorate the revolutionary movement of the future.