"The first three bullets hit my car and the fourth one hit my 12-year old son in the side of his head."
The Afghan interior ministry said Nato troops had opened fire on a minivan "which apparently tried to overtake the troops or maybe the car was too close to the troops".
Zemarai has denied trying to overtake the convoy and said he was unaware of any warning shots.
Bays said he later counted four bullet holes in the bodywork of the damaged vehicle.
"The boy is the latest innocent victim of a Nato mistake and his father has said he would join the Taliban or any other group that would force foreign troops from his country," Bays said.
'Deeply disturbed'
The area's police chief told Al Jazeera he was "deeply disturbed" by the incident involving International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops.
He said: "We've had this sort of problem all over Afghanistan.
"I hope the Afghan government deal with this seriously."
Bays said the police chief was later threatened with dismissal for speaking out over the killing.
A child was also hit and killed by a Nato vehicle in a convoy in the eastern
Comment:
This is one of the problems involved in overstretching our resources. While I have not seen any figures (yet), I believe that it is primarily troops who have been deployed multiple times without any time in between to recuperate who do this. The father's comment that he would be willing to join the Taliban because of this demonstrates how crucial it is that we stop this practice of treating our soldiers like machines.
11 comments:
I would agree Sergei.
With all those soldiers endlessly rotating in Iraq and Afghanistan,it isn't a wonder that some are getting 'shell-shocked' by it all.
I have no doubt that the poor fellows are starting to zombie.
And the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are suffering because of hte incompetency of the perpetrators of this damn war.
I pray that youngin' peace.
The worst thing is that we have nine times as many troops in 'Iraq. We have the potential for a one tour per soldier war.
Why not bring all the troops home from everywhere?
Would the Reds in Russina and China move in to fill the vacuum?
Would we be safer...this is not fluff...I am interested in your opinion.
What would happen if we brought all our troops home from the 900 or so bases we have around the world. Would we be safer or would the ChiComs and still Marxist Russia move in.
Serious non political question.
I honestly don't know what would happen,Mr. Onions.
Then again,I'm not advocating that particular thing either.
It's actually kind of moot though. There are many places we would make an enemy,so to speak,by pulling out. American money is welcomed in some of those ports of call,and now those bases are a part of that country's history for good or ill.
Should we remove ourselves from some place? Probably. I don't know which ones would be the most pressing.
But the key reason for the withdrawal from Iraq isn't that we are setting up ilitary bases there,but how we went about coming to that point.
And the Iraqis who are against us,feel our moves very keenly. To them,I figure,we look very imperialistic. Their ideals are not our ideals,and they will never be the Democracy that Bubble espouses to attain there.
The reason we shouldn't bring home all troops from everywhere is that our army is virtually useless here at home. Who's going to invade us? The Bahamas? The real threats to America, other than daytime television, are all overseas. Garrisoning our troops in Raleigh accomplishes nothing; garrisoning them in Riyadh prevents al-Qaeda from starting World War III.
That said, in military operations that have a public relations angle it's a bad idea for soldiers to be in the field for more than one or two deployments without having a substantial period of rest. When soldiers are deployed in hostile circumstances for too long they get burned out, and burned out troops have an intolerably high tendency to commit atrocities. A soldier who commits an atrocity creates far more enemy fighters than he neutralizes.
On another note, I hope to have the first map up tomorrow. There are still a few kinks in the system to be worked out, but it should still be possible to get a basic understanding of what's been going on for the past week with little more than a glance. Things have been going surprisingly well for us over there.
I have been looking forward to the maps. I would guess that you scored high on the various tests because you are so well read. I came out of the sticks and scored in the 99th percentile because I had read a thousand books by age 20. Thank you Yakki for your informative overview. If the democrats take the Presidency we will be fighting in Africa and South America. It seems to be a job that only we care enough to do ... protecting the downtrodden.
The problem really comes in,when you ask yourself the question of whether we should get involved or not.
Personally I feel that if there were no monetary gain for some Americans,then our government would not meddle in foreign politics and situations as much.
TO me,it's like that old parable of the fellow with the broken leg. YOu help and help and help,and eventually he expects you to carry his dead weight. There is doing good,and then there is being used.
Africa has some serious problems,IMO. A lot og human rights violations are being perpetrated by the day. It's sad that we,as a country,haven't done more to try and end the evil doings there.
But I really don't see either,what we will have to be doing in South America. What is going on there that requires our immediate intervention?
I'm looking forward to the maps, too. Unfortunately, my schedule is conspiring against me. I'll try to post an example of what I've got so far tomorrow.
Do you have any comment about war profiteering by Senator's family?
Yes, and I'm glad you mentioned that. It turns out that she didn't even belong to that subcommittee, much less resign from it.
Post a Comment