I did. I also noted that it happened after the event. Do you see the connection?
First, Taliban who surrender conveniently have to be killed to the last man.
Then, the Taliban say they won’t surrender. Under the circumstances, who can blame them? If they believe they’ll just get massacred in captivity if they surrender, they won’t. Neither would you.
This is another reason it’s stupid not to keep the NA on a tighter leash, or at least make an attempt to be seen as doing so. The Taliban prisoners were obviously not held at Qala in a way that was conducive to either their own security or that of their captors.
And, as the Guardian wrote:
I am sorry to say that the attitude to the US public to the public opinion in other countries, such as the UK, is “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” I really feel sorry for Tony Blair. He’s genuinely trying to take the high moral ground in this conflict, something that can’t (sadly) be said for Mr. Bush.
Oh, fuck off. They surrendered, then they fucking attacked. They fired on their captors. They set the events in motion. THEY are responsible for the deaths.
These people were killed in a battle. NA and American lives were lost. NA and American soldiers were injured. I’m supposed to feel sorry for these Taliban fucks now? If they’d just given up Bin Laden and his network, we wouldn’t even be there.
Um, attempts have been made at doing so. No foreign aid later if things aren’t done right, six to eight US servicemen on the scene pleading to stop killings, the eyes of the world on the Northern Alliance…
I realize the events have been seriously underreported in the UK left-leaning media.
You’re supposed to show support for human rights and the Geneva convention. At least, that’s what I expect you to do. Just because you don’t like the people involved doesn’t mean you can set up two sets of standards.
Even if the prisoners started this themselves - and the conflicting accounts make this less than clear - there are a few important questions to be asked:
Was this a revolt by all the captives, or just some?
Was it necessary to kill all of them? The Geneva convention’s additional protocol of 1977 specifically forbids giving the order to kill all enemies. The fact that the force used to regain control of the fort, especially the bombing, was so overwhelming that no one survived raises big questions about the true aims of the Northern Alliance and of the US and British special forces who were involved.
Were they provoked? One account of the events says that the uprising started when two CIA operatives went inside a fort full of Taliban and started asking them if they were terrorists, contrary to the usual procedure of interrogating prisoners singly or in pairs. This seems just too dumb not to have been a deliberate attempt to spark some sort of trouble.
The visiting journalists saw prisoners who were tied up. They weren’t allowed to investigate the other prisoners.
If the prisoners were so intent on martyrdom, how come they had surrendered in the first place? Isn’t it more probable that they were provoked into rebellion when they realized that they were going to get executed anyway?
The Northern Alliance commanders have repeatedly stressed that no foreign Taliban would escape Kunduz alive. Rumsfeld said things to the same effect. It’s not a stretch to assume they really meant what they said.
I have something to say about the photos that show people “kicking corpses” Um, when I kick something I dont tend to use the bottom or heel of my foot. I use the toe . It looks IMHO like the bodies were being turned over. Yeah the men used thier feet, big deal. You can’t check a body on it’s belly for weapons or anything else until you turn it over.
Like I said this is my opinion. YMMV
aegypt, just out of curiosity, do you believe the U.S. provoked the attacks upon it on 9/11?
It’s my understanding that neither side (Northern Alliance/Taliban) that’s been fighting in Afghanistan for some time now subscribes to the Geneva Convention. I could be wrong on that. But since numerous reports have indicated U.S. representatives at the prison/fort were trying to prevent hostilities, and that the U.S. has repeatedly told the Northern Alliance to reign in the brutality that has normally been displayed by both themselves and the Taliban, I fail to see why you’d try to pin this problem on the U.S.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011129/ts/afghanistan_uprising_3.html
MAZAR-E-SHARIF, Afghanistan (news - web sites) (AP) - Holdouts from a bloody rebellion by imprisoned Taliban fighters shot two workers collecting bodies at the site Thursday, two days after northern alliance forces claimed to have crushed the insurrection, a Red Cross official said.
The wounded workers from the local Health Ministry - one of whom was shot in the leg and the other in the hand - were transported to the military hospital in nearby Mazar-e-Sharif, said Simon Brooks, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in northern city.
``There was still Taliban resistance below ground in the bunker system inside the fort,’’ Brooks said.
“Stufflebeem said he had no information on a report by the Reuters news agency that Pashtun militiamen executed scores of captured Taliban fighters last week --despite protests–by a half-dozen U.S. troops who were on the scene.”
and if our six guys had managed to stop the slaughter you would call us world imperialists insensitive to Afghanistan’s cultural history of killing prisoners.
Who said anything about the US being evil? It’s just important not to go down the same road that we did with the mujahedin – who were portrayed as “Freedom-fighters.” Their atrocities were overlooked because they were “on our side.” People have to know that the NA are not fundamentaly different than the Taliban. They have to know from the start that war crimes will not go unpunished.
There’s little if any evidence that America has provided discreet encouragement and assistance to the committing of war crimes.
Sure, Rumsfeld has said he hopes the Taleban and al Queda are killed (which is generally the goal in war), but he certainly has not said “We’re encouraging our friends in the Northern Alliance to kill in cold blood any Taleban or al Queda they come across, and even those who just look like they might be Taleban or al Queda. And, we’re also sending in overwhelming air power and providing special operations forces on the ground to assist in said killing in cold blood. And we don’t care who knows it.”
Is he losing sleep over any of this? Probably not–but then again, it has yet to be established in most people’s minds that war crimes have been committed by Americans, that Americans have encouraged war crimes, and, in fact, even that war crimes have been committed (let alone on a large scale, say, massacring hundreds of unarmed prisoners).
Horseshit.* They may or may not be much different when it comes to killing prisoners, but I damn sure don’t recall any Northern Alliance-backed terrorist groups crashing hijacked jetliners into office buildings.
*This thread having depleted all available supplies of bullshit, horseshit is now being used in its place.
Sure you do. The Northern Alliance has backed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is also funded by bin Laden. The IMU has played both sides of the fence in the Talib/NA conflict. If you are going to use a noscitur a sociis argument, that makes them just as complicit in the 9/11 attacks as the Taliban. But it’s better if you don’t.
For sure, their main ambition seems to be a genocide of Shia Muslims. Apart from beheading at least a thousand civilian men, women and children in the early nineties, they had a charming way of loading shipping containers with Shia, and then lighting bonfires outside them to roast them alive. Repeat: These are not the “Good Guys”.
You may also be interested in this.
I apologize, I the Boston Globe article that mentioned burnings and beheadings of civilians seems to have been moved.
Your first site–which, like almost all the others, is not even remotely a well-known or respected source for news–fails to prove your contention that the Northern Alliance supports terrorists. Even assuming its information is correct, the most it demonstrates is that the Northern Alliance has permitted an armed organization to cross its territory on their way to attack a common enemy. Compare that to the Taliban, who have welcomed, protected, encouraged, and otherwise supported a-Qaeida. There is no moral equivalence in these activities.
The Time Magazine story is similarly irrelevant to proving the NA supports terrorist organizations. Slaughtering armed soliders in the middle of a war might not be pretty, and it might be a war crime, but it is by no stretch of the imagination comparable to September 11. And the Eurasianet article, like the Time story, describes war crimes, not support of a terrorist organization.
Yes, the Northern Alliance contains some nasty, evil motherfuckers who have killed a shitload of people. But you have produced nothing that demonstrates they support terrorism in the ordinary sense of the word.
Why look! Something reported in the United States media about alleged atrocities! Either Hell has frozen over or its the apocalypse!
[sub]The article also quotes a European who admits to the radical notion that it’s impossible to judge the situation in the prison without knowing more about it. But that will be our little secret…[/sub]
OK, the article also says the US hasn’t warned the Northern Alliance about treatment of prisoners, so a cream pie for me. Also, this stunning admission from the Pentagon–“To say that we can control or dictate what the opposition groups might do is just an overstatement. We can’t.” Imagine that–with only several dozens, maybe hundreds of personnel on the ground until last weekend, the mighty United States was unable to control the actions of the ragtag tens of thousands of the Northern Alliance.
