It's a sad fact of life that these days first world democracies generally get involved in these things in developing countries which aren't democracies. I'm not saying its right, but it's so. The Afghan government (as it then was) might have thought about these sorts of things before they refused to hand over a bloke who killed 2,000 citizens of the World's only superpower. That doesn't excuse a decade long war of course, but there we are.
Maybe they should have handed Bin Laden over. Might have saved the Afghan people a lot of anguish, though no doubt they'd have had their own kind to dispense.
Last edited by Burgey; 13-03-2012 at 08:40 AM.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
It is a cowardly act to mix in with the occupiers and then kill them when they least expect it. However it's not the same as killing civilians, especially children. These were soldiers and they knew the risks in trusting the Afghan police and waging a war in a foreign country. Plus both sides are fighting a war and I don't think something like this would be against the conventions of warfare.
I really don't understand what Post WWII Germany has to do with this Smali.
US soldier accused of killing 16 Afghans could be executed, says Leon Panetta - Telegraph
According to Panetta, this soldier could face death penalty. Why is the Head of the CIA making this statement?
What does the Geneva convention/laws of warfare say about disguising as an Ally and then killing the enemy soldiers when they least expect it during a war? Similar to what the rogue Afghan police officer did with the US soldiers. Is it counted as a fair kill in war?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)