Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

German friendly fire kills 6 Afghan soldiers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 10:48 AM
Original message
German friendly fire kills 6 Afghan soldiers
Source: AP

KABUL — German soldiers traveling to the scene of a deadly firefight with Taliban insurgents accidentally killed six Afghan troops, the Afghan military said Saturday. Three Germans died in the firefight with the militants.

The friendly fire incident Friday took place in northern Kunduz province, where German forces were sharply criticized last September when they ordered an airstrike on two tanker trucks that had been captured by the Taliban. Up to 142 people died, many of them civilians.

The German central command confirmed Friday's incident, but put the number of Afghan troop casualties at five. The deaths occurred amid heavy fighting between German troops and militants near Kunduz city.

(snip)

The commander of Afghan forces in northern Afghanistan, Gen. Murad Ani, said the two vehicles attacked had been returning to base after resupplying army and police units dispatched at the request of the Germans. One was an armored vehicle and both were clearly marked, said Ani, who visited the scene of the shooting Saturday morning along with officials from the police and intelligence services.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9ERLUIO0



German soldiers are http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100402-0000207/Defense-official--3-German-soldiers-killed-in-heavy-fighting-in-Afghanistan">a touch on edge in Kunduz at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oops.
It's not a good sign that there is fighting in the north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What makes you say that? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. The Pashtuns and the insurgency are centered in the south and east.
What's the Taliban doing up in Northern Alliance territory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. That's not precisely true.
The north has been quite busy with Taliban activity and influence. Ask the Chinese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Yes, the north has been busy, and that's not a good sign.
The north isn't Pashtun territory, and the fact that the Taliban is operating there suggests how far the insurgency has spread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. If Germany, Canada, and all the other countries that have business there
.
.
.

pulled their troops out and let the USA do whatever the feck they think they are doing

We all wouldn't be suffering.

I have NO idea why we have combat troops in Afghanistan; other than coercion by our southern neighbor

this "ally" thing with the USA is a farce

The USA military/government involved us in their slaughter to give them some validity IMO

Canada being the "nice guy" in the World's view

we LOST that image when we partnered with the World's most aggressive nation I think . . .

(sigh)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howard112211 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Germans are fucking up left and right in the recent months in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is awful
I feel terrible about this for the families of the Afghan servicemembers, and also for the German soldiers who blew it majorly. Nothing can compare to firing at friendly troops because of mistaken identity.

And Afghanistan hasn't had any investment in stability or infrastructure since the Soviets were there, and even then I don't believe their contribution is anything like what we have attempted to do for the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I believe you NATO guys are toast
You keep killing civilians and Afghans all over the place. The offensive in the South will likely be a failure. So why don't you get out now? This idea of establishing an European colony in Central Asia has been a failure in the past. What do you think is going to happen to your soldiers in Afghanistan? They will die. They will go home missing their body parts, and you will gain nothing.

This occupation is a result of neocon fantasies, it was started by an idiotic president, Bush, ruling a nation which is truly arrogant, whose own internal narrative is of soldiers fighting for freedom, when the truth is they fight for the military industrial complex, Israeli interests, and plain old imperialism. So why are you NATO fools playing along? Are you so afraid of the big bad Russian bear? You are weaklings. Behave like men, develop your own foreign policy, and tell the neocon imperialists from America to go to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The Graveyard of Empires


Like VietNam: Past time to declare victory and di di mau the hell out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. "you"
I am not just a "NATO guy", I'm a U.S. Servicemember. Army National Guard. Been in for three and a half years and it was a superb decision. Haven't regretted it one bit. I've met some of the best people I've ever known while in the service. I have grown by leaps and bounds, and learned three extremely worthwhile skills in the process.


And the modern world will ALWAYS be dominated by the Eagle and the Dragon and the Bear, until some truly world-changing events change things. I mean like European colonization of the New World+circumnavigation world changing.

And all of you non-NATO types have done less for humanity's progress over the last thousand years than the NATO nations have done over the last two centuries, whether you like it or not.

So spare the disparaging comments about NATO servicemembers, they are doing the best they can in a fucky situation in a fucky country that desparately needs stability so it can rebuild and establish some kind of future that doesn't depend on the opium poppy crop or never-ending open warfare among the dozen or more factions at play. Sometimes mistakes occur, sometimes innocent civilians wind up caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It isn't called a "war" because it is a perfectly executed police action against a pair of hostage holders.

And al-Qaeda has been extremely successful in their information war. That's right, they have beaten us soundly at manipulating public opinion, it is their #1 strategy. They came up with that strategy when they saw what happened in Mogadishu in 1993, when we lost 18 U.S. Servicemembers and a single Malaysian soldier while killing anywhere from 700-5,000 Somali fighters and civilians (though all the fighters there are civilians, they have no military, and the line is very faint between the two anyway in that region), which inspired Bin Laden to lead the type of war we are engaged in right now. He knew that even a small number of losses to U.S.-led coalition forces would eventually turn public opinion against the action, though we may inflict many times that number of casualties on the enemy and complete many needed reconstruction projects in the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. n/t
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'm wearing asbestos underwear
flame on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. You want world-changing?
Three Good Reasons to Liquidate Our Empire
And Ten Steps to Take to Do So
By Chalmers Johnson

However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than forty countries and overseas US territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in forty-six countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to US military forces living and working there--49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony--that is, control or dominance --over as many nations on the planet as possible.

We are like the British at the end of World War II: desperately trying to shore up an empire that we never needed and can no longer afford, using methods that often resemble those of failed empires of the past--including the Axis powers of World War II and the former Soviet Union. There is an important lesson for us in the British decision, starting in 1945, to liquidate their empire relatively voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so by defeat in war, as were Japan and Germany, or by debilitating colonial conflicts, as were the French and Dutch. We should follow the British example. (Alas, they are currently backsliding and following our example by assisting us in the war in Afghanistan.)

Here are three basic reasons why we must liquidate our empire or else watch it liquidate us.

<more>

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/johnson
*

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 21st 2024, 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC