Madness is not the reason for this massacre

[Complicated]

I'm getting a bit tired of the "deranged" soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was "deranged". Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

 

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly "deranged" in Kandahar province.

 

"Apparently deranged", "probably deranged", journalists announced, a soldier who "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a "rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose "rampage" (The New York Times) was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness" (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn't kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?

 

The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn't forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army's top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen's words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.

 

Allen told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued. "There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are."

 

Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to "take vengeance" on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I've met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

 

Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the "experts" when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the "deranged" bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn't know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.

 

We've all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have "disappeared" 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that's what it's about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that's too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

 

Robert Fisk: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-madness-is-not-the-reason-for-this-massacre-7575737.html#disqus_thread

[BOB]

That's what you can do when you control the world media, you can sell any BS to anybody and it won't be long before all the muslim hypocrites (I already ran into couple of Somali guys and girls) come out of the woods and defend this coward murderer. Ooh the utter tripe some of our people vomit sometimes is cringeworthy especially those with inferiority complex who are blinded by their hatred for themselves.

 

May Allah have mercy on them and may Allah give their families the strength to overcome this terrible ordeal Insha Allah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peace, Love & Unity.

[Valenteenah.]

After a decade, the dehumanisation is so complete that terrorism is religion-specific. Very diifficult to stick that label to anyone non-Muslim now.

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Yes, this erey, this word 'deranged' had never being used by the American media to refer to that guy who went rampage in that military base in Texas a few years ago. Oh yes, I forgot he was a Muslim and automatically became a 'terrorist.'

 

Robert Fisk, as always, writing as it is.

[Mario B]

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar;806775 wrote:

Yes, this erey, this word 'deranged' had never being used by the American media to refer to that guy who went rampage in that military base in Texas a few years ago. Oh yes, I forgot he was a Muslim and automatically became a 'terrorist.'

 

Robert Fisk, as always, writing as it is.

Well said.

[Taleexi]

Double standard indeed.

[AYOUB]

 

Child witnesses to Afghan massacre say Robert Bales was not alone

 

 

By msnbc.com

Here are two versions of what happened the night of March 11, when 17 Afghan villagers were shot to death.

 

First, the Army version: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, troubled by marriage woes, drunkenly left Camp Belambai, 12 miles from Kandahar, with a pistol and an automatic rifle and killed six people as they slept. Bales then returned to the base and left again for another village, this time killing 11. He acted alone and he admitted to the killings, according to the Army.

 

Then there is the account that child witnesses provided Yalda Hakim, a journalist for SBS Dateline in Australia. *

Full article > http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10927844-child-witnesses-to-afghan-massacre-say-robert-bales-was-not-alone

 

 

]

[Raamsade]

War is ugly and wicked. So why are we surprised when ugly and wicked war begets ugly and wicked acts like this? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the killer was seeking revenge. No one can account for human emotions and impulses. I expect the US, like all civilized nations, to prosecute this killer to the full extent of the law.

 

What I can't fathom is the hypocritical reaction to this event. Few weeks ago, Boko Haram was rampaging through Nigeria leaving behind a bloody carnage in its wake. Hundreds of innocent people were massacred in cold blood including children, some of them burned while alive in churches for no reasons other than being Christians. And yet I don't recall any outrage from SOLers and not a word from liberal, racist and patronising Westerners like Frisk. Hardly anyone batted an eye lid. But what is the difference between the Nigerian and Afghani innocent victims? Should we not care about all human victims and condemn perps? This episode is very instructive.

 

It tells us that many of us, consciously or subconsciously, including smarmy Western liberals like Frisk hold Europeans/Whites to a higher moral standard than the rest of humanity. How else can you explain the indifference shown towards crimes by non-Whites in contrast to the paroxyms of indignations vis-a-vis crimes by Whites? That is the story in my opinion. Not the fact that innocent people were slaughtered. Innocent people are slaughtered every day by various actors. No one sheds a tear for these poor victims unless of course the perps were Europeans/Whites.

[Mario B]

^^ I can feel from your rant that you probably supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I believe the America soldier had no right to be in Afghanistan. As for the cult that is Boko Haram you will find that most of it's target were government institutions, i believe it's the job of the muslims of Nigeria with the help of their government to fight and defeat these criminals. Any crimes against innocent people is a tragedy and the best outcome for the victims is to bring the perpetrated to justice.

 

I support Frisk's endevour of holding his civiliasation to the highest moral standard, so instead of criticizing him you could have just sticked with exposed our hyprocracy on this occassion.