• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Afghan massacre: Convoy of Death.

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,461
80
86
I haven't seen this posted here, and seems like no media has yet to cover this, but this is an independent investigation into the alleged massacre of thousands of Afghan fighters upon their surrenders at the end of the first offensive. Have you guys seen anything about this, or have any information on it? I don't know how credible it is, and it's quite a long watch; if you have the time then watch the whole thing and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-NpdoGkaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0g6088lkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Started watching. Honestly I'd rather read an article for a few min than spend an hour on youtube, but am interested to know if there's more.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
I haven't seen this posted here, and seems like no media has yet to cover this, but this is an independent investigation into the alleged massacre of thousands of Afghan fighters upon their surrenders at the end of the first offensive. Have you guys seen anything about this, or have any information on it? I don't know how credible it is, and it's quite a long watch; if you have the time then watch the whole thing and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-NpdoGkaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0g6088lkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM
I have knowledge about it and the Taliban did this.

I should know because we were first on the ground.
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,461
80
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SSSnail
I haven't seen this posted here, and seems like no media has yet to cover this, but this is an independent investigation into the alleged massacre of thousands of Afghan fighters upon their surrenders at the end of the first offensive. Have you guys seen anything about this, or have any information on it? I don't know how credible it is, and it's quite a long watch; if you have the time then watch the whole thing and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-NpdoGkaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0g6088lkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM
I have knowledge about it and the Taliban did this.

I should know because we were first on the ground.
How could the Taliban did it when it was the Northern Alliance these fighters surrendered to?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SSSnail
I haven't seen this posted here, and seems like no media has yet to cover this, but this is an independent investigation into the alleged massacre of thousands of Afghan fighters upon their surrenders at the end of the first offensive. Have you guys seen anything about this, or have any information on it? I don't know how credible it is, and it's quite a long watch; if you have the time then watch the whole thing and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-NpdoGkaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0g6088lkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM
I have knowledge about it and the Taliban did this.

I should know because we were first on the ground.
How could the Taliban did it when it was the Northern Alliance these fighters surrendered to?
Simply because they were in an area held by the Taliban and they don't like people surrendering any more than they like women or children or anyone else who doesn't bow to their desires for an empire ruled the way they want it.

Of course, you can believe whatever you want about this, i'd explain it further if i could but i can't. (nor can i release information that is gathered about it).
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,461
80
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SSSnail
I haven't seen this posted here, and seems like no media has yet to cover this, but this is an independent investigation into the alleged massacre of thousands of Afghan fighters upon their surrenders at the end of the first offensive. Have you guys seen anything about this, or have any information on it? I don't know how credible it is, and it's quite a long watch; if you have the time then watch the whole thing and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-NpdoGkaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0g6088lkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM
I have knowledge about it and the Taliban did this.

I should know because we were first on the ground.
How could the Taliban did it when it was the Northern Alliance these fighters surrendered to?
Simply because they were in an area held by the Taliban and they don't like people surrendering any more than they like women or children or anyone else who doesn't bow to their desires for an empire ruled the way they want it.

Of course, you can believe whatever you want about this, i'd explain it further if i could but i can't. (nor can i release information that is gathered about it).
Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: SSSnail

Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
Hey, just go with his story, OK? Some internet character with a military avatar said so. Afterall, he was the first on the ground. Did you not read that part, or are you just dense?

(This is also the guy who said the US has no control over the Afghan government the other day, even though we are appointing a Prime Minister)
 

DLeRium

Lifer
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: SSSnail

Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
Hey, just go with his story, OK? Some internet character with a military avatar said so. Afterall, he was the first on the ground. Did you not read that part, or are you just dense?

(This is also the guy who said the US has not control over the Afghan government the other day, even though we are appointing a Prime Minister)
No, it's SOP to disagree with anyone who appears to have authority on P&N.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: SSSnail

Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
Hey, just go with his story, OK? Some internet character with a military avatar said so. Afterall, he was the first on the ground. Did you not read that part, or are you just dense?

(This is also the guy who said the US has not control over the Afghan government the other day, even though we are appointing a Prime Minister)
No, it's SOP to disagree with anyone who appears to have authority on P&N.
Especially those who may or may not have authority, and are wrong all of the time.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
Hey, just go with his story, OK? Some internet character with a military avatar said so. Afterall, he was the first on the ground. Did you not read that part, or are you just dense?

(This is also the guy who said the US has no control over the Afghan government the other day, even though we are appointing a Prime Minister)
I'll vouch for JOS's word. I know for a fact he's much more than "some internet character with a military avatar." He's real military front line eyes on the ground, and he's ducking lead daily for our side.

Believe him or not as you wish, but don't question his word on this until you can prove otherwise. He's as real as it gets, and he deserves our respect for his service. :thumbsup:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I accept JOS's position on this. The situation fits the Taliban better, IMO. Of course, if the facts come to show otherwise, that'll change.

I guess if we want to distribute the blame, we can get into the larger context of the whole struggle for control over Afghanistan that results in these sorts of massacres.

No foreign power seems to have any 'clean hands' in their involvement there, nor do the domestic political groups.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
The situation doesn't just fit the Taliban. It fits the Northern Alliance and every other Afghan.

Rape within marriage has just been re-legalized.

These people do not share anything in common with Western post-enlightenment political/social philosophy. And there's no way we can expect them to. There really aren't many "universal" human values except the need to eat, drink, sleep, and have sex.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
The guy who posted it has the name "truthseeker911" which means he could care less about the 'truth.'

The video looks like BS too. The bones they show in the photos are not the bones of people just killed by the bones of people killed and left in the open for weeks or years. Most likely old massacre videos from Saddam's time in power.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Since I do not have much evidence either way, I do not know who to call a liar.

But if the Northern Alliance, a nominal US ally did it, JOS can't be telling the truth. Nor is the JOS explanation of loose lips sink ships, can't reveal what I know very convincing.

But the truth should come out sooner or later and Wiki has a page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...Convoy_of_Death_(film)

You make up your own mind. Why should Dolan be motivated to lie?

We already know JOS has a vested interest and a track record of continuous dis improvement. We can still have respect for JOS as a competent professional soldier anyway. But Rommel was an excellent general also even if he worked for a snook. Sometimes lying is part of war. Must conceal the truth from the homefront is always the way wars are fought.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Since I do not have much evidence either way, I do not know who to call a liar.

But if the Northern Alliance, a nominal US ally did it, JOS can't be telling the truth. Nor is the JOS explanation of loose lips sink ships, can't reveal what I know very convincing.

But the truth should come out sooner or later and Wiki has a page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...Convoy_of_Death_(film)

You make up your own mind. Why should Dolan be motivated to lie?

We already know JOS has a vested interest and a track record of continuous dis improvement. We can still have respect for JOS as a competent professional soldier anyway. But Rommel was an excellent general also even if he worked for a snook. Sometimes lying is part of war. Must conceal the truth from the homefront is always the way wars are fought.
I can't believe this is even still being discussed. This incident has been fairly well established. Afghanistan is a brutal place and US "allies" are not immune to committing atrocities. They weren't some group of saints. Believe it or not, Northern Alliance members are probably in big bad Gitmo as we speak!!!
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The guy who posted it has the name "truthseeker911" which means he could care less about the 'truth.'

The video looks like BS too. The bones they show in the photos are not the bones of people just killed by the bones of people killed and left in the open for weeks or years. Most likely old massacre videos from Saddam's time in power.
Saddam's time in power in Afghanistan? Do you even try to comprehend what you are discussing?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The guy who posted it has the name "truthseeker911" which means he could care less about the 'truth.'
Being wrong doesn't mean they can't (you said could but presumably meant couldn't) care less about the truth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Slaughtering your enemy is a valid tactic. I see nothing wrong with this.
And nothing wrong with 9/11 or the Holocaust, I presume.

After all, those were the declared 'enemies', too.

The American war machine bin Laden opposed couldn't function without the political support and funding by the American political, military, and global financial systems.

Which were the symbolic targets with the capitol, the pentagon, and the WTC.
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Slaughtering your enemy is a valid tactic. I see nothing wrong with this.
And nothing wrong with 9/11 or the Holocaust, I presume.

After all, those were the declared 'enemies', too.

The American war machine bin Laden opposed couldn't function without the political support and funding by the American political, military, and global financial systems.

Which were the symbolic targets with the capitol, the pentagon, and the WTC.
Of course they were valid tactics. Horrible, yes, but valid. The goal of war is to destroy the enemy. Everyone knows this.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Theflyingpig may have a generality with, " Of course they were valid tactics. Horrible, yes, but valid. The goal of war is to destroy the enemy. Everyone knows
this."

But when we add it to the sacrilege point not in evidence, namely " Believe it or not, Northern Alliance members are probably in big bad Gitmo as we speak!!! "

Which is exactly the problem, the Northern Alliance collectively may belong in Gitmo but instead they are again running most of Afghanistan, and as soon as the Northern Alliance used Nato to help destroy the Taliban, they raced back home to re set up the very corruption that so alienated the Afghan people, that they would allow the rise of the Taliban as a lesser of two evils.

And as soon as the Northern Alliance re set up, Afghan opium production went up 258% in one single year.

Other bottom line, Nato can't make headway in Afghanistan and still stay in bed with the Northern Alliance. Nato is still in bed with the Northern alliance and each and every year, Nato is further from victory.

Nato is fighting the wrong war here, the enemy is the corruption and anarchy Nato brought with them.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Slaughtering your enemy is a valid tactic. I see nothing wrong with this.
And nothing wrong with 9/11 or the Holocaust, I presume.

After all, those were the declared 'enemies', too.

The American war machine bin Laden opposed couldn't function without the political support and funding by the American political, military, and global financial systems.

Which were the symbolic targets with the capitol, the pentagon, and the WTC.
Of course they were valid tactics. Horrible, yes, but valid. The goal of war is to destroy the enemy. Everyone knows this.
You can't even use the term valid tactics, because you remove any meaning from it, by claiming there are no invalid tactics.

You wrote two sentences; the first, this is valid tactics, the secons you see nothing wrong with it.

So, if you see nothing wrong with 'valid tactics', and you see this, 9/11, and the holocaust as valid tactics, you sse nothing wrong with this, 9/11 or the Holocaust.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Wait, wasn't the Taliban these people fought for? And weren't there US (or coalition) troops present? My understanding of that offensive was the coalition forces fought against the Taliban and Afghan fighters? So you're telling me these fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and they turned them over to the Taliban? :confused:
Hey, just go with his story, OK? Some internet character with a military avatar said so. Afterall, he was the first on the ground. Did you not read that part, or are you just dense?

(This is also the guy who said the US has no control over the Afghan government the other day, even though we are appointing a Prime Minister)
I'll vouch for JOS's word. I know for a fact he's much more than "some internet character with a military avatar." He's real military front line eyes on the ground, and he's ducking lead daily for our side.

Believe him or not as you wish, but don't question his word on this until you can prove otherwise. He's as real as it gets, and he deserves our respect for his service. :thumbsup:
"Don't question his word on this until you can prove otherwise".. LOL.. This coming from the guy who posts stuff without proof every single day? That is such a stupid point its almost absurd. We have the right to question everyone and everything we want without proof. Thats what JOS is over there fighting for, our rights to make sure we can do that. Besides Harvey, this is the internet.. 99.9999999% of everything thats posted here is without proof or probably much thought at all.

That being said I do take JOS's word on this.. however, telling people not to question it goes against what our countries are founded on.. Of course, its not surprise someone like Harvey who would wipe his ass with the Constitution and preferred to be ruled by a foreign court would make a statement like this.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The other distinction that must be made, is that if certain of the charges are true, this transcends normal war and goes into the area of international war crimes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY