November 28, 2001

8:55 AM

Bombing the Taleban prisoners
"There are hundreds of bodies in there - bodies and bits of bodies, all over the place."

The crush of the Taleban prisoner revolt at the Qala-e-Jhangi fort has Amnesty International asking what happened there... I'd like to know, too. (More here and here and here.)
posted by blackholebrain (69 comments total)

The circumstances surrounding the fighting that followed are still not clear, although initial reports indicate that some prisoners overpowered guards and seized firearms.- From the Amnesty International site.

The CNN site goes on to say that Taliban prisoners had taken over a building and were firing at Alliance soldiers. They also were suspected of having stolen/smuggled in explosives.

And then Alliance soliders go in there with a tank and kill those nice people. I can't believe that. It's so horrible.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:19 AM on November 28, 2001

Apparently, they chose to die this way. They chose to fight, they chose to battle to the last man. On that score, there would seem to be no blame to place on either the NA or on US actions.

However, consider what their choices were. Either die fighting, or die by execution after military tribunal. After all, the US has clearly stated that "we are in no position to take prisoners," and that the Taliban soldiers who are captured would be left to local law enforcement/Northern Alliance "justice" (our "non-interventionist" directive at work).
posted by yesster at 9:25 AM on November 28, 2001

of course, it could have all been a plot to kill prisoners while losing a bunch of your own men...but it looks like very determined men turning lax security into their own martyrdom. What can you possibly negotiate with under those conditions? There are almost ALWAYS more prisoners than guards. Their safety is only determined by their willingness to stay alive, since obviously en-masse they can overpower the guards. That is how it works. It is the guard-prisoner dynamic.
posted by th3ph17 at 9:32 AM on November 28, 2001

On that score, there would seem to be no blame to place on either the NA or on US actions.

Although it looks as if the Taliban fighters were shipped off to Mazar under false pretenses, following a deal from the head mullah in Kunduz to change sides, and that they reacted to the appearance of an American journalist, and a pair of CIA agents in the fort on interrogation duty. "Avoidable fiasco" is a good starting point to account for what happened. And of course, since there are no Taliban left to describe what happened, we're left either to accept the official explanation that they got what they deserved (as spouted by on-message pols such as Dana Rohrabacher) or see what inferences can be drawn from what's left of the 500 bodies in the fort.
posted by holgate at 9:39 AM on November 28, 2001

I read one report of Taliban fighters blowing themselves up with gernades, and of course, taking out a few guards along with them. Then the remaining Taliban nearby would just pick up the weapons of everyone who had been killed and continue to go at it. Nice.
posted by yupislyr at 9:43 AM on November 28, 2001

Wait, I thought these guys were cowards who were only good at sneak attacks and beating up on women and children! You mean, they believed in what they were fighting for too? That almost makes them seem like human beings!

Couldn't be. If that were true, war would be a horrible enterprise filled with, at best, an unsettling moral ambiguity. No, that's impossible. Keep on smokin' the evildoers out of their holes, boys! Woohoo!
posted by Hildago at 9:46 AM on November 28, 2001

well, it's quite obvious they overpowered some guards and started this themselves... but bombing a prison? i don't think there was any threat of them escaping the fort they were being held in.

my point is this: why not just go in and wipe them all out with nukes from the start? what's the difference if we're just gonna corral them up and use them for target practice?

we, the u.s., have said we weren't going to take any prisoners --true-- but does our refusal to deal with prisoners automatically give us the right to indescriminately execute and/or bomb [whatever] any captive prisoners that are taken by the n.a.?
posted by blackholebrain at 9:49 AM on November 28, 2001

i hate you, milkman dan
posted by jdc at 10:06 AM on November 28, 2001

my point is this: why not just go in and wipe them all out with nukes from the start? what's the difference if we're just gonna corral them up and use them for target practice?

Where do you get "corralling them up and using them for target practice?" They surrendered and were being treated as prisoners of war instead of combatants, found that change not to their liking, and un-surrendered. Should the N.A. have said "Oh, we know that the last time you surrendered you changed your mind and killed a bunch of our troops, but we'll let you do it again because you're basically good human beings."

And if you read the article, you'd see that some of them did escape.
posted by jaek at 10:08 AM on November 28, 2001

what's the difference if we're just gonna corral them up and use them for target practice?

Um... I believe that we corraled them up and then they tried to use us for target practice is the way that it went. They turned it into a suicide revolt, the military reacted to protect themselves and their interests (as the military is supposed to). I just don't see the problem.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:08 AM on November 28, 2001

I've got to give a certain amount of credit to the prisoners -- I mean, if you're going to stage an uprising/escape, that was a pretty impressive way of doing it.
posted by aramaic at 10:25 AM on November 28, 2001

Some consider the events of Sept. llth cowardly, but these folks DO believe in their cause, which of course does'nt make it 'right'.If they smugled weapons into jail, I take that to mean they intended to fight it out there instead of Kandahar. Ghanystany is chock full of hard asses who will slit your throat for a month old newspaper (not the Washington Post); like Winston Churchill said: "War is Hell, I hate war."
posted by Mack Twain at 10:25 AM on November 28, 2001

What's wrong with this "War" is that it's being "played" like as if it were a bunch of kids playing war in their backyard. When the going gets tough, these people switch to the winning side. Surrender or defection should not be an option. These men chose war and now must face the consequences. Death to all Taliban and al-Qaida fighters!
posted by chainring at 10:26 AM on November 28, 2001

look, the northern alliance are a bunch of idiot thugs anyway, and are themselves the reason for the revolt -- the taleban prisoners were not properly checked and searched, and were underestimated.

"the military reacted to protect themselves and their interests"

well, ok....but given the way our government is now beginning to steamroll civil rights here in the u.s., are you saying that it's ok for the military to *smart bomb* whoever they want to protect themselves and their interests?

if so, perhaps we all should starting looking up?
posted by blackholebrain at 10:35 AM on November 28, 2001

So smart bombing is worse than dumb bombing, is that it?
posted by aramaic at 10:38 AM on November 28, 2001

oh yeah, it's kinda hard to kill your captors with your hands tied --- yet many of the dead prisoners were found with their hands bound with black scarves.
posted by blackholebrain at 10:42 AM on November 28, 2001

I think it is all too suspicious that the foreign fighters end up being killed after a surrender and subsequent unsurrender. These were, after all, the political hot potatoes of the current situation. Pakistan wanted them repatriated, the US wanted them dead either in combat or executed by the NA.

Now, like magic, the problem has gone away. I don't think I am alone in thinking this is just too similar to many a 'shot while trying to escape custody' scenario.

They could easily have been surrounded and outwaited. Unless of course there were FBI and ATF folk around!
posted by srboisvert at 10:46 AM on November 28, 2001

if you were one of the five injured troops hit with shrapnel from the errant smart bomb, you'd probably argue that smart bombs used dumbly are indeed dumb bombs.

besides, how smart of a bomb do you need if your target is fenced in a given area and has no surface-to-air weaponry?
posted by blackholebrain at 10:50 AM on November 28, 2001

given the way our government is now beginning to steamroll civil rights here in the u.s

Wha? I'm not sure I see the connection. So now the US gov't is going to start smart bombing our communities. I didn't see that in any of the articles.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:53 AM on November 28, 2001

lol srboisvert... "But we've waited for so long, and it's been sooooo long since WACO..."?
posted by blackholebrain at 10:56 AM on November 28, 2001

eyeballkid: smart bombs == smart anti-terrorist laws

...figuratively speaking, that is.

but just like those troops got hit with the smart bomb fragments, you can bet we'll all get hit somehow with shrapnel from emperor asscroft's anti-terror tactics.

same government, different way
posted by blackholebrain at 11:02 AM on November 28, 2001

War sucks. What exactly were all you horrified MeFiers expecting, a soccer game?

The other side values life only as a means to an honorable death as the path to paradise. This will happen again before its over.

And wait till you see how the other side treats POWs (especially American POWs).

Its a savage country, a savage war, and if its more than you can stomach, resist the urge to knee-jerk criticize the guys fighting ON YOUR SIDE and just turn off the TV, Browser, whatever. Just quit playin' it like its still the nineties and deal with the fact that its a dif't world these days and civility will get you only so far under arabic rules of engagement.
posted by BentPenguin at 11:12 AM on November 28, 2001

blackholebrain: I was being a bit snarky, I apologize. I agree that if Ashcroft continues to act in unbridled recklessness, we will have another McCarthy on our hands.

I have trouble seeing the connection with what happened at Qala-e-Jhangi and our civil rights here. Those are two different conversations. Your comment splintered the volleys we had been bouncing back and forth into two different games entirely.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:24 AM on November 28, 2001

...and civility will get you only so far under arabic rules of engagement.

My ears just popped. Rapid decompression of credibility.
posted by skyline at 11:33 AM on November 28, 2001

Just quit playin' it like its still the nineties and deal with the fact that its a dif't world these days and civility will get you only so far under arabic rules of engagement.

And what, precisely, is that supposed to mean, beyond demonstrating a use of apostrophes better suited to an Eminem lyrics sheet? Are you suggesting that the strategy should resemble an episode of Players?

"Go back to bed America, your government is in control.  Here's Love Connection--watch this and get fat and stupid.  By the way, keep drinking beer you fucking morons."
posted by holgate at 11:33 AM on November 28, 2001

What he means is that if Taliban soldiers get ahold of an American POW, expect him to be severly tortured, his gut cut open, his bowels removed and spread in front of him, and them perhaps killing him after more toture. THESE ARE NOT YOUR GRANDPARENTS ENEMIES! This is not a POW camp where they just nicely starve you like they did in WW2. The arabic people don't play by "western war rules" that we're all "used" to. So we "armchair quarterbacks" who aren't fighting in this horrible war should quit complaining about "the rights of the Taliban," as they've never cared about anyone elses rights. Just remember, if they could, they would kill each and every one of us and think they would end up next to Allah himself for doing it.

Frankly, I don't give one hoot what happened there. Those bastards should all be killed. They weren't sitting around peacefully in jail. They were in rebellion. They were killing people. They were in revolt. They deserved what they got.
posted by aacheson at 12:13 PM on November 28, 2001

eyeballkid: my brain splinters like that from time to time, so nuff said. i'll save asscroft for another day.

bentpenguin:

Remember, part of the reasoning behind our "war on terror" is that the wtc terrorists were "attacking civilization itself" and we couldn't just sit back and let that happen.

and sure, the taliban will probably skin alive and then hack to death any pow's they manage to capture... or worse.

but let's see... if what you're saying is true, then in order for the civilized world to fight those hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it, the civilized world is allowed to throw away the civility rulebook, and just kill whoever, whenever, however and wherever it pleases, right???

hmm... so that explains why we've been feeding them.

aacheson: i don't think you've studied war history very well -- the japanese tortured pows, vietnam pows were tortured... and there's not much the taliban can come up with that would be worse than anything those pows suffered.
posted by blackholebrain at 12:20 PM on November 28, 2001

Frankly, I don't give one hoot what happened there. Those bastards should all be killed. They weren't sitting around peacefully in jail. They were in rebellion. They were killing people. They were in revolt. They deserved what they got.

Let's get this straight: you "don't give one hoot" about what actually happened, but you base your judgement that "they deserved what they got" on apparently knowing exactly what happened? ("They weren't. . . They were. . . They were. . .They were. . .") And you don't see the inherent contradiction between those two positions? Okay, let's try again. . .

If, on the one hand, you really don't care what happened, then the rest of the paragraph is otiose: what they were doing is irrelevant. "Those bastards" could have been playing Twister and they still deserved to get bombed to bits. By adopting that approach, you essentially advocate the US and their proxy troops abandoning the basic humanitarian principles that distinguish them as the defenders of "civilisation". If, on the other hand, you believe (with decent reason) that the specific actions of the Taliban prisoners brought about their own deaths, then you should not only care about what happened, but want to know it with some certainty, and thus be pleased that Amnesty wants to ascertain the real events.

Alternatively, you may just be happy to cope with simplistic, polarising opinions which don't tax your preconceptions, and be glad that there's no-one left to offer a contrary perspective. But you'll still have contradicted yourself.
posted by holgate at 12:54 PM on November 28, 2001

Okay holgate, if you want to get picky over symantics, you're right. I should have said that I am not concerned by them being killed while revolting in prison. It is not something that keeps me up at night or worries me. As for your snobby comment of: "happy to cope with simplistic...to offer a contrary perspective." You can get of your high-horse now. You might want to look in the mirror when you say something like that.

Blackholebrain, in fact, I was a history major and took every single "war" class that was possible to take. You are right, there was a lot of torture in the Vietnam war and the Pacific campaign in WW2. I intentionally didn't bring in the Vietnam war for that reason, and forgot about the torture in WW2. I apologize for being incorrect.

As for "then in order for the civilized world to fight those hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it, the civilized world is allowed to throw away the civility rulebook, and just kill whoever, whenever, however and wherever it pleases, right???" That is a tough one, and the same conundrum we face over the death penalty. I don't believe it is right to kill POW's outright (like they would,) especially since we're trying to take the higher ground in this conflict. But if they surrender and then decide to rebel, we aren't going to win by being civil. They were, in theory at least, being treated within the "civil" rules of war, and they started fighting with the intention of kill their guards and escaping. It was "kill or be killed" and they were at the losing end of that little battle. I do not weep for them.
posted by aacheson at 1:42 PM on November 28, 2001

Okay holgate, if you want to get picky over symantics, [sic] you're right. I should have said that I am not concerned by them being killed while revolting in prison.

Were they revolting? Including the ones apparently tied up? You apparently seem to know more than anyone actually on the scene.

It is not something that keeps me up at night or worries me.

Go back to bed. Your government is in control. Keep drinking beer.

As for your snobby comment of: "happy to cope with simplistic...to offer a contrary perspective." You can get of [sic] your high-horse now. You might want to look in the mirror when you say something like that.

You've already admitted that you're happy not to look too closely at the conduct of those who fight in your name, which suggests that you might not like your own reflection.
posted by holgate at 1:52 PM on November 28, 2001

Was there really a revolt or just a crap shoot? What unbiased reporter was there to witness this episode? Can you all believe what the Northern Alliance reports?
I can not understand that some of you condone the killing of unarmed prisoners. It would sure bediffreent if you were on the receiving end.
posted by farmen at 2:14 PM on November 28, 2001

oh yeah, it's kinda hard to kill your captors with your hands tied --- yet many of the dead prisoners were found with their hands bound with black scarves.

Yes, you're right. They should have asked the revolting trojan horsers to kindly 'step aside' from those still bound so that loose and armed ones could be dealt with seperately. Get a dose of reality!
posted by HTuttle at 2:32 PM on November 28, 2001

"Go back to bed America, your government is in control.  Here's Love Connection--watch this and get fat and stupid.  By the way, keep drinking beer you fucking morons."
posted by holgate at 11:33 AM PST on November 28

The link doesn't work, but fuck you anyway, you British Prick.
posted by David Dark at 2:35 PM on November 28, 2001

My my my holgate, someone has a really bad "higher-than-thou" attitude. Get over yourself.
posted by aacheson at 2:41 PM on November 28, 2001

Sigh.
posted by aramaic at 3:01 PM on November 28, 2001

aacheson -- the main thing that bothers me about all of this is that by default prisoners of war SHOULD BE EXPECTED to attempt to overpower and kill their captors, and escape. that's part of the game... always has been, and always will be.

thus said, we're supposed to be better at *the game* than they are, but apparently we are not.

you see, if we expect captured taliban soldiers---who hate the usa simply for what it represents---to just sit quietly with their legs folded in the corner of the usa-imposed prison like punished little schoolboys, then we are ignorant of the taliban's 'endgame' ...and in war, ignorance of the endgame usually gets you a bullet between the eyes.

and the northern alliance have admittedly executed many taleban on their own---in quite nazi-like fashion, i might add---the same northern alliance we are calling teammates in this game.

and some have said---defending the bombing of the prisoners---that if it were really a massacre, and not just the consequences of a squashed uprising, then northern alliance soldiers would not have been killed in the numbers being reported.

but with our [usa] track record of smart bomb accuracy---and the fact that joe pilot flying an ac-130 gunship might not be able to tell [or care] who is taleban and who is n.a.---my money's on the n.a. deaths being 'collateral damage'.

and hey, i'm not weeping for them either... it's *we* that i worry about.
posted by blackholebrain at 3:13 PM on November 28, 2001

It seems that reactionary people use "revolting" grammar and vocabulary.
posted by mmarcos at 3:20 PM on November 28, 2001

If only holgate had been there, then only the bad revolting prisoners would have been killed, and only those revolting prisoners who wouldn't stop revolting even after they had repeatedly been given a strongly worded warning, such as "Pardon, you hooligans! Stop that revolting this instant! Can't you ruffians behave in a civilised manner and conduct yourselves like good little POWs?" All the good little revolting prisoners would have been served crumpets and tea, if the Queen approved.

Feel free to get out the red pen, mmarcos.
posted by David Dark at 3:29 PM on November 28, 2001

It's too early to say exactly what happened at Qala-e-Jhangi. But in general, I rather like the idea that the Americans have started acting meaner, playing dirtier. It scares enemies (friends, too) and keeps them guessing. Keeps them in line. Machiavelli would approve.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 3:33 PM on November 28, 2001

Hieronymous Coward: ok, somewhat agreed... but it also makes them more determined to blow up more americans and american stuff... unwanted repercussion, i'm sure.
posted by blackholebrain at 3:51 PM on November 28, 2001

The NA are recycling Taliban fillings, among other things.
posted by mmarcos at 4:01 PM on November 28, 2001

David Dark: oh, aren't you the clever one? Put down the thesaurus, and get a six-pack in: I'm sure there's lots of nice bombing for you to watch on ABC World News. (And yeah, the link was to Bill Hicks, who was about as British as Elvis, and got ignored by most of the US while Daddy Bush was spreading his own brand of civilisation across the Middle East. Talk about a prophet in his own country.)
posted by holgate at 4:05 PM on November 28, 2001

: )
posted by David Dark at 4:11 PM on November 28, 2001

A NA 'dentist' at work. A few kicks here and there and here and there. Arms were tied? (I like the last sentence: "Circumstances behind arm being tied unknown.")
posted by mmarcos at 4:19 PM on November 28, 2001

blackholebrain: ok, somewhat agreed... but it also makes them more determined to blow up more americans and american stuff... unwanted repercussion, i'm sure.

Short term perhaps, but over the long term I'm less pessimistic.

It was the Islamic Totalitarians' perception of weakness that made the US an attractive target in the first place. A revised perception of US strength, resolve, and harshness will, over time, make the US less of a target. Again, Machiavelli understood this 500 years ago. Or Thucydides: "It must be thoroughly understood that war is a necessity, and that the more readily we accept it, the less will be the ardor of our opponents."
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 4:39 PM on November 28, 2001

aacheson -- the main thing that bothers me about all of this is that by default prisoners of war SHOULD BE EXPECTED to attempt to overpower and kill their captors, and escape. that's part of the game... always has been, and always will be.

Prisoners of war are expected to attempt to escape. They are not expected to attempt to overpower and kill their captors - this returns them to combatant status.
posted by jaek at 4:42 PM on November 28, 2001

amazing how bodies look so fake. *sigh*

my little theory, in the first few minutes of the uprising, people who are actually tied up in some way are caught in crossfire. NA guards are shooting at anything that moves, those taleban who are armed are returning fire. That is chaos. Man running with gun? Shoot him. Man just running? Shoot him, or he will have a gun soon.

I [still] don't believe [hope] this is a planned conspiracy, i just think it was sloppy and probably avoidable to begin with--especially if a CIA officer fired first as mentioned in one article. The battle against the prisoners is justified once they are armed and inflicting casualties, and with enough firepower to perhaps escape.

Me, personally, if i was about to question a prisoner he would be secured for his own safety as well as my own.

Sloppy. War-ish. Yeah. On purpose? probably not. Avoidable, most likely the Scale was avoidable.

and isn't Holgate merely saying that we [amerikans] should care about what happened and why? Why is that high-and-mighty? I want to know why it happened. From a humanitarian standpoint, from a political standpoint of keeping to 'moral' high ground, and lastly, from a Tactical standpoint. It was sloppy and costly...regardless of the Why.
posted by th3ph17 at 5:00 PM on November 28, 2001

th3ph17 and blackholebrain, very good points!
There is so much in this war that are on the grey lines of right and wrong. I have so many issues with it. I have issues with giving help and money to the Northern Alliance, who haven't demonstrated in the past that they're much better than the Taliban. I have issues with giving money to Pakistan, who may be helping us now, but I feel that they are a powder keg with a short fuse, and could turn nasty very easily. I have issues with how messy this type of warfare is. Who is bad? Who is good? What about the people who fought for the Taliban and then switched sides when their side started losing? I know what happened in the prison isn't as black and white as I first said, and I should know that MeFi would call me on that. The killings? Definitely sloppy. Perhaps unavoidable. Perhaps on purpose, perhaps by mistake. However, I still feel that the people in prison who started killing people removed themselves from prisoner protection under the "rules of war" and are open season. Perhaps we went overboard. But I still can't find it in my heart to weep for them. They are so hell-bent on our destruction, that I can't feel much pity from theirs.
posted by aacheson at 5:10 PM on November 28, 2001

And if holgate had simply said we should care, that wouldn't be high and mighty. He's right, we should. But his choice of words and the implication that he cares oh-so-much-more-than-us and that we are just sitting back and should "Go back to bed. Your government is in control. Keep drinking beer" is simplistic and a more than a little ego driven. It reminds me of Berkeley (where I live) that only certain viewpoints are allowed and considered intelligent. Everyone else is seen as boorish and uneducated.
posted by aacheson at 5:19 PM on November 28, 2001

aacheson, your reference to Berkeley reminds me of a web site i used to like, for the varied and civil discussions that occured there, now...
posted by Zool at 5:56 PM on November 28, 2001

the fact of the matter is that amnesty international is too left wing to ever have a huge impact in the global social conscious.
posted by wantwit at 6:50 PM on November 28, 2001

aacheson: my "Go to sleep, America" was actually a quote from Bill Hicks, a native of Mississippi. He's the one you should accuse of overweening ego-driven puissance. (Except that he's dead.) I really, really recommend that you buy Rant in E-Minor. And listen to it every single day.

And look: I think it's "cock-up" rather than "conspiracy" here, but we ought to know for certain what went wrong. Because this cannot be repeated in other parts of Afghanistan, simply because while one bloodbath is unfortunate, several of them smack of both carelessness and callousness. Because a policy of "exterminate all the brutes" belongs in Heart of Darkness, not a modern conflict: it's unsustainable to regard everyone with a black turban (including plenty of naive and dimwitted fighters sent across the Pakistan border by their village iman) as the embodiment of evil, "hell-bent on our destruction". (Although it would be something of an ethical relief to believe so.) And because every fiasco like this weakens the moral authority that the September 11th attacks gave the US.

the fact of the matter is that amnesty international is too left wing to ever have a huge impact in the global social conscious.

It's depressing to think that a commitment to such things as ending torture and political detention is considered "too left wing". But I suspect that in the current climate, you're right.

posted by holgate at 7:09 PM on November 28, 2001

Although Isabel Hilton makes a very valid point in a piece that touches on what's most troubling about rules of engagement set by proxy forces and unaccountable special operations:

We are invited to believe that in the final appalling hours of the prisoners' revolt they were fighting to the death and by then, no doubt they were. But if that had been their intent from the start, why did they not fight to the death defending Kunduz? Were they led into a trap in the fort, then provoked into rebellion once they realised that the promises they had been given were hollow?

There has been a deafening official silence following the massacre, a silence in which Amnesty International has called for an investigation into how this "prisoners' revolt" began. The Taliban's foreign fighters are not innocent civilians. But how you treat a captive enemy divides the warrior from the war criminal.

posted by holgate at 8:11 PM on November 28, 2001

Actually, holgate, Hicks is a native of Georgia who grew up in other parts of the South, as well as Houston (which is kind of half southern, half southwestern/anywhereUSA). But Mississippi's close by - an afternoon's drive, maybe a smidgen of the evening and morning. Close enough.
posted by raysmj at 10:13 PM on November 28, 2001

Or, he *was* a native of Georgia. Back to your regular programming.
posted by raysmj at 10:14 PM on November 28, 2001

If that had been their intent from the start, why didn't they fight to the death defending Kunduz?

Yes, why didn't they? How about some consistency from those Taliban for a change! Why on God's Green Earth would a people surrender one day and fight to the death the next? From the comforts of my office, I just can't fathom the reasoning behind the revolt! It must have been another vicious unprovoked attack by a rich fat stupid Superpower upon a poor innocent starving peaceful group of war prisoners.

Anybody feel like lending his ear to the eyewitness account? Funny, Mr. Perry says it was a British journalist, not an American one who provoked the uprising (holgate), but you know, all those Westerners sure do look alike, don't they? Must've been the beer in his hand that made that Brit seem so Americanesque!

Mr. Perry's words:
There was a guy from London and a woman. They were interviewing Taliban prisoners when the Taliban suddenly just pounced on them. They beat the British guy quite badly, but he was rescued and taken out of the fort. But that's when the Taliban grabbed guns off the Northern Alliance, overpowered them, killed at least twenty and the Northern Alliance lost control of the fort and had to withdraw.

Fucking Americans! This reeks of a staged uprising in order to create a sinister bloodbath in which the bastards could gleefully slay innocents. Honestly, they put a Brit in there? What were they thinking? (We're the hoo-li-gans... Thunk!) ;)

But, to be fair, the eyewitness report is only from a guy who was actually there, he was only reporting the facts as he saw them, and he didn't even impose his own personal morality filter on the situation...
it all seems pretty fishy to me. I don't know, should we trust him?

The part that really gets me rolling is how he seems to be implying that he was afraid to get too close to the Taliban prisoners, as if they were dangerous or something! HA HA HA! What a bonehead! Doesn't he know that these guys just surrendered? They wouldn't even fight to the death to defend Kunduz, which clearly suggests that deep down they're pacifists who now understand the futility of war! They haven't seen Natural Born Killers, which means they can't possibly know that a visit from a journalist is the best time to riot. They're really just a big bunch of teddy bears, it's not like they're going to disarm and execute a CIA agent or detonate a grenade on themselves to take out some NA officers in the process!

Are they? Well, are they?
posted by David Dark at 2:00 AM on November 29, 2001

Edging carefully past the Anglophobic debris...
...I don't see how anyone could not agree that this was a dismal episode, spectacularly unflattering to the U.S. - we smart-bomb trapped hysterics while our ragged 'friends', rimming the outside of what looks like a movie-set coliseum, languidly take protected potshots at whatever quivers within.

This was a mess. My entirely uninformed opinion is that it was an avoidable mess, and further, that once initial errors in judgement begat the damn thing, the U.S. should have immediately distanced itself from the martyr-building process. Instead, we contributed, in storybook fashion, to a massacre which will assuredly ripen into legend.

(On a personal note, trumpeting a talent for sleeping soundly in the midst of far-away death is an inflammatory and remarkably hackneyed twitch, and part of what caused this discussion to implode. Maybe we all could just stop it? Oh, and maybe we could toss "War is Hell" aphorisms into the bin, as well?)
posted by Opus Dark at 5:06 AM on November 29, 2001

Actually, holgate, Hicks is a native of Georgia

And I damn well knew that, mea culpa: from Valdosta, in the bit of south Georgia that makes my girlfriend raise an eyebrow. (She's a native of Albany.) Although he's currently a resident of Mississippi. And yes, his comments on Waco might be applicable at this point in time.

posted by holgate at 5:25 AM on November 29, 2001

I'm assuming that David Darks' diatribe was dripping with sarcasm.

Otherwise, I might have to go bang my head against a wall.
posted by rich at 6:41 AM on November 29, 2001

david dark: there's always a reporter sticking a mic in someone's face, trying to start some shit, hmm?

british reporter -- "so tell me, how does it feel to know you have nothing to live for now as a taleban fighter in this prison, knowing at best you will be shamed---possibly tortured and even killed---by osama bin laden for surrendering to the northern alliance.... or perhaps be banished from afghanistan --your 'terrorist mecca'-- and forced to flee just across the border to pakistan where you will be shamed---possibly tortured and even killed---by osama bin laden's loyal fighters there... or even worse, you'll have to stay here and be subjected to interview after interview by arrogant, bad-breath reporters, such as myself, while you are forced to eat the colored happy meals dropped by u.s. airplanes, and then made to gaze upon the over-exposed, smooth, moist white skin of our perfumed, anglo-saxon, female journalists, such as my partner here, as she stares into your eyes, making you wish you could just rip her burqa to reveal her warm curves and free, naked flesh? yes, tell me how it feels???"

taleban prison riot begins.
posted by blackholebrain at 6:57 AM on November 29, 2001

the times blames it all on a cia blunder [go figure!]... and one would assume that the cia agent killed over there, named "mike", is one and the same as the cia agent "michael" referred to in this article.

WHETHER it was incompetence, overconfidence or duty that prompted two CIA operatives to interrogate dozens of Taleban on their own will perhaps remain a mystery.

A witness said: “The fighting started when the Taleban were being questioned by two men from the CIA. They wanted to know where they had come from and whether they might be al-Qaeda.”


Both CIA operatives were dressed in Afghan robes, had grey beards and spoke Persian. One of them was known as Michael, the other as David.

Michael asked one Taleb why he had come to Afghanistan. He replied: “We’re here to kill you.”

anyway, to me it's a very thorough accounting of the whole mess.
posted by blackholebrain at 8:45 AM on November 29, 2001

Save your head the trouble, rich, my diatribe was indeed dripping with sarcasm.
Apologies if that was not clear.
posted by David Dark at 10:51 AM on November 29, 2001

Opus Dark: Anglophobic?
I'm a WASP, descended straight from the UK. I'm often sarcastic as well, sorry you missed it. But I'm not afraid of myself, thanks. I'm still on holgate's case for his anti-American statements earlier in the thread. And the debris you speak of followed your first comment, it didn't precede it:

...languidly take protected potshots at whatever quivers within.

I rest my case. Dramatize, much?

the U.S. should have immediately distanced itself from the martyr-building process...

So we should have just given them the fort once they took control of it. Right. Good plan. Remind me to keep your name close at hand when the Secretary of Defense position opens up.

A word to the wise: If you ever find yourself in a prison, military or otherwise, and you try to revolt against the guards, you will be shot. Try to escape from the prison, you will be shot. You may be given a warning shot first if you're lucky, but you're not entitled to one, and if you do not stop running, bound or otherwise, you will be shot. They do not let you go simply because your arms are tied and you're not holding a gun. We all know this, right? We understand the prisoner/guard concept, namely, you can't have more guards than you have prisoners. In an ideal situation, the guards are the only ones who are supposed to be armed, but hey, the world's an imperfect place, isn't it. A prisoner had a grenade hidden in his shorts. Oops. Another couple prisoners had a gun or two, they made a choice to try and take over the fort, and they succeeded, for awhile. Then they were killed.

You can't romanticize this episode into something it's not. If prisoners want to riot, they can. There are always more of them. But even they understand that they are putting their lives on the line and going into battle. If they win, they earn their freedom. If they lose, they lie on the battlefield and have their shoes stolen and their gold teeth removed.

War is Hell.
posted by David Dark at 1:04 PM on November 29, 2001

I'm still on holgate's case for his anti-American statements earlier in the thread.

Context: "if its more than you can stomach, resist the urge to knee-jerk criticize the guys fighting ON YOUR SIDE and just turn off the TV, Browser, whatever." And you think quoting "Go to sleep, America" wasn't justified in response to that? Morality is Hell.
posted by holgate at 1:12 PM on November 29, 2001

I'm still on holgate's case for his anti-American statements

He was clearly responding to you, Dark David, and the subset of American thought you subscribe to. Assuming that those who disagree with your simplifications are anti- or un-American is pompous... even blasphemous in a democracy.
posted by skyline at 1:41 PM on November 29, 2001

I'm a WASP, descended straight from the UK.

I knew it! David, I could tell you were from UK stock before you even said it. The subtly understated sarcasm was a dead giveaway!
posted by dlewis at 3:00 PM on November 29, 2001

holgate: the Context you responded to is different than the context you quoted when you quoted Bill. I didn't go back and re-read the "turn off the TV" bit, and it does make more sense in response to the new context you mentioned. Any fan of Bill Hicks can't be that bad, so I'm not your sworn enemy or anything, but if you're going to call me a beer-swilling fucking moron, I'm going to call you a crumpet-eating pansy bitch. Anyone can sling insults from across the pond, and mine are just as justified as yours. Rant in E-minor rocks.

skyline: He clearly responded to me before I posted? Interesting theory. My head is swimming from the space-time continuum paradox you propose. I suggest you start at the top and read your way down. Things might become clearer. Anyhoo, I didn't assume that anyone who disagrees with my "simplifications" (HA) are anti-American. I assumed that someone sitting across the pond and snarkily quoting an American comedian telling all Americans to "watch Love Connection and keep drinking beer you fucking morons" might have some anti-Americanism lurking somewhere within that evolved spirit. Within the subset of American thought I subscribe to, "them's fightin' words!" But it's clearly not blasphemous to democracy for me to respond in kind. Simple enough for ya?

Perhaps holgate's third eye needs more squeegee-ing. Perhaps mine does, too.
posted by David Dark at 5:08 PM on November 29, 2001

There are Taliban still alive killing health workers.
posted by Zool at 5:59 PM on November 29, 2001

dlewis: bloody right, mate. ;)
posted by David Dark at 6:03 PM on November 29, 2001