UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

^^ that is exactly what is called twisting words my dear ravage. total ignorance. i guess i cannot reason with you, i have entirely different way of looking at things than yours...

22

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

We definitely have very different ways of looking at things. You justify the killing of UN armed personnel, such as these four Nepalese. I dont.

23

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

So Aceones! supports the Taliban in spite of their oppression? Am I reading that right?

24

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

The UN is strictly there to devolop and reconstruct? That is why Afghanistan is shattered and Pakistan will follow soon, right? That was a good one. What are the United Nations? What is their aim? For what do the United Nations stand? United in what?

We are United to let evil happen and then mourn in the end. No sane human being does justify what happened to the members of the UN. I know there are nuts out there feeling proud for what happend, chanting "Burn Amreeka, Go to Hell Amreeka...". If we want to live peacefully in this World - what is a mere wish anyway - we don't need people who are allowed to miuse the Freedom Of Speech. We don't need people creating unrest in this World. Terry Jones is fully accountable for the deaths in Afghanistan. This is my opinion. If my opinion is not liked, well it's not liked.

25

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

You clearly have broader issues. My only point is that UN personnel is not involved in occupation, its personnel cant be called occupation forces. Simply because the UN doesnt have troops or peace keepers inside Afghanistan. Their mandate is development and reconstruction i.e. civilian aid workers etc.

26

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

^

you clearly have no issues...I never attacked your opinion. By the way, you could never tell me what they devolop and reconstruct in Afghanistan right now. Yes I have broader issues. I'm hoping to adress them soon infront of United Nations, Security Council, Pentagon and the Knesset. Thank you very much for reading my post. Have a good one.

27

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

In light of the recent protests and consequent killing of the civilians in Mazar-i- sharif, we at Centcom would like to reiterate General Petraeus’ condemnation of the desecration of the Holy Book of Quran. We also condemn any action that would disrespect the religion of Islam. General Petraeus also said, “We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qu’ran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.”

          The United State’s constitutional rights and freedoms, granted to all citizens, guarantee the freedom of speech. Under this law, Pastor Jones’ actions made the international community question his wisdom and understanding, are protected.  This freedom is also a mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The freedom of speech extends to encompass any medium used in expression and hence it is synonymous with freedom of expression.  Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of another fringe church, whose members were protesting at military funerals with disrespectful signs and slogans. **[However unpopular and controversial this protest was, the court said that under the constitution, their freedom of expression is protected, “despite the pain they cause grieving families.”](http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/supreme-court-rules-for-westboro-baptist-church-funeral-proteste/)**

These rights and freedoms are the reason why people from all around the world, from different ethnicities, religions, sexes, and schools of thought can progress in the United States, seek legal justice and are protected under the constitution. Therefore, the actions of this pastor are not punishable under law, as you suggest, not matter how disrespectful, and controversial it was.

It is unfortunate that the conspiracy theorists have not even spared the United Nations in their rhetoric of anti- Americanism. Is it logical to call the United Nation, an international organization, comprised of 192 nations, which includes countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan a tool of the United States? Is it plausible to believe that China, France, Russia, and the U.K who are the permanent members of the Security Council, can be used by the United States? Are you not mocking the intelligence of these nations? Is it not an insult to the efforts of the United Nations in striving to promote peace among nations, rebuild developing nations, provide economic aid, and help promote human rights and refugee issues? Was achieving peace and stability and promoting democracy in dozens of countries an ulterior motive of the U.S in which the U.N is only a pawn, or is it humanitarian interventions by the international community in order to uphold protect the rights and freedoms of the human beings?

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET – U.S. Central Command
www.centcom.mil/

28

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

I think it is clear to you that no peace can be established as long as the law protects the freedom of speech. It is very logical to call the United Nations and all the countries belonging to it as Tool of Evil. I don't know why people have become blind. They don't even see that they are the one mocking their own intelligence! They have turned deaf and blind.

29

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

yeah yeah yeah, gora saab, go read my all post, or let me make it easy for you, i'm a taliban myself, lolz... sue me

and why there was a need for a new nick anyway?

30

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

though i was out, and was ok with however you twist others words to prove you point make them look like whatever u want, but here you almost proved my point. yes UN personnel cannot be called occupation forces technically and legally, right agreed, but the world knows they are nothing more than an occupation force in Afghanistan, after all they sanctioned the invasion. just like they helped invading Iraq, just like they helped attacking libya, and just like they are likely to do many more in future...

and difference is no what you mentioned above, that i justify killing UN armed personnel, the difference is that I see UN as a tool of occupation forces, and helping hand of occupation forces, the oppressors who kill indiscriminately. and you dont think this way. thats the difference.

anyways, happy fooling yourself UN's "good intentions"

31

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

CENTCOM: condemnation doesn't work. punish that loser, and make sure this never happens again... if you don't, such protests may continue and also may expand in other countries

and thanks for the joke, America and human rights, lolz

32

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

Why don’t you post in this thread: http://www.paklinks.com/gs/world-affairs/492619-hazaras-of-afghanistan-support-nato-and-do-not-want-the-taliban-to-return.html

Since you support the Taliban, do you disregard the feelings of those who don’t want them back? What right does a Pakistani like you have in enforcing oppression on others?

33

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

At least in America, Muslims are a lot safer than Christians in Muslim countries, especially Pakistan.

When's the last time you ever condemned lynch mobs against Christians in Pakistan and Iraq?

34

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

I'm not convinced that this is simply a reaction to the book burning, or the result of opportunistic incitement. I doubt they understand the nuance of Ameircan/Western principles on Freedom of Speech, or care to understand. There may well be a sentiment that the "forigners" are there with a hidden agenda...if enough people have this "epiphany", with foreign troops all around them, then the reaction is likely to be convulsive and voilent. It's a bit strange to ignore the presence of foreign souls who were injected into Afghanisntan, (it doesn't really matter if you consider it an occupation).

This may be a turning point of sorts....

35

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

Christians in Iraq were doing great under Saddam. Are you saying that America was wrong in bombing Iraq and getting rid of the secular Saddam and installing an Islamic democracy?

36

Afghan mob kill UN worikers. Security and leadership review.

Scottish newbie says “Hi”.

Una was right first time when she called this an “attack” but wrong to say this had anything to do with unarmed protestors.

This was not a protest; it was not a demonstration; it was not a petition; it was not a lobby.

This was an attack; it was killing; it was murder; it was slaughter; it was mob rule and mob violence.

We should know the difference between a “protest” and an “attack”. We should use the correct word to describe the incident and then our analysis will start on a firmer foundation.

OK here is my review of security and leadership folllowing this attack. Sorry it is quite long and raises a good number of different issues.

**Afghan mob kills UN workers. **

On Friday, April 1st 2011, an angry mob was incited to attack a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. The mob stormed the base and 7 UN workers were killed.

  • 4 British-trained Nepalese soldiers or “Gurkhas”,
  • Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—a former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with
  • Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and
  • Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission’s political section.

Too much internet comment has been posted elsewhere debating the pretext, excuse or perceived insult which was used by the mob’s ringleaders to incite the mob to attack. My post is intended to leave that subject well alone.

I reject that other discussion as irrelevant to the real needs here which are a discussion of how and why UN workers were vulnerable, undefended and left to die and who is responsible.

How it went down

The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576241110591067484.html)

The failures point by point

Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can’t be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot. It is up to the civil police to control the crowd. If they don’t hold the crowd back it is the civil authorities fault when a mob gets shot down.

Useless. Nearby is not near enough. The UN base or compound should be embedded within ISAF bases so an attack on the UN looks like an attack on ISAF, which it is.

Useless. If the UN were depending on “swift” being swift enough to save them, they were wrong and misled. The UN should have leadership which tells them - you are not safe being “nearby” you need to be surrounded by a competent military defence.

Useless compound defence architecture. It should be impossible for a crowd to breach a secure compound and if they try there should be fire power to kill those attempting to breach the compound or base.

Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.

Gurkhas are not useless man for man. But 4 to 6 Gurkhas is not enough to hold off such crowd who by this time are armed with guns taken from the police.

When a mob breaches a secure compound they are clearly an attacking mob not “demonstrators”. The senior members of the UN should have made that clear. If the Gurkhas had been better led they would have been able to put up more of a fight, but expecting so few of them to make up for failings everywhere else is unrealistic.

Useless. Defence architecture needs to be more secure areas within secure areas. Those inside a safe room or bunker within a compound or base need to be able to kill those trying to enter the safe room.

Useless. Any defence attache worth their salt would know they were sitting in a death trap and would have refused to be responsible for such a poorly defended UN compound and would have ordered everyone out and relocated to the ISAF base.

Norway is a sick monarchy with a King of Norway who thinks it is funny or cute to appoint a penguin in Edinburgh zoo as one of his senior officers. I am not kidding.

The Norwegian military is not right in the head to have allowed UN staff into that suicidal UN compound.

Norway is responsible for the Nobel Peace prize and that is what happens to those who trust the Norwegian King, his peace prize or his military attaches. The Norwegian King gets you killed. Remember that.

This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie “Zulu” illustrates.

Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)

You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking

It is missing the point entirely to consider what the mind-set of the attacking mob might have been. Who cares what their motives for attacking are? It matters not when you are defending. What matters is to be armed and prepared to stop and repel their attack.

Ban Ki-Moon to blame.

Yes you can break this down into individual failures but the failure is one of leadership at the very top of the UN organisation.

If anyone is to be held responsible over this, it should be Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General.

This importance of this story is the shocking fact that UN bases in Afghanistan are practically undefended and a mob could easily storm a base and kill those inside.

UN security is a joke.

The UN needs to sack the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon for his gross incompetence in failing to defend UN personnel.

http://www.menas.co.uk/images/site/menas_news/photo/MB%20-%20Ban%20Ki-Moon.jpg

Ban Ki-Moon: totally useless.

The UN has a lot of great principles to uphold - universal human rights etc, but these need to be upheld at the point of gun, with proper military organisation, which the UN should be able to do, in principle, but with the wrong leadership, like Ban Ki-Moon’s wrong leadership, fails to do.

The world’s dictators don’t want UN principles imposed upon their countries - they’d rather lock up or kill their political opponents - so these dictatorial governments would rather the UN was ineffectual, defenceless and impotent, like Ban Ki-Moon is.

That is why so many of the rotten governments of the world get to together at the UN to appoint such useless “hearts and flowers” types like Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan.

The UN leadership must prevent UN workers being killed as they go about the UN’s business - by for example, making sure that UN compounds are properly defended with a robust military not afraid to shoot violent attacking mobs like that Afgan mob who killed the 7 UN workers in Mazar-e-Sharif.

We need to get some good military, security and safety advisors in position with orders to defend UN workers’ lives using all means necessary, including machine-gunning attacking mobs no matter how many attack.

I want the UN leadership to defend our guys, to take sides, to realise this is war and to fight it to win.

I want the life of one loyal UN worker to be valued more by the UN high command than the lives of all in an attacking mob because we need those UN workers to achieve the UN’s long term goals and we don’t need any of those in such attacking mobs.

**The right to protest, but not the right to kill **

I am the last one to suggest machine-gunning protesters or demonstrators, having been a protester or demonstrator myself on a number of occasions.

A mob incited to lethal violence is a different thing from a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and our soldiers need to know the difference and react differently in both cases.

The mob attack on the UN compound was not a case of spray painting “Go home infidels” and smashing a few windows. This was a determined attempt to enter a “secure” (supposedly) base wherein people are being defended to inflict mob violence on those inside.

This was not an attack on property or vandalism but a murderous mob, there is a difference, and everyone has the right of self-defence in such circumstances.

The chances of reasoning with or negotiating a peaceful outcome with such an enraged mob are slim. You should always have the fire-power available to kill such a mob and be prepared to fight to survive.

The defence architecture of a military or diplomatic base - that means - security barriers, fences, walls, gates, guard posts etc - needs to be carefully designed so that only welcome guests, in good order, can enter with permission.

It is the responsibility of the civil authorities on the outside to hold any angry mob back outside the exterior defence barrier.

An angry, violent mob which breaches the defence barriers must expect to be shot.

Now, it is different if it is an essentially peaceful crowd of demonstrators. If, for example, it is some disarmed students occupying their administrative headquarters to protest education cuts, that is different. I don’t know of any occasion in Britain anyway when the students’ union has killed university administrators.

However, we are talking about Afghanistan where the locals often are armed and there is a war going on, don’t you know?

The defence architecture of this UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, was inadequate in the extreme and the numbers, quality, loyalty and arming of the guards was also inadequate in the extreme.

This is not a case of being “wise after the event”. This is basic military tactics. The UN secretary general and his senior security advisors should not have put UN staff in the hands of such poor military experts as are advising them.

The failure for appointing people who don’t know what they are doing is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who the UN should sack forthwith.

Ban Ki-Moon is useless, he is failing to properly organise the military defence of UN workers in Afghanistan and elsewhere and UN workers are being killed like the 7 killed in Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday, 1st April 2011.

If not Ban Ki-moon then who for UN Secretary General?

Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General

I am hoping that Condi as UN Secretary General would find the weaknesses in the UN secretariat and administration and purge the incompetents whoever they are.

We need Condi as UN Secretary General, and I’ll be her head of security, if she’ll have me.

What would Condi do?

All I can say for sure is what I would do if I were responsible for UN security.

I can’t promise that Condi would appoint me as her Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security or that she would even give me a second thought. She has always seemed to ignore me.

So I can’t even promise that if Condi was made UN Secretary General she would instruct her Under-Secretary-General for Security and Safety to take expert advice from me.

In fact the guy that Ban Ki-moon appointed to that job, Gregory B. Starr

used to work as US Director of Diplomatic Security responsible for the security of US diplomats.

So Starr was the guy watching Condi’s back as secretary of state. He may even have got his job at the UN working for Ban Ki-moon with a reference from Condi. I don’t know.

This guy Starr might not be up to his job at the UN but maybe it is because he is not getting the support he needs from the UN Secretary General? Maybe if Condi was his boss he would perform better?

I am certainly not going to vouch for Starr. If Starr is the problem I would advise Condi to sack or demote him. If that was the right move to take I feel Condi would take the right move, if not on my advice then on the advice of her other supporters.

Condi has a lot of clever friends and supporters and we would not see her fail just because she has inherited someone in the staff who is not up to the job.

How to get Ban Ki-moon out and Condi in

The UN Secretary General must be nominated by the UN Security Council.

Every country has a right to change its mind and change its vote. None of us signed away our freedom to Ban Ki-moon.

We are not now all slaves of Ban Ki-moon with no right to reject our imposed master.

Every permanent member of the security council - the USA, GB, France, Russia & China has a veto over the nomination of the UN Secretary general - and so if any of them change their mind about the incumbent UN Secretary General and want him out, their veto is available to withdraw the nomination of the Security Council.

I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

The UN is administered from 5 main buildings in the world - New York, Geneva, Vienna, The Hague and Nairobi.

  • The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon.
  • The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (New York)
  • The Swiss government could also appoint Cond as acting UN Secretary General (Geneva)
  • The Austrian government could also appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary (Vienna)
  • The Dutch government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (The Hague)
  • The Kenyan government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (Nairobi)
  • Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, “Myanmar” ) , would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the “Arab Spring” revolutions and so on.
  • The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.

In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US in particular needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way “a good thing”.

Peter Dow
Scottish republican socialist, author and protester (Video profile)](http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY)
Scottish National Standard Bearer website](http://scot.tk/)
The For Freedom Forums](http://figh.tk)

37

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

Damn nigga, you should up here as well! :hehe: How is your war of independence bankrolled by welfare checks from the queen going? :rotfl:

38

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

should i remind you that UN was the one who legalized the attack on Afghanistan but still on Quran Burning issue as UN member had nothing to do with this specific act they should not have been armed in this case MUSLIM should try to get Terry Jones Finish not other Non Muslims untill and unles and they also do something like this

39

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

So... you see how easy it is to incite, brainwash and recruit people who see no light, life or prospects ahead in their lives.

I am sure most of them cannot differentiate between a guy from UN or one from NATO.

40

Re: UN staff killed in Afghanistan over Quran burning issue

…One would have expected such protests to come easily to the masses already camping on the streets of Cairo, Tunis, Damascus, Sanaa and Benghazi. Logistically, the scene was set; all would have been ready for such action, but nothing of the sort came to light.

There is no suggestion that those masses revere the Quran any less, or that they see the act carried out by Jones as any less repugnant. So why the apparent inaction? Because the ‘Arab spring’ has elevated minds as well as aspirations, a trend absent still in the contexts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries where corruption is still riding a wave.

One cannot say for sure whether it was the upheavals in the region that had the Arab nations looking elsewhere to exert their collective energies, but it is without a shadow of a doubt that the absence of ‘anti-Terry Jones’ protests was not due to a lack of energy or of ability.

For several years, those studying the Arab world through the mobility and narrative of the masses have emphasised that the number one priority for the Arab people (and Muslims by extension) is the pursuit of freedom and the recapture of their long-lost dignity.

Manifestations of religious, ideological, and cultural extremist behaviour were essentially a reaction to stagnant political climates imposed by despotic regimes, lack of human rights and absence of any hope in a better future.

Thus those people - who considered it their ultimate objective a few months ago to demonstrate anger and outrage for the threat to burn the Quran - today were in no doubt whatsoever that today their priority was to remove those regimes that have ruled them so inhumanely for so long…