2 children beheaded by militants, Afghan authorities say

[KansDem]

Source: CNN

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Taliban militants beheaded two children in southern Afghanistan, a provincial governor's office said.

The beheadings occurred in Kandahar province, the provincial governor's office said Monday.

One of those slain was a 10-year-old boy. The other was age 16.

A press release issued by the office said the militants caught and beheaded the 10-year-old Sunday after he had collected food waste from a trash bin in the area of a security checkpoint.

There were no immediate details about the 16-year-old.

The Taliban has not commented on the report.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/world/asia/afghanistan-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Boomerproud]

1. Inhumane.

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

2. Disturbing story, but this typo made me laugh:

10-year-old Sunday

"X year old" is only hyphenated when modifying the next word, so that Sunday is 10 years old.

[KansDem]

3. I noticed that too...

And I agree: if true, this story is indeed disturbing. But I would think it needs to be verified. It's just too unbelievable.

...the militants caught and beheaded the 10-year-old Sunday after he had collected food waste from a trash bin...

Maybe he was hungry?

[RebelOne]

5. It should have been the 10-year-old boy. n/t

[Turbineguy]

4. Maybe they

want the US to stay there?

[red dog 1]

6. The Taliban Visited George H.W. Bush many times.

There are scenes in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" showing them at Bush's Texas home and at the White House as well.

Donald Rumsfeld is shown shaking their hands and selling them weapons.

[leftynyc]

23. What does that have to do with this?

Are you seriously blaming the prior administration for this disgusting behavior?

[red dog 1]

29. Actually, I'm blaming both the Bush 41 AND Bush 43 Administrations for this disgusting bahavior

It was under George H.W. Bush that the Taliban were wined and dined and were sold weapons which were later used against American forces.

Are you seriously defending the prior administration,s ties to the Bin Laden family and to the Taliban?

In 2002, The Taliban in Afghanistan could have been "taken out" entirely by George W. Bush, but were not
.
Bin Laden and AlQaeda could have been "taken out" at Tora Bora, where the entire Al Qaeda top command, inuding Bin Laden, were totally surrounded by Coalition forces, but were ordered to fall back and go to Iraq....allowing Bin Laden & the entire senior staff of AlQaeda to escape

If not for the actions of both Bush 41 & Bush 43, the Taliban would be an extinct organization now, and those beheadings of the 2 children would not have occurred.

What are you, a Bush Crime Family loyalist?

[leftynyc]

30. Blaming the bush's for the

way these animals interpret Islamic law is just plain stupid. You're pretending it's only the taliban that practices Islamic fundamentalism and taking me for a bush supporter simply makes you look like a fool.

[red dog 1]

34. Calling me names does not validate your argument

The horrific beheadings of the 2 young boys was done by the Taliban.
The Bush family has ties with the Taliban going back to George H.W. Bush, and his desire to make millions off the proposed oil pipeline through Afghanistan.
In 2001, just a few months before 9/11, George W. Bush invited Taliban Minister Rahmat Ullah Hashimi to come to the United States and tour the country "to improve the image of the Taliban"

These are facts.

There are more facts that prove George W. Bush failed to act quickly after 9/11 in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who were supported by the Taliban.
In fact, Bush waited 2 whole months before ordering troops to Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden.
He gave Bin Laden a 2 month "head start"...This is a fact.
He sent only 11,000 troops into Afghanistan..This too is a fact.
Despite all this, Coalition forces still somehow cornered Bin Laden at Tora Bora, with his entire senior staff.
They were completely surrounded by Coalition troops.
Bin Laden and his senior staff could have been captured at Tora Bora, but Bush decided to order the forces to fall back and go to Iraq instead; and Bin Laden & Al Qaeda got away.

Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and all the Taliban that harbored him could have been removed from Afghanistan; but Bush chose instead to let them all go.

Were it not for the Bush Administration's failure to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda,
there would be no Taliban still in Afghanistan; and those children would not have been beheaded.

From your post # 30
"Blaming the bush's (sic) for the way these animals interpret Islamic law is just plain stupid.
You're pretending it's only the Taliban that practices Islamic fundamentalism and taking me for a bush supporter simply makes you look like a fool."

"You're pretending it's only the Taliban that practices Islamic fundamentalism"???

Where did I say that?
Which post was that?

I will not stoop to your level of name calling.

In fact, I am through trying to reason with you.

I have nothing further to say to you because I believe the adage:
"Never argue with a fool..onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

[leftynyc]

35. Awwww, poor baby doesn't like

when he/she gets insulted after asking if I'm a bush supporter because I don't blame bush for the disgusting behavior of the taliban. The rest of your post is drivel.

[happyslug]

7. Why would the Taliban do this??

A press release issued by the office said the militants caught and beheaded the 10-year-old Sunday after he had collected food waste from a trash bin in the area of a security checkpoint.

That implies to me that someone wanted these two kids dead, and some how I doubt it was the Taliban. These two children were KILLED for taking food from a food dump? and near a security check point? Something tells me it is the Check point that was important..

In theory the Taliban could have demanded these two boys give them data as to the Check point, when the boys refused the Taliban executed them. The problem with this theory is what would prevent the Taliban from sending their own men to the same dump and look over the Check point? That is a big hole in any theory that the Taliban did this act,

On the other hand, the people at the Check point could have decided that the people working at the dump were all Taliban and thus threats. To clear the threats the men at the Check point went over to the dump and grabbed who they could, a 10 year old and a 16 year old, and then killed them. The Soldiers then blamed the Taliban when people asked. The locals know better (as does probably the Taliban) and I suspect so do the soldier's superiors. On the other hand it is convenient up the chain of command to blame the Taliban rather then the fact that they permitted a security hazard to be so close to a Check point.

Sorry, while I can NOT rule out the Taliban, I see no advantage for them to do this. On the other hand I see a lot of advantages for out allied Afghan allies, mostly to cover up their own incompetency. Check points should be in places where no one can get near without being seen AND away from any other "attractive nuisance" such as a dump, a restaurant, a water source etc. That dump sounds like it was to close, and the person to blame for it being to close is much higher up on the chain of command then the men manning that check point. Thus the men at the check point took things into their own hands, and then blamed the Taliban for the killings. As this report became more widespread, WHY it occurred would have become clear, but no one wanted to take responsibility for permitting that dump so close to a check point that it became more convenient to blame the Taliban.

I am not defending the Taliban, they have done some horrible deeds, but killing two Civilians near a Government Check Point would NOT be advisable to them and thus they would not do it. I am looking at who benefits from this act, and it does NOT add up to the Taliban's benefit.

[shawn703]

8. Religious fanatics rarely care about what's advisable

More than they care about what meets their warped sense of right and wrong and their views of appropriate justice.

Fuck religious nutjobs of any religion. They're a waste of flesh and do nothing but make life miserable for the rest of us.

[Ed Suspicious]

10. yes.

[happyslug]

12. What has this killing to do with religion?????

Sorry, nothing in the Article indicts this was a RELIGIOUS Killing. The location gives me the impression it was a military operation. Given a choice between hitting the Check point (using the dump as a cover since others were at the dump) and hitting the dump, which would you choose? I would hit the check point from the dump. This my comment this killing does NOT makes sense for the Taliban to do. If the Taliban killed these boys, that means they are killing their own cover. That makes NO SENSE in any MILITARY OPERATION.

Get away from the idea that the Taliban kill JUST FOR RELIGION. They are NOT, most of the moves the Taliban do is to win the war and that concentration is why the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan. This extends to their attack on schools, since schools means the Government is doing some good, it turns people away from the fight against the Government, thus the schools must be shut down. The Viet Cong did the same thing in Vietnam. The Algerian resistance (which was more communist then religions in their war against the French in the 1950s) did the same thing for the same reason. The US contras in Nicaragua did the same thing in the 1980s. They want the people to look to the Taliban as their legitimate government and sole provider of Government Services, including education. Thus in guerrilla warfare, Schools are a prime target.

Thus the Taliban has attacked schools in the past, they have NOT attacked people going through a Garbage dump. Why would the Taliban do so? They gain nothing from it. Thus my comment, looks who BENEFIT from this attack, and it does NOT look like it is the Taliban.

[oberliner]

9. As a warning to villagers not to co-operate with the Afghan government

The were "colluding with police" or "spying" on their behalf according to these sick people.

[happyslug]

13. That might be the reason, but at a dump?

After the end of the War in Vietnam the US Army did a study on why the US Army failed, one of the reason was that the Viet Cong had become dependent on US dumps for much of their own supplies. US troops tended to do a lot of waste, batteries were replaced before any mission and thrown away, The Viet Cong used these almost dead batteries to provide electrical charges to the home made bombs they made and used against the US army.

Thus, the killing may be telling the natives NOT to deal with the Government, but also not to touch a Taliban Supply point. Possible, but why do it so close to a Check Point? It would be a way to tell everyone that Check point is meaningless.

While this is a POSSIBLE reason for this killing, I lean to it being someone else. I can NOT exclude this possibility but why kill someone you can use to get stuff from the dump? Thus possible but not probable,

[oberliner]

15. What do you think is more probable?

Have you a theory of your own?

[happyslug]

16. You have my two theories.

First, the soldiers at the Check Point was afraid that the Taliban were using the people at the dump as a cover so they could move in closer to the check point, so any attack would be shorter, and thus quicker. So to prevent such a Taliban attack, the Guards themselves decided to take out the people at the dump. When the Soldiers made they move, everyone else ran away, but the guards caught these two boys and executed them, to teach all the other garbage pickers to stay away.

The second theory is less likely, but it could be the Taliban killed the boys for the Taliban is using the dump as their own supply point (i.e, using discarded US material just like the Viet Cong did in Vietnam).

A third possibility exists, even less likely, but still more then just possible. That third option is that the Guards are GIVING the supplies to the Taliban and using the Dump as a cover for the exchange (i.e. not only dump garbage but things the Taliban wants, discarded brass from fired ammunition along with live ammunition). In this scenario, the soldiers and the Taliban work together to capture and kill these boys.

I still think the first option is the best option. but the other twos are also good options. To actually find out we will have to have data from the Soldiers and/or the Taliban, but both sides have good reasons to keep quite on this killing at the present time.

[oberliner]

24. Interesting

I have not seen that theory posited anywhere from here.

Do you have a link to any articles or the like that make a similar case?

[happyslug]

25. Based on my own experience AND other news reports

First, I was in the National Guard in the 1980s. During my time I had to man and set up "Check points" in the form of entrance gates to our bivouac area. One characteristics of these check points is they were always supported by a Machine Gun 20-50 feet behind us. If anything would have gone wrong, the Machine Gun would have opened fire as anyone at the gate would have fallen down (We NEVER have live ammo, for all we did was train and did not NEED live ammo for training). You train as you will fight and the above set up had been found to be the most effective way to set up a gate/check point. The purpose of the Guard at the gate was to check out what was coming in and if it was OK, leave it enter. If something was wrong, he was to fall to the ground and the Machine Gun would handle the Situation.

Thus the Check Point is a gate for people to go up to, be checked out and passed through. It is NOT a defensive position, that is further on. I suspect the same techniques are being used in Afghanistan. The Guard at the Check point checks out what is going through the check point, but if something is wrong it is NOT the job of the guard to stop whatever is being checked, but to get out of the way of the Machine Gun who will stop whatever is trying to force they way through the gate.

Once you understand HOW a check point operates, you quickly realized any attack on the check point will be to remove the Machine gun nest guarding the check point not the check point itself (Unless it is a terror attack, then killing the guard is sufficient). To protect the Machine gun you want a clear range of fire and observation. You want no one near. You want a "no man's zone". An area, if someone enters you fire a burst to warn them to get out, and if they do not, you fire on the people in the No man's Zone.

As to the Dump, Afghanistan is a poor country, with people unable to obtain food. Thus garbage dumps are areas where the local poor go to see what they can find to sell for cash. This occurs in Africa and Latin America for the same reasons (And I suspect India and Asia, but I have NOT read of reports in those areas, there are reports of such activities in US dumps, but technically it is illegal and the dump operators do try to keep them out). Thus you have a large group of people working the dump at all times. You can NOT just fire a burst over they heads to chase them away (The dump or the Check point should have been moved). If you fire a burst, they poor may run away, but come back FOR THEY HAVE NO PLACE ELSE TO GO TO FIND SOMETHING TO SELL SO THEY CAN HAVE MONEY TO BUY FOOD.

These two facts, what is normal for a Check Point and what is the norm for dumps in many third world countries, when combined lead to a security problem as to the check point. The Guards at the check point will have to worry about infiltration as to the dump, as long as people go to the dump. Efforts to keep them out will NOT last long, especially if you accept the fact such people have no place else to gather things to sell for food. Thus I lean to the guards doing the killing, as a message to the others NOT to go to the dump. The brutality of the killing reinforces my position that this was a THREAT to others as while as a brutal execution. Theory #1 fits the facts of the case better then any other explanation, but I can NOT exclude Theory #2 or #3, brutal execution would also fit into those theories.

As to the CLAIM it was the Taliban, better off making such a claim them admitting the truth and seeing that fact hit the Western News, The Soldiers do not care about the locals, but they do care about the command structure above them AND how they would react to bad press in the West (i.e. kill the Soldiers and claim, "see we punish people who commits war crimes&quot . Notice the problem is NOT the killing, but the bad press from who did the killing, thus everyone has incentives to blame the Taliban

[oberliner]

28. Gotcha

I really appreciate you sharing your insights.

It's hard to know what's really going on over there!

[Marrah_G]

11. It doesn't surprise me at all

They think nothing of killing someone out of revenge, to cover something up or frankly, just because they feel like it. This group has NO redeeming qualities, collectively or individually.

[happyslug]

14. I do not know if you talking about the Taliban or our Afghan Allies

But your statement is true as to both, but the Taliban is the weaker and thus less likely.

[geek tragedy]

17. So, your position is that though barbaric and monstrous, the

Taliban are utterly incapable of taking counterproductive actions.

Like shooting a school girl in the head?

[Harmony Blue]

18. A school girl or any children attending a school

set up by the west are targets because they are a threat to Taliban governance. I have to agree that too much information is missing from this story.

[happyslug]

26. This article is about a 10 year old and a 16 year old boy, not a girl in school

I have to accept the fact that the Taliban has shot girls for going to school, but so did the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s (The Contras shot anyone going to school, but that includes girls by definition). There are reports of teachers being killed by the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive of 1968 (The report is quite clear, the Viet Cong, once they took a city, went to all the teacher's home and ordered them to report to a central location, where they were all shot).

All of the above was done for the same reason, to show locals that they can NOT depend on the Government for anything, including protection and education. A secondary reason is such teachers tend to be under the control of the Government and thus agents of the Government whose mission is to report ANYTHING that is against the Government.

Killing of Teachers is a well known guerrilla activity against a government they oppose. The Government of Afghanistan seems NOT to interfere with the traditional education of boys in Afghanistan (and most of that seems to be heavy infiltrated by Taliban supporters) and being traditional not a threat to the Taliban nor indications of support for the Government. Thus education of women is new for education of women was rare in Afghanistan (Except under Soviet Influence, now long gone AND education by their Mothers and other female relatives, which was the norm in most of Afghanistan even during Soviet Times). Thus the various efforts to educate Afghan women are viewed as an attack on the Taliban (and attacks on girls going to such schools, are attacks on the Government).

Now, the above is true of Afghanistan, but we are talking about TWO BOYS BEHEADED ON A DUMP. That has NOTHING to do with the Taliban attitude to the education of women. Something else is afoot with this killing and it appears to be a some sort of warning to other about something to do with that dump. I mention my thoughts on the dump above and will NOT re-list them here, but this involves something other then the education of women, what it is is unknown but has little to do with the education of women and the Taliban's attack on women.

Side note: I use the term "Soviet times" in the above paragraph. Joseph Stalin made the last King of Afghanistan, King on Afghanistan just before his own death. Why? Stalin knew that Afghanistan was a tribal land that would be hard to suppress, so he left it alone and put a king in charge who would keep the local busy and out of his hair. That position was maintained till the 1970s when hard liners in the Soviet Union decided that having a kingdom within the Soviet Empire was unacceptable. These hard liners decided to move Afghanistan into the 20th century and ran into the problems Stalin had foreseen and avoided. This lead to unrest in Afghanistan, an overthrowing of the King by pro-soviet groups, then more unrest, then a full scale invasion, and more unrest and then the slow drawn out guerrilla war the Soviet Union fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Afghanistan had been in the obit of Russian Control since the Russian Empire moved in Central Asia in the 1800s (as England moved into Afghanistan to offset these advances, was driven out as the Afghan came to look to Russia for support against England). This control continued after the Revolutions of 1917. Thus by 1952 Afghanistan had long been under the influence of the Soviet Union. Thus when I use the term "Soviet Times" I mean the period from 1952 to 1989, when the Soviet Union was the single most important foreign influence in Afghanistan. That ended with the collapse both of the Soviet Union (in 1989) AND the Communist Government of Afghanistan (In 1992). Since that time period the greatest influence has been Pakistan (and maybe Saudi Arabia via Pakistan). Only since the American Invasion of 2002 has American influence come close to those two.

[booley]

36. I agree

It's to much like "Evil for the LULZ"

The taliban are evil but they aren't cartoons. They have reasons for what they do.

I can't think of anywhere in Islam is taking food from a dumpster an offense.

[Sunlei]

19. Bacha bazi (kept boys) from the military checkpoint or Talabin military?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

[Harmony Blue]

20. That seems more likely

a reason why these tragic event took place.

[freshwest]

22. Yes, could be. How horrible to treat children this way.

[happyslug]

27. To young and to old.

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 05:32 PM - Edit history (2)

I use to deal with Children and Youth and had to study up on Pedophilia in the US. In the US (and other nations) most victims are about age 12, very few younger then 11 (and almost none younger then 10). While victims exist after they turn 14, but the drop off is huge. Men who like little boys tend to like them about age 12, much younger or older these men are NOT turned on.

You see this is the Catholic Church scandals (and the more recent Boy Scouts problems), the problem is NOT 10 or 16 year olds, but in between. There is a group of men who finds adolescent males sexually attractive. These are your "Kept Boys" even in Afghanistan and these two victims are to young and to old.

In the reports is a case of custody of an eight year old boy and visitation between him and his father, a convicted child molester who liked young boys. At trial the Psychologist reported that the Father was sexually attracted to 12 year old boys, an eight year old boy was to young for him (i.e. an eight year old boy was NOT a sexual object in the father's eyes, unlike a 12 year old boy). At trial and later on appeal the courts ruled that since the boy was still to young to be sexual attractive to the man, visitation was ordered to be permitted. I suspect a different result would have been the case once the boy hit 10 or 11, but at age 8, still to young. Just an example of the general age of these victims.

I bring up these cases to show that the "Market" for "Kept Boys" is between age 11 and 14, with preference for 12-13 year olds. I find the practice abhorrent, but it exists and I am reporting on it. The reason I am reporting is that the ages of these two victims are to young (age 10) and to old (age 16) to be "Kept Boys", and thus something else is up in regards to these killings.

I can NOT completely rule out the possibility, but I have my doubts.

[Sunlei]

32. not in Afghanistan. boys are removed from homes, moved to the 'military areas very young to 'train'

some of the boys with the most 'liked' reputations are older teens. They train the little ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Boys_of_Afghanistan

[happyslug]

33. Wikipedia is a good start on any research, but you have to be careful with it.

The Wikipedia site had itself three citations. The Second pointed out the preferred age as 12-13 year old boys (as it is in the US among men who like young boys)

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/124334-frontline-the-dancing-boys-of-afghanistan/

The first citation, mention such boys are released when they turn 19, but does not address if that is all, most or the latest such boys can be kept. I suspect the later, i.e, most are released while before they turn 19 for it is no longer profitable to keep them.

The third article mention that the boys often run away, this becomes easier as their grow older and less profitable (and thus not worth chasing after). Thus most probably do not wait till their turn 19 (and in fact the 19 age may be just the age by when most such boys have run away or otherwise left the home of their owners).

Sorry, seems to match up with the facts in the Catholic Church Scandals and general rule as to this type of sexual abuse, the prime age is 12-13.

[quadrature]

21. looks like a 'respect' issue

somebody 'dissed' the wrong person.

the other details are unimportant

[boilerbabe]

31. religion makes me blow chunks. nt

[happyslug]

37. And normal military operations are AOK??

This actions has NOTHING to do with Religion. If the Taliban killed these two, it was for some military purpose (maybe for control of the dump as a supply point, much like how the Viet Cong Lived off the US Military during the Vietnam war). My bets is on the soldiers that manned the neat by Check point, I suspect they did not want anyone near their checkpoint and these two just were not fast enough when the Soldiers came by to chase everyone away. In either case the beheading was a warning to others, to stay away from the dump.

Lets remember, while the Taliban has deep Islamic Roots, they fight against the Government of Afghanistan (Which is itself Islamic) is over who rules Afghanistan NOT what religion is the religion of Afghanistan. The only real religious war is with the Shiites in Southeastern Afghanistan, and that is more a general war against Iran then Shiittism. And even this "Religious" difference is more ethnic then religious for most Shiites are of the Hazara people who historically have had ties with Iran (Since the Mongol Invasions of the 1200s, the leading theory is the Hazara are decedents if Mongols who settled in Afghanistan, but allied with Persia when thee Mongol Empire broke up).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people

Sorry, this act does NOT seem to have any religious aspects. It was driven by someone's military and Political needs. The real debate is whose?