Military Madness > Kabul Drone Insane Mistake; Arms Sales a Secret in France; UK Pays Compo for 300 Afghan Civilian Deaths

..

‘A mistake’: US admits Kabul drone strike killed 10 civilians,

incl. 7 children, and NO ISIS-K terrorists; no one will be punished

17 Sep, 2021 19:01 / Updated 13 minutes ago

Seven children, including Jamshid Yousoufi's two-year-old daughter Sumaya, died in the American strike,

which killed ten civilians in total. © RT

After weeks of insisting the August 29 drone strike in Kabul killed an ISIS-K terrorist, US Central Command has admitted that the victims were all civilians, including children, but reportedly won’t discipline anyone involved.

Marine General Kenneth McKenzie, head of CENTCOM, on Friday announced that the Hellfire missile fired at a home in Kabul just before the US airlift ended did not in fact kill a facilitator of Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K) terrorist group.

The drone strike in Kabul “was a mistake,” McKenzie said, acknowledging that “ten civilians, including up to seven children were tragically killed.” 

The strike was ordered in “earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces,” but “it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” he added, offering “profound condolences” to the relatives of those killed.

McKenzie walked the reporters through the US decision to launch the strike, citing “over 60 pieces of intelligence” about an imminent attack by Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K), the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the August 26 suicide bombing at Kabul airport, killing 13 US troops and 170 Afghan civilians. Half a dozen US drones monitored Kabul, and multiple intelligence reports spoke of a white Toyota Corolla being used as a car bomb.

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on September 1 that all the proper procedures had been followed, calling it a “righteous strike” and repeating the original CENTCOM claim that “secondary explosions” proved the targeted vehicle was loaded with explosives.

A New York Times investigation published on September 10, however, found no traces of secondary explosions in the courtyard of the targeted home. The white Toyota belonged to Zemari Ahmadi, who was not an ISIS-K terrorist but an employee of Nutrition & Education International, a US-funded charity. He had just applied for a visa to emigrate to the US with his family. 

Ahmadi driving colleagues to and from work and bringing jugs filled with water to his home from the NEI office were flagged by the US as suspicious behavior. So when he pulled into the alley of his home and was greeted by half a dozen children that normally helped him park the car, a MQ-9 Reaper drone fired a Hellfire missile, killing them all.

Did they not see the children? Did they see the children and fired anyway? Is that what you call 'righteous'?

The US airlift ended just before midnight on August 30, leaving the airport and Afghanistan to the Taliban. Ahmadi’s younger brother Emal, who spoke to RT a week after the attack, called the US “utter liars” for saying that the strike was aimed at ISIS-K. 

“Without any proof, without any investigation, they attacked us and killed our children, and we will never forgive them,” said his cousin Jamshid Yousoufi, whose 2-year-old daughter Sumaya was visiting the family and died in the attack.

There was a lot of pressure, I believe, on the US to show some strength at that time, rather than being at the complete mercy of the Taliban. It seems to me that they had to choose a target and strike quickly in order to appear that they were doing something. They did! They made another generation of enemies. 20 years of working with Afghans was utterly destroyed in one drone strike.

Court case filed against French customs after officials

refuse to disclose records of arms exports

23 Sep, 2021 10:43

FILE PHOTO. SANAA, YEMEN. © AFP / MOHAMMED HUWAIS

Amnesty International France and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights have jointly filed a case in a Paris court to force French customs to release records of exports of weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) released a statement on Thursday confirming that the case had been launched in the Administrative Court of Paris over “documents relating to arms sales in connection with the conflict in Yemen.”

“Given the considerable risk that French weapons are used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law against civilians in Yemen, the refusal to disclose this customs information constitutes a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of the public to receive information,” Amnesty International stated.

This lack of transparency is a major obstacle to both parliamentary, judicial, and democratic control over French arms exports.

The two organizations have argued that France has continued to “deliver war materials and provide maintenance and training” despite there being “overwhelming evidence of attacks committed by the Saudi Arabian-UAE military coalition” within Yemen “against civilian populations and infrastructure.”

A Saudi-led coalition has been involved in the conflict in Yemen since 2015, supporting the government against the Iran-backed Houthis, with the fighting dragging on for more than six years in what’s seen as a proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran.

In 2020, a UN report warned that military equipment provided by Western nations was fueling the conflict, after investigators from the international agency declared that airstrikes that had been launched against Yemen could amount to war crimes.

French customs has not so far responded to the statement from the NGOs.

Report: Britain paid compensation for nearly 300

Afghan civilian deaths

By Daniel Uria

The British government paid $944,348 in compensation for the deaths of 86 children and 203 adult civilians at the hands of British forces in Afghanistan, according to a report released Thursday. File Photo by Hedayatullah Amid/EPA-EFE

Sept. 23 (UPI) -- Britain paid out nearly $1 million in compensation for almost 300 civilian deaths during the conflict in Afghanistan, according to an analysis of government documents released Thursday.

Throughout Britain's presence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2013, forces paid $944,348.80 in compensation for the deaths of at least 86 children and 203 adult civilians, according to Ministry of Defense compensation logs obtained by London-based charity Action on Armed Violence, or AOAV.

The British government paid out an average of $3,266 per life lost, although AOAV noted some of the payments were combined with injuries and property damage so the average is "somewhat inflated."

In one of the most substantial payments the government paid $5,811.23 to a family after their four children were mistakenly shot and killed in December 2009.

During the same month, a 3-year-old child was killed by shock from a controlled explosion, marking the youngest recorded casualty.

AOAV noted that compensation payments were "highly inconsistent" as one family received $804.79 for the death of their 10-year-old son in December 2009 and another family was given $142.96 for a confirmed fatality and property damage in Helmand province.

In some instances, the government paid out more to Afghans for damage to property and animals than the loss of human life.

AOAV noted that there were 106 instances involving property in the 2009-10 fiscal year that exceeded the amount paid to the 10-year-old or the unnamed 2008 casualty including $908 paid as compensation for the death of six donkeys "when they wandered on to the rifle range."

So, of course, instead of shooing them off the rifle range, which obviously wasn't fenced, they decided to use them for target practice.

Most of the deaths that led to compensation occurred in the Helmand province and payments stating that Afghan or U.S. military were responsible for the deaths were not included in the figures provided by the charity.

At least 20,930 civilians were killed or injured by international and Afghan forces, including roughly one-third caused by the Taliban and other anti-government forces, from 2007 to 2020, according to AOAV analysis of reports by the United Nations. Additionally, AOAV reported that 457 British soldiers were killed from 2001 to 2020.

The release of the report also comes after the United States last week announced that an Aug. 29 drone strike killed 10 Afghan civilians, including several children and not an Islamic State-Khorasan Province militant as originally reported.

Who do you pay compensation to when an entire family is wiped out?

Dutch Head to Polls Amid Tense Immigration Policy Debate

Do they even know what Rutte did? 

© Cris Toala Olivares / Reuters

Up to 13 million Dutch voters are expected to head to the polls on Wednesday to elect 150 members of the lower house of parliament in a symbolic Euroscepticism showdown that seems to have split society along the immigration policy divide.

Some 28 parties are competing in the election which is largely viewed as a face-off between ultranationalist Geert Wilders and the current Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Under the proportional representation system, any party who receives more than 0.67 percent of the vote, will pass the mandated threshold and get at least one seat. 

Following the latest round of televised debates on Tuesday night in which representatives of 13 parties competed, Prime Minister Rutte’s People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is leading Wilder’s Party for Freedom (PVV) by a small margin.

The Dutch Peilingwijzer website which tracks down six polling outlets says that VVD will likely gain between 24-28 seats, versus 19-22 that will most likely go to PVV. The Christian Democratic Appeal Party (CDA) and its leader Sybrand Buma are predicted to gain between 19-21 seats. 

At least four other parties are likely to gain more than 10 seats. These include the centrist D66, Green-Left, the Socialist Party and the social democrat Labour Party (PvdA). Whichever party can secure the majority 76 seats in parliament, either on its own or through a coalition, will form the new Dutch government and choose the Prime Minister.

Merkel and Rutte make a secret deal with Turkey promising to take in hundreds of thousands of migrants even if the rest of the EU refuses. Turkey gets to pick the refugees going into Europe and are sending the sick and uneducated while keeping the educated and healthy in Turkey.

Do the Dutch actually know this?

Rutte who took on Wilders in a heated debate on Monday night has made it clear that his party will not work with the PVV leader.

“Not even in a tolerance structure – no, never, no,” Rutte said, dismissing the possibility of forming a coalition with Wilders.

Rutte is urging voters to back him so that he continue his political course and focus on preserving the Dutch economic recovery and its place in the European Union.

Wilders remains hopeful that he will be able to persuade voters to side with the global anti-establishment trend reinvigorated by the Brexit referendum and the victory of Donald Trump in the US.

Wilders has said that Netherlands’ exit from the European Union would be “the best thing that could happen to us”.

Rutte instead argued that the so-called Nexit would cost 1.5 million jobs and create “chaos”.

Wilders, on the other hand, told the voters that after a Nexit, the Dutch would become the “master of our own country again”.

As part of his controversial agenda, the 53-year old Wilders wants to close Islamic schools and asylum centers. In addition, Wilders wants to shut down borders with a blanket ban on migrants from Muslim countries. The ultra-conservative also wants the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands.

During the final debate, Wilders engaged in an intense face-off with PvdA party leader Lodewijk Asscher over the issue of immigration.

The issue and debate around foreigners in the Netherlands has heightened in recent days following the diplomatic row and weekend rioting over the barring of the Turkish family minister from entering the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam.

“If you want to tackle crime you should deport those foreigners who rape, commit a crime and laugh at our police,” Wilders said. “The Netherlands is not for everyone, the Netherlands is for the Dutch.” 

Some of Wilder's supporters told RT ahead of the election that the Party for Freedom is shaping the new political agenda for the Netherlands.

“Wilders is a person who notices the frustration, what is brewing and annoying people and he expresses it. Other parties are now listening as well,” Wim Keizer a local politician in Volendam told RT.

While the PVV's support is strong, Wilders is unlikely to be able to form the next government even if he wins the popular vote, as all mainstream parties have ruled out working with him.

Rest assured, Holland, your government will continue to ensure that the Netherlands completes its exercise in cultural suicide! How can so many be so blind?

Merkel, Rutte Agreed Refugee Quota in Deal with Turkey, Did Not Tell Other EU Leaders

A bad deal that, in the end, was probably completely unnecessary

Merkel, Rutte agreed refugee quota in deal with Turkey, did not tell other EU leaders – report

Angela Merkel, Ahmet Davutoglu, Mark Rutte © Hakan Goktepe / AFP

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte secretly agreed to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees from Turkey each year as part of an EU-Turkey deal but did not inform other EU leaders, a book by a German journalist says.

The two European leaders met with then Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to discuss the details of the EU-Turkey refugee deal in private the night before the EU-Turkey summit in March 2016. The details of the secret trilateral meet where the deal was struck, has been revealed in a new book, 'Driven by Events: Merkel’s Refugee Policy,' by Robin Alexander, a journalist with Die Welt.

During the meeting, Merkel, and Rutte, who held the rotating EU presidency at that time as the Dutch PM, agreed on all the major provisions of the future EU-Turkey agreement which was later presented at the summit as a spontaneous Turkish initiative.

In particular, they gave consent to the idea of Europe taking between 150,000 and 250,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey each year even after the massive inflow of asylum seekers and migrants to Europe would have subsided and the principle, under which the EU should accept one Syrian refugee for each asylum seeker returned from Greece to Turkey, would not work anymore.

However, this particular 'deal' never made into the official text of the agreement and remains a “gentleman’s agreement” between Merkel, Rutte and Turkish authorities, Alexander writes in his report, citing unnamed officials that “were directly involved in the negotiations” between the three leaders on the night before the summit.

This part of the agreement has never been revealed, neither to the other EU leaders nor to the German public, the journalists say in his book. He adds that the official text of the EU-Turkey deal was instead appended with wording saying that “as soon as chaotic illegal border crossings between Turkey and the EU would come to an end or at least their numbers would significantly and consistently fall, a regulation envisaging voluntary admission [of refugees by the EU from the Turkish territory] will come into force.”

Germany, Netherlands gamble

This wording was then approved by all EU leaders at the summit in March 2016. However, it also envisaged voluntary participation of the EU countries in this admission program, Alexander says, explaining why Merkel was so persistent in imposing a mandatory refugee quota on other European countries – in case all other EU members refused to accept refugees from Turkey; Germany and the Netherlands would have to deal with all of them on their own.

Another big concession made by Merkel and Rutte is that it was the Turks who in the end decided who would be sent to Europe within the framework of the agreed refugee quota system.

Wondering why Germany and the Netherlands are in a diplomatic row with Turkey?

Under the agreed deal, the Turkish interior ministry was entrusted with compiling the lists of refugees it believed should be sent to Europe, with the list later to be reviewed by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

According to Alexander, “people with a college or university degree or skilled professionals never made it into those lists.” “Even healthy [people] were few in the trains going to Europe: the Turks allowed exclusively seriously injured or traumatized refugees to resettle,” he says.

OMG! Merkel and Rutte had no choice but to go along with that or come clean. We know the likelihood of a politician coming clean is extremely remote. The costs of this deal in German and Dutch society will be absolutely staggering! Is it any wonder why Germany and the Netherlands are at diplomatic odds with Turkey right now.

The unnecessary solution

The author writes that the EU-Turkey deal was designed to become not only an alternative to the simple closure of the so-called Balkan Route asylum seekers used to get to Europe but also a “more extensive solution” to the refugee crisis.

However, “in Brussels, Merkel fought not for the open or closed borders but for maintaining her political narrative,” Alexander says, adding that her policy was based on the concepts of a “humanitarian imperative” and a “perceived lack of options” pointing to the notion that “borders cannot be closed anymore nowadays.”

The journalist also writes that Merkel later claimed that Germany decided to open its borders and take in a significant proportion of refugees to give the EU time to develop a common solution that would eventually replace the EU-Turkey deal. She did not want the whole situation and her policy to be made obsolete by a simple closure of the Balkan Route.

However, the author assumes in his book that the deal was not as necessary as it seemed.

“The next day after the summit, on March 9, 2016, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Macedonia decided to let in only those refugees, who had credible ID papers and wanted to apply for asylum in one of those countries,” thus effectively closing the Balkan Route, he says in his book, adding that “on March 10, the Austrian border crossing in Spielfeld [bordering Slovenia] reported no [more] refugees [trying to cross the border].”

The EU-Turkey deal came into force 11 days later.

Earlier, another report by Die Welt citing Alexander’s book said that, in 2015, Merkel decided to keep the German borders open as she feared that images of violence would make her government unpopular, although she was on the verge of closing the borders instead of welcoming refugees.