BT linked to the following Wikipedia article: (article in brackets, my comments unbracketed)
<<While most of the Afghan protests have been over the civilian casualties caused by international military forces, on October 24, 2008, over 1,000 Afghans also took to the streets of Mihtarlam in eastern Afghanistan to protest the killing of 26 young men by Taliban militants. A
Taliban spokesperson said the men who were taken off a bus were targeted because they were members or recruits of Afghan security forces, but
Afghan officials said that the men were civilians on their way to Iran to find work.[91]>>
The Taliban is favoured by many Afghans because it represents honest and incorruptible (although obviously harsh and mediaeval) government, as opposed to the unbelievably crooked and corrupt Karzai puppet government. So, who to believe? Taliban or puppet government? Believe me, for the Afghan people themselves, it's a no-brainer. That's what I thought. But . . .
What about "over 1,000" Afghans "taking to the streets" to protest the killing? Just apply Joe Girard's "Rule of 250" to the situation - - 250 people might be the norm in nuclear-family America, but in a country like Afghanistan, where tribal, clan and family relationships are crucial, 250 people would probably be the measure of the most insignificant nobody in the country. If none of the 26 casualties were related to one another, 1000 protestors would represent fewer than 40 protestors per casualty; if each casualty was related to one other casualty, fewer than 80 protestors per victim-pair; if the victims were related to one another in groups of four, fewer than 160 protestors per victim-family.
Even if this were an unjustified attack on the bus (i.e. an attack on job-seekers rather than collaborators) this is a relatively minuscule turn-out for a protest. You would expect that, in addition to the family and friends of the victims, total strangers would turn out for the protest. Even by American standards, and assuming the victims represented a total of 6.5 kinship groups, you'd expect 6.5 x 250 = over 1,600 plus outraged strangers to protest the killings. And of course, this being Afghanistan and not the U.S.A., you'd expect an even higher "Girard Number" than 250, and a correspondingly bigger crowd of genuine protestors.
OTOH, in 90% Karzai country (see the "election" results further down in this post,) it wouldn't be hard at all to mobilize 1,000 government loyalists to "protest" the killings.
(for the Joe Girard "Rule of 250," see
http://somedesa.com/coolnetworkingnews/networking/networking-tip-joe-girards-rule-of-250/)
Personally, I think it's more than likely that the bus was full of collaborationist recruits for the puppet police or army, a legitimate target in a civil war and the Taliban are telling the truth. How does Karzai poll 90% support from the region if busloads of young men have to leave it to seek work in Iran? Where else would Karzai recruit for his puppet forces, if not from a region that gives him 90% support? Even if the votes are rigged, you'd expect the districts rigged to produce 90% support are fairly rich in Karzai supporters anyway - - they wouldn't rig a 90% vote in a region where his support was lowest.
Mihtarlam is in overwhelmingly pro-Karzai country; Karzai took about 18,000 votes, about 90% of the vote there;
http://afghanistanelectiondata.org/district/701. <<In considering civilian casualties caused collectively by insurgent forces, it should be noted that the armed insurgency in Afghanistan against the government and foreign military forces is composed of many diverse individuals and groups that are motivated by a range of different goals and ideologies, that do not necessarily identify as "Taliban", and that do not act under a single line of authority.[17]>>
Translation: Even if the Taliban win and the U.S. forces leave, the "random" killing of civilians will go on, conducted by armed forces opposed to the Taliban; AND not all civilians killed by non-NATO forces were victims of the Taliban.
<<In the initial airstrikes and invasion, most of the direct civilian deaths were the result of U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire. In the years since 2005, the mounting insurgency has resulted in more direct civilian deaths being caused each year by insurgent actions than by coalition military action.
Overall, however, the number of direct civilian casualties that have been attributed to insurgent forces by the available estimates remains less than the number that have been attributed to U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire since 2001.>>
Doesn't THAT really say it all? That last sentence? The infidel invaders are
STILL causing more Afghan civilian deaths than the so-called "insurgents."
AND, moreover, that the longer the foreigners stay in Afghanistan, the higher the civilian body count. In a civil war one expects civilian casualties because the populace is at war with each other. It is the presence of foreigners that allows the civil war to grind on, and without them the civil war will come to an end (admittedly with a bunch of nuts winning control of the country) and the civilian casualty rate will immediately plummet.
