SOS

Well said LTS!!

RO1SIN - Where was posting covering the US attack on the convoy of Afghan tribal leaders travelling to attend the conference in Kabul???? They too were innocent civilians and in that particular incident the loss of life was much greater. The explanation offered at the time was that the US had evaluated it as a bona fide military target and "took it out" and obviously you were quite happy with that explanation - no enquiry - case closed. But in this case you typically jump in and prejudge the entire issue before all the facts are known. At least in this case an investigation has been started.

michaelr - You too seem to be better informed than those investigating the case, as you also have decided on the guilt of those involved without factual evidence.

McGarth of Harlow - Thanks for the link to the Guardian Story, which I read before going on to read your contribution, which stated:

"Seems pretty clear this was a case of innocent people being shot up, and noone's actually denying that. Doesn't sound like the kind of calculated act of state terror that Bloody Sunday was widely assumed to be - which maybe might mean that there will be a proper investigation that finds out the truth and identifies what went wrong and who carries the blame for it.

But that doesn't seem too likely really - it never happens, just more cover ups and whitewashes that make everyone assume the worst."

Was the link wrong? Or was your statement above based on something else you read on the incident? I ask these questions because from the Guardian article we read:

"The British military was taking the allegations seriously and, along with Afghan police, launched an urgent investigation yesterday into the shooting."

"Six British soldiers from the 2nd battalion the Parachute Regiment have been removed from their observation post near where the incident occurred, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said."

"Early on Saturday morning there was a firing incident in which one man was killed and four other people wounded. We cannot confirm or deny anything until we have a special investigation branch report," an official said.

Col Neal Peckham, spokesman for the British-led international security assistance force (Isaf) stationed in Kabul, insisted last night that his paratroopers had returned fire."

"Mr Ishaq, a teacher, said yesterday that he was aware of Kabul's strict 9.30pm curfew but claimed it was not uncommon for vehicles to move later than that in times of emergency."

"Col Peckham yesterday said Afghan and British military investigators were unlikely to reach any firm conclusions for a "couple of weeks"."

"Under their rules of engagement, sanctioned by the UN, members of the international force can fire in self-defence or to protect the lives of others in imminent danger of being killed. If the investigation concluded the paratroopers were being "trigger happy", they would be in "serious trouble", a defence official said."

"A forensic team has already taken away the bullet-ridden car involved in Saturday's shooting for examination. The team also retrieved dozens of bullets from the scene."

It also states in the article:

"They had just got into the car when they were engulfed in a sudden and deadly hail of gunfire - allegedly from British troops concealed in the darkness at the top of an observation tower several hundred metres away."

From the article we get the following:

1. There is an investigation underway now - No maybe or might about it Kevin.

2. No one has denied that the incident took place and at present there is only the allegation that those fired upon were fired at from the Paratroopers position. But you know better don't you Kevin - Get thee sen over to Kabul Kev and give your evidence to those investigating the incident.

3. Where in the article does it intimate in the remotest terms any intention on behalf of ISAF, Afghan Police or Interim Government to whitewash or cover up this incident.

The earliest findings from the current investigation are expected in about two weeks time according to the article. Why not just wait and see what those findings are -is that too unreasonable a notion.