Holiday Celebration Bombing

Victims of Sunday's bombing attack are in critical condition.

In the midst of a holiday celebration several Shiite Muslims were killed and many more were injured. On Sunday hundreds of Shiites were gathering outside of a mosque to kick off the annual Ashura holiday, when a bomb was denoted. The bombing attack was denoted in the hands of Taliban extremist. According to the New York Times, “More than 100 people were wounded in the attacks just before the holiday, which commemorates the death of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson in the seventh century. The schism between Sunnis and Shiites dates back to this time”. The Taliban extremist mainly associate with the Sunnis, so these attacks are in protest of the Shiites celebration practices for this particular holiday. Unfortunately these were not the only attacks the Taliban has conducted in protest. According to SFGate, “Since Wednesday, at least 31 people have been killed in bombings aimed at Pakistani Shiites and claimed by the Taliban, which espouses an extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam.” These attacks are expected to continue throughout the rest of the holiday celebration. In response to these attacks security and authorities have tightened up their protection. Stated within The National, “Mobile phone service has been shut down in all major cities to prevent such bombings, which officials say often use cellular phones as remote detonators.” That is just one of the ways the security has been increased in order to protect the citizens and Shiites during their religious celebrations. Although security has been increased, attacks are expected to continue. According to CNN, “A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said the group was behind Sunday’s bombing on the procession and warned of more attacks.” These and other expected attacks have put fear in many citizens as well as many Shiites and this may hinder their holiday celebrations.

Security is tightened up due to increased threats during the Ashura celebration

            In order to dissect the problem here, let us first take a look at the definition of terrorism.  Dictionary.com defines terrorism as, “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for a political purpose.” Within my philosophy course we came up with a similar definition. Our definition had three basic features, which consists of targeting and attacking innocent people, to instill fear in a population, and to advance a political agenda. Now, the current bombings in my opinion would constitute as terrorist activities. One the Taliban is targeting innocent people who are the Shiites. By targeting this small group of individuals it is causing widespread fear throughout the rest of the population, especially among the Shiites. In terms of promoting a political agenda, I propose that these followers of the Shiite Islam are seen as threat to the Taliban. The Taliban believes the ways of the Sunni is the only way to practice their religion. So the Taliban is trying to either dwindling down the Shiite population, or instill fear within the Shiite followers so they either move out of the Pakistan area or they convert to Sunni Islam. But regardless of whatever their intentions are they are practicing terrorist practices.

            Upon further reading and understanding I would like to introduce some points made by Andrew Valls, assistant professor of political science at Oregon State University. Within Valls statements, he argues that terrorism administered by both state and nonstate actors can be justified. However, the bombings above would fail his conditions for the justification of terrorism. Valls believes that terrorism is acceptable and that innocent people as a result will die in terrorist attacks. But the deaths of these innocent people must not be the intended effect. In the case stated above the Taliban is directly targeting innocent people. Also the attacks and deaths of the innocent must not be in vain and the good must be accomplished. Which in this case the innocent deaths have accomplished nothing and are only carried out for the sake of killing people. The two principles in which Valls stated are associated with the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Taliban is indeed a terrorist group but their actions are not permissible or justified.

  

  

Roadside Bomb Claims more Civilian lives

Injured Afghan civilians after Fridays roadside bomb attack  

While on their way to a wedding celebration, several Afghan civilians were killed. A roadside bomb struck a bus carrying 31 Afghans. Of these 31 Afghans 17 of them perished in the bombing. Many of these 17 claimed dead were mainly women and children. Abdul Rahman Zawandai, the spokesman for the provincial governor stated, “The minivan group was traveling and hit an improvised explosive device buried in a dirt road in Farah Province.” Farah Province is located in western Afghanistan. In fact the Farah Province has been a recent hot spot for roadside bombs. According to the New York Times, “It was the third time in less than 10 days that a bomb claimed the lives of civilians." Many civilians have bore the brunt of these attacks and many of these attacks have caused great loss of life. Those who have seen the aftermath of these attacks have experienced the horrors as well. According to chief of police of the Farah Province, General Aqqa Noor Kemtooz, “The remains of some victims were so badly mutilated that police could not determine their gender.” These are only a few the horrors some have experienced. The sad truth is there will most likely be more tragedies and horrors like this as we move forward.

            According to the NDTV, “Women and children accounted for about 30 percent of this years causalities.” When examining this available statistic we can demonstrate that there are many crimes being committed here. Now I understand accidents happen and some noncombatants will face death as a result of these accidents. But to have 30 percent of the deaths this year solely be a results from noncombatants seems horrendous to me. The moral issues that are at hand here need to be addressed. With the constant changing of the culture of war and the tactics used to fight these wars, many combatants and those who aid combatants need to be thinking of the larger picture on how to fight wars as to only include combatants. The weapons and tactics used just like the roadside bombs need to be eliminated. Clearly they are causing great loss of life amongst noncombatants. We need to think of Jus in Bello and how the rights and justifications of how war is to be fought. In my mind, that would mean eliminating the use of roadside bombs as a warfare mechanism. Since warfare tactics are evolving, the rules that govern and justify war should also be advancing.   

Afghan Civilians Suffer from Roadside Bomb

            On Sunday an Afghan family bore the brunt of a roadside bomb that exploded in Khost province of Afghanistan. The family was returning from the hospital after the mother had given birth. On their way home a roadside bomb struck them and the mother and newborn baby were killed. Four other civilians within the vicinity were also killed, as a result of this strike. According to AFP reports, “Two more women and two men were also among those kill in Sunday’s attack.” Apparently main roads within Afghanistan are often rigged with roadside bombs, and because civilians are the most frequent travelers of these roads, they inevitably become the victims.
At this point the source of the murderers has not been located, but many officials are pointing to the frequent insurgent attacks. ABC News reports, “In the first six months of the year, some 1,145 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, It blames 80 percent of these deaths on insurgents, with more than half caused by roadside bombs.” However, the Taliban could be responsible according to another news source. Voice of America  stated, “Roadside bombs are the weapons of choice for Taliban insurgents.” Whoever is response a serious act of crimes is at hand here.

Khost province, the location of the roadside bombing attack.    

            The killing of these six people can be a direct example of the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Doctrine of Double Effect gives four principle ideas that justify the actions of civilian deaths. The four principles are as follows: 1. The action is not intrinsically wrong. 2. The effect is the intended effect. 3. The effect is the direct effect. 4. The effect is sufficient to compensate for the indirect effect. When dealing with the Doctrine of Double Effect the hardest distinction is weighing the justification weather the attack was intended. However, lets go through and address the four principles to the roadside bombing. This bombing attack would fail the first principle because the attack was indeed intrinsically wrong. For principle number two there exists a grey area, because the insurgents who planted the bombs intention was to kill government officials as well as soldiers of the oppression. But their efforts of planting bombs on roads that many civilians travel more frequently then these targeted persons, must be put into consideration. Thus, is condition number two morally permissible? Condition number three would fail because the direct effect was not successful and resulted in multiple civilian causalities. Last, condition number four in my opinion would also fail because the effect was not a sufficient compensation. No targeted persons were killed only civilians. Ultimately, the bombing fails the Doctrine of Double Effect and the insurgents should be rightfully brought to justice. They need to pay for the atrocities they have committed.        

U.S. Soldier in Court after Afghanistan Massacre

         On March 11^th Staff Sgt. Robert Bales stormed the villages of “Balandi and Alkozai, in the dangerous Panjwai district of the Kandahar Province” (Massacre Location). Staff Sgt. Bales entered the villages equipped with an M-4 rifle with a grenade launcher attachment piece. Bales advanced on the villages late in the night and went on a rampage. Bales managed to slaughter 16 people. “The massacre left 16 dead – nine of them children, and 11 of them members of the same family. Six others were wounded, and some of the bodies set afire” (Human Slaughter ). Since the start of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars no atrocity of this magnitude has been recorded. In fact, this is one of the worst atrocities carried out be a U.S. Soldier in decades.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales during one of his four tours in Afghanistan

         After Staff Sgt. Bale’s rampaged was carried out, he was immediately taken into custody. After Bales arrest he was shipped out of Afghanistan and held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Now, it has been months since the attack and on Monday marked the first hearing of the case in a military court. “At least 35 witnesses are expected to testify, some through live video uplink from Afghanistan, over the investigation, which could last two weeks or more” (Court Hearing). Witnesses are coming from both sides of the story, anywhere from the villagers to Soldiers within Bales Platoon. Afghan officials and the villagers affected by the attack want to see justice severed. If Bales is convicted he will face the death penalty. However, Bales’ defense lawyers have constructed clear evidence to suggest that Bales has a mental deficit and he was not aware of his actions at the time of the attack. Through a combination of Bales drinking the night of the attack and his pervious three tours he was not acting in a rational manner. The stress of these things made him out of touch with the world. So he might not be at fault for his actions. Even in the aftermath of the massacre Bales has shown consist signs of certain mental deficits.

         Now this case is very curious. If Bales was truly under so much stress and potentially operating with a mental deficit, why wasn’t he pulled out of Afghanistan earlier? This case could go even further with the ethical issues underlying how many terms a soldier should serve. Bales was currently in his fourth tour in Afghanistan, and due to all the stress and exposure from war he apparently was mentally not in touch with reality. This is what his defense attorneys are claiming anyway. I feel like Bales should be held accountable but for future wars no soldier should be exposed to four tours. Especially since the horrors of war have escalated.

         This court case is going to go on for a few weeks until a verdict is reached. From my point of view Bales has committed a heinous crime and should be brought to justice. He has violated many rules of war. First, he violated terms from the War Convention. Under noncombatant immunity within the War Convention, it states, at no point are civilians suppose to be targeted or killed. Bales whether he truly does have a dental deficit or not still killed noncombatants in the heat of war. For this reason he broke the War Convention and should be prosecuted for his crime. Also under the rules of war his attack was not justified under the doctrine of Double Effect. In fact, he broke all four principles under the Double Effect. His attack was intrinsically wrong, the intended and direct effect was not towards the good of the war, and his actions certainly did not have sufficient compensation. In this case of Double Effect he has failed yet again and should be prosecuted for his crime. An atrocity of this magnitude should not be acquitted. The defense in Bales case should be denied, because justice needs to be served.