Peaceful Protesters In Afghanistan
As mentioned earlier at The Propagandist, the "protests" that led to the murders and beheadings at the United Nations compound in Afghanistan most likely had a Khomeinist connection (not to mention, the Taliban, or the country's President -- Karzai himself riled up his population with yet more stupidities unbecoming a head of state).
Even if we knew who was behind the violence, both the self-appointed spokesmen for the mob and the reporters covering it seem complicit in a conspiracy of double-talk to cover up their crimes.
In this Al Jazeera video, Quran burning sparks deadly protest, one reporter with an apparent gift for the surreal describes the scene:
"This video shows a protester with an AK-47rifle and a United Nations staff being beaten by the crowd..."
In what sense is a man crouching in the shadows, holding an AK-47, presumably looking to plug any United Nations or Afghan security forces personnel, a protester?
In what sense is the mob beating of a United Nations official described as a protest?
It gets better. Here's the respectable
Taliban plant teacher and Mazar Sharif resident, Ahmad Gul:
We had a peaceful protest. We went to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan compound and tried to disarm their guards by taking their guns away, so there would be no violence. But they still fired on us and they wounded our people. Two were killed and 14 were wounded.
Can you feel the insanity? Let's break this down.
In your peaceful protest, you go to a place called the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan -- a facility that has no connection whatsoever to any Florida-based pastor you're allegedly mad at (which would by itself qualify as an unhinged act). This is a building that houses nice people who have come halfway across the world to help you build a better life. It makes as much sense as me protesting the Afghan embassy because my Uncle Chuck got a bad case of food poisoning in Shanghai.
Moving along. Having decided to "protest", the first thing you do is surround the guards. You then decide that the thing preventing you from having a peaceful protest is that the guards have guns.
Naturally, you attack the guards -- because you are a peaceful protester.
The guards disagree with your warped interpretation of reality and rightly conclude that if you get their weapons, you might just kill them and the people they are protecting.
Fearing for their lives, they try to defend themselves from your "peaceful protest".
And that's when you kill the guards and everyone you can find inside the building which was dedicated to helping you.
The mind boggles.
I get that these "protests" were incited across the board by the Taliban, jihad-happy imams and even that one critical section of society that normally has an interest in keeping the peace, not disrupting it -- the state.
At the same time, it does us no good to pardon the audience of this incitement, a great number of whom pressed up against bomb-blast doors to go on a killing spree against people whose only crime was being a foreigner.
The guilty must be found. Those who beat, killed or beheaded must face justice. And those who incited the violence -- up to and including the President of Afghanistan -- must be held accountable.
And even before the work of justice has really begun, we will be looking to the people of Afghanistan to peacefully protest -- for real, this time -- against the violent extremists who have tried to plunge their nation once more into hell.
Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist