Bomb kills at least 30 near girls' school in Afghan capital

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By RAHIM FAIEZ

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A bomb exploded near a girls’ school in a majority Shiite district of west Kabul on Saturday, killing at least 30 people, many of them young pupils between 11 and 15 years old. The Taliban condemned the attack and denied any responsibility.

Ambulances evacuated the wounded as relatives and residents screamed at authorities near the scene of the blast at Syed Al-Shahda school, in the Dasht-e-Barchi neighborhood, Interior Ministry spokesman Tariq Arian said. The death toll was expected to rise further.

The bombing, apparently aimed to cause maximum civilian carnage, adds to fears that violence in the war-wrecked country could escalate as the U.S. and NATO end nearly 20 years of military engagement.

Residents in the area said the explosion was deafening. One, Naser Rahimi, told The Associated Press he heard three separate explosions, although there was no official confirmation of multiple blasts. Rahimi also said he believed that the sheer power of the explosion meant the death toll would almost certainly climb.



Afghan school students are treated at a hospital after a bomb explosion near a school in west of Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, May 8, 2021. A bomb exploded near a school in west Kabul on Saturday, killing several, many them young students, Afghan government spokesmen said. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/religion-b424aa48c6f2d22be7303809c337e460

[maxsolomon]

1. I said this when Biden announced our pull-out.

Women and non-Pashtun non-Sunnis will suffer most. Here, it's Shiite women. Children. Women who dared to learn.

Is it the Taliban? Is it Islamic State? Does it matter?

When we leave, the Taliban will re-take power and impose a Medieval Theocracy. Again.

The US needs to take 10s of 1,000s of Afghan refugees. Now. You, your city, and your state need to welcome them.

Will it happen? Or will we throw Afghanistan in the memory hole because it's too painful of a failure? We have before.

[Rebl2]

6. You are

Absolutely right! By the way, why would we believe anything the taliban says. I sure as hell don’t.

[christx30]

2. This will never stop.

We’ve been there 20 years. Poured trillions of dollars and thousands of lives into the country and they still can’t stop killing each other for religious reasons.
Biden was absolutely right in pulling out of there. Should have been don’t 19 years ago. But I guess the defense contractors needed good Christmas bonuses.

[maxsolomon]

4. "But I guess the defense contractors needed good Christmas bonuses"?

It isn't that simple.

There are millions in Afghanistan that don't want to live under a violent, repressive, misogynistic Medieval Theocracy. And that Theocracy actually did provide a safe haven for terrorists that killed 3000 Americans in 1 day.

What would we have been able to accomplish without Pakistan's support for the Taliban over those 19 years? Or Bush the Lesser's fatal blunder into Iraq? We'll never know.

[christx30]

7. Still, it's been nearly 20 years.

This war has lasted longer than World War II, when the US was at war with 3 countries. Pakistan will never support us in anything we do, no matter how much money we give them. That's just a fact. So anything we do would have to be without them as an ally, and possibly as an enemy.
And there are still many powerful groups within Afghanistan that still want the old ways. Tribal group in the north still cling to ancient ways. They don't want modern society, educated women. Their traditions and religion mean more to them than human life. And they are ready to die and kill to preserve the old ways. And that's more than any country like the US can counter in 20 or 100 years. And the government of Afghanistan is either unable or unwilling to combat the problem themselves. And without the host country as an ally, the mission is doomed from the start.
How many more years is it worth? How many more lives, how much money are we willing to throw into that hole? And what do we get for that investment? Oil rights? Opium?

[maxsolomon]

11. I agree with all that.

Except the "what do we get"? Avoiding Taliban rule for the People of Afghanistan for 20 years had value. It bought time free from theocratic oppression for 37 million people.

As for Opium, yeah, we could have bought all they could produce at double the price and still saved money on the Drug War. We made strategic blunders, just like Bin Laden wanted.

The US is still going to spend billions a year monitoring that nation. We can't afford to ignore anything that goes in or out.

If the bombings of Girl's Schools ends only because there are no Girl's Schools, is that a win? A loss? Both and neither.

[christx30]

14. Let someone else be the police of the world.

Let's divert that money to health care or infrastructure. It doesn't always have to be us. How long is long enough for us to stay somewhere and fix a country if a large chunk doesn't want us there? Would 40 years be enough? They will never accept modern society. If the bombings of girls schools continue over and over again, and the actual government of Afghanistan isn't able to stop it, how does that help anyone? It's up to the people in that country to stop it. the Afghani government has to step up. They have to fix their country. Twenty years is enough. If they haven't done it by now, they never will. Anyone capable of moving should try to abandon the country and leave it to the tribes.
Or let one of our allies fund and man the battlefield there, forever. Because they will never stop killing each other there. Maybe once the brain drain happens the country is going to be in even worse shape than it is now. The Russians couldn't pacify it with their brutal tactics and total disregard for human life. Why did we think our enlightend ideals would be able to do it?

[oldsoftie]

17. It usually DOES "have to be us". If not us, WHO?

Who steps in to protect those that can protect themselves? The Russians? The Chinese?
Is the US perfect in their foreign escapades? Certainly not! But at this moment, in this world, there IS no one else who can accomplish what positives DO get achieved.

Do we have to stay forever in full force? I dont think so. I think the Afghan forces CAN be fairly formidable if they at least have the assurance of some air support.

[maxsolomon]

31. "Divert that money to health care or infrastructure"?

I think maybe you just fell off a turnip truck. That's not how the US budget works.

[christx30]

33. It is possible to reduce spending in one area

and shift it to another. That's how budgets work. We need to shift money from defense and move it to spending it on improving the lives of Americans. Let the British or the French or anyone else be the world's police for a while. They both have national health care. Why not us?

[maxsolomon]

34. You know how the US Budget works, right? It's political.

The US is not going to adopt an Isolationist stance. We haven't had one since Pearl Harbor. That's what Trump advocated, or at least advocated making it explicitly transactional.

We are the "world's policeman" because 1. we can afford it and 2. it historically deters the territorial ambitions of China & Russia. I think the citizens of Taiwan, for instance, like our interventionist policies.

I don't believe shifting a portion of the massive, bloated military budget to domestic social spending is realistic NOW, with huge deficits, a 50:50 Senate, and a razor-thin Dem majority in the House. Even if he could get it done, Biden isn't dumb enough to gift wrap that campaign issue for the GQP. The "Socialsm" smear has plenty of traction without it.

BTW, the French ARE policing other nations - they're operational in the Sahel repelling Islamist insurgencies and bandits.

[christx30]

35. How long should we keep sending money and people to die

to Afghanistan? 30 years? 50? If you had it your way, would the great grandchildren of people that died on 9/11 be dying there? How long is enough? We were only in Japan for 7 years after WWII. When will the government of Afghanistan be able to rule it? If the government has been unable to do it after 20 years, and if nation at large doesn't want it, it'll never happen. Let's add this to France's list of responsibilities. Or, again, Britain.

We got out of Japan so quickly because we hurt them bad enough to cause a cultural shift away from absolute devotion to the emperor. We firebombed their cities, and nuked two of them. We killed millions of people. Would you be ok with that happening to Afghanistan and the Taliban? Otherwise, we should just leave and let the chips fall where they may. Anything less is a half measure.

[speak easy]

9. It is the same calculus as Vietnam - a hopelessly corrupt central government vs

seriously committed insurgents who will carry the fight victory, however long it takes.

[oldsoftie]

18. But we never fought to win in Vietnam

That's been a problem ever since WW2; fighting, but not fighting to WIN.

[speak easy]

20. Did we fight to win in Afghanistan?

The British did. The Russians did. They lost.

[oldsoftie]

25. I said not since WW2.

[Mysterian]

22. What does winning mean?

Making it the 51st state and staying there forever?

[Mysterian]

23. We had more than half a million troops in Vietnam

WTF does it mean to "fight to win?" Nuke the enemy?

Just because we lost doesn't mean we didn't "fight to win."

[oldsoftie]

26. Breaking the will of the enemy to continue.

Of course we have the ability to do that, but we dont have the will to put up with the criticism from other countries for doing it.
During the 1st Gulf War, Bush stopped the war when allied forces were totally destroying Saddam's forces running out of Kuwait. Because of the optics. With even MORE press coverage now, the blowback would be even worse than 30 yrs ago. Sucks, but it is what it is.

[Mysterian]

28. That wasn't going to happen

So your solution would have been endless war.

[oldsoftie]

29. You cant get much more fanatical than the Japanese

We defeated them by breaking them. Yes, we used a couple nukes. It would have been accomplished with a conventional invasion, but at too high a cost to us, so nukes it was. It didnt take that with the Germans.
But it takes total destruction to take out fanatics like the Taliban.

[Mysterian]

30. So, your answer is "total destruction" of Afghanistan

a vast, very mountainous country with expanses of desert.

I hope you're not in a decision-making role for our military.

[brooklynite]

13. So President Obama sold out to defense contractors?

[christx30]

15. You'd have to talk to Obama and ask him why,

in the 8 years he was president, why he did not end the war. Why he though the cost in money (over $2 trillion) and lives (over 2,700 american deaths) was worth it. See what we were accomplishing for that huge cost, and whether he would have done things differently. I wasn't happy that Biden was the nominee. I voted for Bernie in the primaries. But I agree with Biden 100% on ending the war. ut I know anyone involved in supplying both sides of the war made out like bandits. And the US taxpayer is worse off. For that money we could all have gold plated health care. Something that would make Britian's NIH look like "take 2 Advil and get out of here" by comparison.
But that money went down the hole, for no damned good reason. Time to cut our losses.

[They_Live]

3. Maybe I've seen too many movies

but this almost seems like some agent provocateur action. It would help justify a continued presence and funding for some entity, whatever it may be. Sometimes both sides of a conflict are supported by someone who will benefit from its existence.

[speak easy]

10. IS, ISI, take your pick.

[Warpy]

5. The Sunni-Shi'a rift came at the death of Mohammad

They've been murdering each other for 1300 years. While it hurts to see people slaughtering each other over a religion you don't shre, we really don't have a dog in this particular fight. We did our best. It's time to come home.

I've known some Afghan people, so this is very sad to watch.

We didn't fuck that much up over there. We just can't fix it.

[oldsoftie]

19. Your last line says a TON in only a few words. NT

[Maxheader]

8. Time for the Afghan authorities to step up..

If they can...

[maxsolomon]

32. They can't.

They're under the same assault that the Hazara are.

And soon they'll join the Taliban in hopes of self preservation, or become refugees if they can. Or be dead.

[lonely bird]

12. There is no such thing as Afghanistan

From the Eurocentric Treaty of Westphalia standpoint Afghanistan doesn’t really exist.

There are tribal issues, religious issues and patriarchal feudalism issues. From Alexander the Great to the US no one has “conquered” Afghanistan and no one will.

Should we be concerned about the people? Certainly. What can we do? Likely not much.

[ansible]

24. Yep the targets were ethnic hazaras too, people of mongol origin dating back to Genghis Khan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras

they've been at constant war for hundreds of years

[SunSeeker]

16. Horrific.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. More than 60 now dead

Some of the children killed outside a secondary school in Kabul on Saturday have been buried - as other relatives are still searching for the missing.

More than 60 people - mostly girls - died in the explosions that occurred as students were leaving the building.

No-one has admitted carrying out the attack in Dasht-e-Barchi - an area often hit by Sunni Islamist militants.

Afghan government officials blamed Taliban militants for the attack, but the group denied any involvement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57046527

Link to tweet

[Marcuse]

27. We can't even impose democracy on Georgia. I don't mean Tbilisi.