world

6 Americans on medical team killed in Afghanistan

81 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

81 Comments
Login to comment

the survivor told him that the group, which had been traveling in Panjshir, Nuristan and Badakhshan

Who is going to 'travel' in such a hostile and lawless area for lesture? If those were no american civilians were no paramilitary contract workers...they must be CIA agents!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many guys travel in dangerous regions for various reasons, may it be dope , providing medical aid(religous groups) or to kill Bin Laden(recent story).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year.”

Good luck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The headline certainly suggests that the only thing of note is that 6 Americans were killed. How about 'International Aid Workers Killed?', and may they all rest in peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If CIA stopped posing as Aid workers, maybe Aid workers could be left to do what they are supposed to do.

Shame on CIA for posing as Aid workers, Journalists etc. You kill many innocent people by doing so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan is a war zone, and the execution of suspected spies in wartime is an action that should surprise no one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those militants are going to hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shame on CIA for posing as Aid workers, Journalists etc. You kill many innocent people by doing so.

There is very strong basis, and a LONG history, of the CIA both staffing and using medical aid workers as intelligence gatherers. (I gave a specific, documented example in a previous post that was unfortunately edited out.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Those militants are going to hell."

No, they're not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No, they're not."

Yes, they are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No, they're not."

Sushi, we know you don't want those mlitants to go to hell, but to hell is where they're going.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits

Yeah there used to be an international agreement. But it was too tempting to try and smuggle agents using that cover.

Now, anyone is open game....

Sad for those true heroes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Those militants are going to hell." No, they're not.

Ahem! If they are in Afghanistan, I'd argue that they're already in hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing, that there is no worse crime then teaching Christianity to a Muslim. Gotta love the religion of "peace".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beel - Simply being in Afghanistan doesn't mean you are in hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I am Muslim. Don't kill me."

Being Muslim doesn't guarantee you won't be killed. Muslims kill each other all the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 10:56 PM JST - 7th August

Shame on CIA for posing as Aid workers, Journalists etc. You kill many innocent people by doing so.

There is very strong basis, and a LONG history, of the CIA both staffing and using medical aid workers as intelligence gatherers. (I gave a specific, documented example in a previous post that was unfortunately edited out.)

You mean like when ambulances are used by terrorist to transport bombs/weapons or these manly men to dress like women and feign modesty to get through checkpoints. I fail to see how you can justify the killings of humans based upon some idea of what you see to be the tactics used by the CIA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If CIA stopped posing as Aid workers, maybe Aid workers could be left to do what they are supposed to do.

I'm pretty sure the med team was killed because they were largely American, whether or not they were members of the CIA would have been an afterthought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

get told a lie enough times and it becomes 'truth.'

Truth is subjective, your truth and his truth are equal.

The killers of these aid workers are no more going to hell as the tooth fairy is going to the Bahamas.

Considering I recently saw Dwayne Johnson in the Bahamas I believe we've cleared up that little dispute.

And sorry, 'yes they are' does not count as a credible response.

And neither does, "No, they're not"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA? Don't make us laugh. They couldn't run a covert operation with instructions. No, this organization has been in Afghanistan for a long time, worked under Kings, Soviets and Taliban, not CIA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I fail to see how you can justify the killings of humans based upon some idea of what you see to be the tactics used by the CIA.

I hate to break this to you, JHansen, but Afghanistan is a war zone. The killing of suspected spies should come as par for the course.

The reason that Afghanistan is a war zone is because forces led by the United States attacked the country in 2001. Unlike you, who justifies the killings of innocent Afghans in the service of "better fight them over there than over here," I don't justify the killings of anyone.

But supporters of the war want things both ways, as fundamentally dishonest people are prone to do. You want the right to execute enemies, of which spies are certainly an important component, but you would deny your enemies the right to do the very same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: There is very strong basis, and a LONG history, of the CIA both staffing and using medical aid workers as intelligence gatherers.

I'm sorry, but did you have any evidence regarding these specific people? If so, please post it. If not, it seems like you're using the murder of aid workers as a red carpet to air your grievances about the CIA. Seems that it would be easier to just take a crap on their graves and be done with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sorry, but did you have any evidence regarding these specific people? If so, please post it. If not, it seems like you're using the murder of aid workers as a red carpet to air your grievances about the CIA.

LOL!!!

The well-documented fact that the CIA has long worked through medical organizations (especially those tied to religion) is the fact that helped seal the fate of these workers. Those who know they are on the CIA's enemies list can't afford to take any chances.

Earth to SuperLib: Suspected spies get shot in wartime.

It is those who support or deny CIA involvement in these types of organizations who are actually the ones crapping on the graves of good people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simply put Yabits, YOU DON"T KNOW IF THEY WERE OR WEREN'T. So it's pretty much pointless to try to prove a point you can't verify. Maybe they were, in which you can vent all you want or maybe they weren't in which case I believe you need to rethink your accusations.

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." This leaves us where we started at which is absolutely no idea who or what to believe. Take note some of the aid workers were not American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well don't I have egg on my face! I completely missed the part of the article where the aid killing terrorist said he suspected they might be spies. I mean when a guy who is the spokesperson for a group that cuts off the heads of schoolgirls tells you that German and British female doctors are preaching Christianity and also spying, that's all I need to hear. SOLD!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simply put Yabits, YOU DON"T KNOW IF THEY WERE OR WEREN'T.

What I know is that quasi-religious medical organizations have provided cover for intelligence-gathering as far back as the early 1950s in Indo-China. What I also know is that it is nearly impossible to know -- until years later -- what specific involvement a particular group has with western intelligence organizations.

It is inconceivable that such a group, unless fully vetted by the Red Crescent or other Islamic organiation, could operate in a war zone without some form of understanding and cooperation with the side that seeks out such organizations for intelligence gathering. The group was once thrown out by the Taliban -- and spared their lives.

The fact is that anyone wanting to vent against the Taliban has to consider that the United States is at war against them, and that their operations would be jeopardized for any miscalculations regarding the types of organizations long noted with ties to the CIA. (As shown by the extraordinary rendition program, the CIA has ties to many different countries, and actively works with foreign nationals. No ordinary person can be certain just where their tentacles reach, but the reach is an extensive one.)

This was not a war the Taliban wanted; it was thrust on them by the United States.

"Believe none of what you read" is a very good piece of advice when weighing whether or not this group was purely involved with providing medical support and nothing else. The CIA's well-documented involvement with these types of groups has put ALL of them -- bona fide or not -- under risk of execution as spies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, from certain perspectives, and from certain historical points of view, it's completely logical and justified for the Taliban to kill aid workers.

Time to move on or is there something else you need to add?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, from certain perspectives, and from certain historical points of view, it's completely logical and justified for the Taliban to kill aid workers.

There is an American saying -- at least the only place I've ever seen it is proudly emblazoned on U.S. military facilities and personnel: "Kill them ALL; let God sort them out."

From "certain persepectives" means that it is certain that the CIA has used and still uses the cover of "aid organizations" in order to gather intelligence. To spy, in other words. Spies, and suspected spies, get killed in time of war. (Since this significant point appears to be willfully and continually overlooked, it bears repeating.)

Once certain, ostensible aid organizations contaminate themselves with intelligence-gathering operations, the sad reality is that all aid organizations will be put at risk. The CIA, obviously, isn't going to announce which organizations have agreed to cooperate with it by providing cover or passing on information.

In war, it is understandable that a combatant party executes those it considers to be spies. It is also very clear that many Americans want to deny how their intelligence organizations have tainted and endangered legitimate aid workers in the process.

With all aid workers under suspicion, it should therefore come as no surprise when an enemy combatant applies the American military folk wisdom of "Kill them all..."

Americans who blindly support all their nation's clandestine operations, receive a propaganda-bonus from these killings: They can dupe themselves into feeling superior to their enemies -- and attacking anyone who dares bring out truths better left swept under the rug -- when in fact it is largely due to their own nation's actions that the accused spies were killed in the first place. (The same Taliban having let these very people go unharmed in August 2001 before war was brought on them.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean when a guy who is the spokesperson for a group that cuts off the heads of schoolgirls tells you

Of course this will all be denied by a spokesperson for a group that drops cluster bombs in civilian areas which slice through and decapitate children and babies as efficiently and wantonly as any blade, only more indiscriminately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The well-documented fact that the CIA has long worked through medical organizations (especially those tied to religion) is the fact that helped seal the fate of these workers.

And can you give headlines or titles from reputable news sources that would prove this? Keep in mind I'm not asking you to provide a link.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A standard tactic for guerilla warfare is to never let the population recieve aid and comfort from the enemy, only from your side.

So, it didn't matter whether these workers were CIA or helpful doctors or anything else - they represented the enemy and enemy interests and risked "winning hearts and minds". So, they had to die. Anything the enemy builds must be destroyed, anything good the enemy does must be un-done. I'm suprised they didn't proceed to shoot anyone who had received treatment from those doctors. Maybe they weren't sure who did.

It wouldn't be this way in a more "formal" kind of war between national armies, but the particular subvariety of warfare going on in Afghanistan is different - very harsh, very unforgiving. A small zealous nationalist force -vs- a large army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And can you give headlines or titles from reputable news sources that would prove this?

Absolutely. Check out Dr. America: The lives of Thomas A. Dooley.

Keep in mind that the facts of MEDICO's involvement (Dooley's organization) with the CIA were only revealed decades later. The CIA didn't immediately stand up and shout out, "Hey, he was one of our guys!"

Now, what proof do you have to offer when and if the CIA has foresworn using quasi-religious (MEDICO had ties to the Roman Catholic Church) medical aid organizations as fronts for intelligence-gathering?

As large as Afghanistan is, and as few troops the western allies have to cover the entire country, it is inconceivable that aid organizations are not being enlisted in the effort to root out and eliminate the Taliban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely. Check out Dr. America: The lives of Thomas A. Dooley.

I guess I should have been more specific with my question, what I was really asking was do you have evidence of aid agencies working for the CIA in Afghanistan since 2001.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess I should have been more specific with my question, what I was really asking was do you have evidence of aid agencies working for the CIA in Afghanistan since 2001.

One has to use deductive reasoning:

First: Dooley's medical organization worked for the CIA in the 1950s. It was by no means the only one.

Second: In the 1970's, my work as a crypto tech enabled me to have access to, among other things, field intelligence reports. Let's just say many of their sources were rather obvious and extremely consistent with what finds in the Dooley records.

Third: Leopards don't change their spots. They hadn't changed in the 20 years since Dooley, and there's absolutely no reason to believe they've done so since then. After all, what logic would cause YOU to give up something that has worked extremely well, despite the sacrifice of a few lives here and there? War is hell.

Please try to use some common sense. To get reliable intelligence, you have to put your people in as many places as possible, especially in a country like Afghanistan. They have to be provided with a cover so that there is a plausible reason for their presence in a given area.

You actually think the enemy doesn't suspect or know this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anything the enemy builds must be destroyed, anything good the enemy does must be un-done. I'm suprised they didn't proceed to shoot anyone who had received treatment from those doctors. Maybe they weren't sure who did.

@glycol57: Yours is an very insightful posting.

However, anyone whose health was improved to the point where they could be a potentially effective soldier for the Taliban, would have been recruited to that end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "This was not a war the Taliban wanted; it was thrust on them by the United States."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Taliban were minding their own business, benevolently governing their country, when all of a sudden the evil United States and its puppets started dropping bombs on them, and then invaded their country, LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are well-documented cases

footnotes or links please, super. I got some spare time to do some catchup reading

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: One has to use deductive reasoning

You're not really using any kind of reasoning. What you're doing is using these murders as as a platform to attack the CIA, mostly likely because you have personal issues with the CIA. By using so-called "deductive reasoning" you're basically just giving yourself the green light to lay out your standardized rhetoric in any case involving the murder of aid workers regardless of the evidence at hand.

Your flaw is that you're refusing to consider the source of the information. Just because the Taliban spokesman says they are suspected spies doesn't make it so. But you fail to challenge his statement in any way, instead accepting it as fact because without that you won't be able to hijack the thread into an indictment of the CIA, which is your real goal.

The initial reports I'm reading point to a religious killing. From the BBC.com:

"Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said bibles translated into Dari had been found. "Yesterday at around 0800 (0330 GMT), one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all," he told the AFP news agency. He later told the Associated Press they were "spying for the Americans"."

One of the Afghans was allowed to leave. He said he kept telling the terrorists he was Muslim and started giving phrases from the Koran. I supposed the CIA doesn't have a long and well-documented history of using Afghans as spies or else this guy would have been killed too, eh?

The "spies" claim looks more like an afterthought thrown in after the initial statement, mostly likely to appeal to people such as yourself. And boy did it work for you. Zero condemnation for the Taliban, volumes of condemnation for the CIA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JHansen: You mean like when ambulances are used by terrorist to transport bombs/weapons or these manly men to dress like women and feign modesty to get through checkpoints.

That's Pandora's Box that Yabits has opened. I suppose if the US had killed these doctors and released a statement saying they were suspected spies that he'd be here saying that spy killing is just a part of war. He'd give up the details about the well-documented and LONG history of the Taliban using spies. Then he'd turn the attack into an indictment of the Taliban to channel anger towards them and away from the US military. He's set the precedent as accepting all statements as fact so we'll see if he sticks to that when the shoe is on the other foot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So their spy cover was so true to real that they had no weaponry?

If the "oh, well, we thought they were spies" reasoning should work, then, when NATO mistakenly kill civilians they can simply say "well, we thought they were enemy" and thus have to offer neither apology nor compensation? It's war, par for the course?

w/o being there, all our opinions are speculation, so I'll speculate. Taleban are known to have killed aid workers (I.e. there have been prior incidents and many have been European), I think it's just a part of a terroristic pissing contest. Basically "Keep out, this is our territory, we have control" message. I don't think they would have cared that they were European, NAmerican, Asian or African, just they were foreign. (religion probably mattered, but probably not -i.e. would they have let a French muslim aid worker go?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Taliban were minding their own business, benevolently governing their country

The Taliban had no knowledge of what Al Qaeda was planning so, yes, they were minding their own business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Taliban had no knowledge of what Al Qaeda was planning"

Oh, well, they're innocent then!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because the Taliban spokesman says they are suspected spies doesn't make it so.

It is so that they were suspected as spies. Prosletyzing, by the way, is considered to be a very serious crime by the Afghan government the U.S. supports.

News reports mention religious tracts in at least one Afghan language as well as maps found which allegedly highlight Taliban positions.

Your flaw is that you're refusing to consider the source of the information.

The source is irrelevant. We all know that the country is a war zone. I trust very little of what gets reported about this, based upon decades of experience. The Taliban would have to know the ways that their enemies gather intelligence, and thus would make aid groups suspect. Nobody expects the Taliban to have a very effective counter-intelligence program.

I supposed the CIA doesn't have a long and well-documented history of using Afghans as spies or else this guy would have been killed too, eh?

The odds are zero that everyone in the group killed by the Taliban were spying. The odds are also zero that western intelligence agencies aren't getting information from medical groups of this type within all parts of the country. It would be sheer stupidity to expect the Taliban to know which was which for certain and therefore accept the risk of letting spies escape with information that could get them killed.

This is the insidious problem one runs into with using these groups for intelligence gathering. You seem to want to pretend that there is no war going on, and that everything is precisely what news organizations tell you it is. It's amazing to me that the Taliban have allowed these kinds of groups to operate as long as they have; no wonder they've been taking a beating. If they're signaling a change of policy, they could not have sent a more effective message.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suppose if the US had killed these doctors and released a statement saying they were suspected spies that he'd be here saying that spy killing is just a part of war.

U.S. intelligence operations have put all legitimate aid organizations at risk in time of war. This is the sad reality of the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. intelligence operations have put all legitimate aid organizations at risk in time of war. This is the sad reality of the situation.

That could be easily re-written to say that since Taleban have been known to impersonate women for disguise as well as wear the uniform of civil services, Afghani army, etc. that it puts all Afghani civilians at risk and that that's the price of war. It's sad, but it's true?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Basically "Keep out, this is our territory, we have control" message. I don't think they would have cared that they were European, NAmerican, Asian or African, just they were foreign.

The fact is that the Taliban, since the war with the US started in 2001, have let ostensibly legitimate aid organizations operate within the country, for the most part.

The fact that they specifically mentioned spying as a rationale for executing these doctors means that they are likely starting to grasp the serious liabilities of allowing aid organizations to operate with relative freedom.

Would the Taliban attack an organization operating through and vetted by the Red Crescent? Not nearly as likely, although I wouldn't put anything past them when outsiders are concerned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That could be easily re-written to say that since Taleban have been known to impersonate women for disguise as well as wear the uniform of civil services, Afghani army, etc. that it puts all Afghani civilians at risk and that that's the price of war. It's sad, but it's true?

Yes. However the question that then must be asked is this: What precautions do your available resources enable you take? Next is: What course of action best lives up to the values and principles you are trying to project?

I believe we all agree that the Taliban project the primitive brutality aligned with their interpretation of Islam. (My concern is that my own country not pursue courses of action, such as assassination programs and torture, that rival those of groups like the Taliban.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think they threw in the "spying" to make it more palatable -nothing more. "You, (idiots) killed the only people who were providing healthcare to us"; "It was regrettable but necessary as they were spies". "Oh, they were spies; I see, yes, well, then, that was sensible".

They have learned about the concept of propaganda, that is all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: The fact that they specifically mentioned spying as a rationale for executing these doctors means that they are likely starting to grasp the serious liabilities of allowing aid organizations to operate with relative freedom.

Their original statement said they were killed for spreading Christianity. Later they added in the claim that they were spies. The also let an Afghan leave the group after he told them he was Muslim. You're throwing all of your weight behind a flimsy "justification" from terrorists just for some Sunday evening mental masturbation.

With Americans like you, who needs Taliban spokesmen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think they threw in the "spying" to make it more palatable -nothing more.

I don't believe the Taliban care all that much about making things palatable.

I believe they threw in spying to send a message to other aid organizations -- many of which are certainly engaged in intelligence operations. Anyone who believes otherwise is completely duped and lying to themselves.

With Americans like you, who needs Taliban spokesmen?

With Americans like me, there wouldn't have been a Taliban in the first place -- this group that morphed out of the fighters the CIA supported in their war against a secular Afghan government propped up by the Soviets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA? Don't make us laugh. They couldn't run a covert operation with instructions. No, this organization has been in Afghanistan for a long time, worked under Kings, Soviets and Taliban, not CIA. Read, A Legacy of Ashes. The CIA? HA!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: "With Americans like you ( yabits ), who needs Taliban spokesmen?"

LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: I believe they threw in spying to send a message to other aid organizations

What do you mean by "threw in?"

With Americans like me, there wouldn't have been a Taliban in the first place

I see. What would there be instead?

m3c32: They have learned about the concept of propaganda, that is all.

That's probably a true statement. From what I've been reading it was in an area where the Taliban didn't have much of a presence and weren't considered to be a real threat. My guess is that they wanted to make their mark in a sensational way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do you mean by "threw in?"

I mean it exactly as m5c32 meant it, since I was quoting her/him. Duh!

However, in the hours since I responded to m5c32, it has come to my attention that bible translation services (like the largest one, Wycliffe) have had ties with the CIA for decades now. In the 80's their prime target of operations was Central and South America, but there's little doubt that they are doing a lot of "translating" for the intelligence services in the languages in the Afghan region.

In case you can't connect the dots, any astute advisor to the Taliban would immediately tie a bible translated into an Afghan language to an entity connected to U.S. intelligence services. Spying is therefore "thrown in" for both the bibles and the maps that were found on these unfortunate individuals.

I see. What would there be instead?

There would have been a secular government, even more secular than the one we've been trying to bolster and work with today. Imagine that. Osama's crew would have been largely killed off years before. That government was called a "puppet" of the Soviets -- just as Osama bin Laden's group and the Taliban were dubbed "freedom fighters" -- but it was strong enough to last for two years after the Soviet pullout. With U.S. staying out of it and not arming and supporting radical Muslims, it might have had quite a good chance of success.

With the U.S. actually supporting it -- in opposition to Muslim radicals -- the government surely would have succeeded. And the cost would have come at a fraction of what the U.S. has paid in to this point after making a massive strategic blunder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: Spying is therefore "thrown in" for both the bibles and the maps that were found on these unfortunate individuals.

So do you think the Taliban thought these people were actually spies?

yabits: However, in the hours since I responded to m5c32, it has come to my attention that bible translation services (like the largest one, Wycliffe) have had ties with the CIA for decades now.

I see. And how did this come to your attention? Do you have sources you can post?

There would have been a secular government, even more secular than the one we've been trying to bolster and work with today.

Ah, interesting. So we'd have a Soviet-free, secular government with Bin Laden's crew dead?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, the genius yabits has it all figured out! Why, if only the dumb Americans had not provided any aid to the Afghans fighting the Soviets, there would have been a secular government which would never have morphed into the Taliban! It's all so clear now!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why, if only the dumb Americans had not provided any aid to the Afghans fighting the Soviets, there would have been a secular government which would never have morphed into the Taliban

Helping radical Muslims to defeat a secular Afghan government was indeed tragically dumb. The Taliban and Al Qaeda came out of the very groups we armed and advised.

Do you have sources you can post?

Here's one from a Christian group that decries Wycliffe's well-documented association with U.S. intelligence operations. (It makes reference to the book, Thy Will Be Done, which was thorougly researched and found to be "free from factual error.")

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg53569.html

Note to moderator: On some threads such as this one, the initial display is of ALL comments except for the last 15, rather than the other way around. The same is true of the New York mosque issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well, they're innocent then!

They had no complicity in the attacks on 9/11, but only a fool would say they governed Afghanistan benevolently.

To use one of Sarge's favorite well-worn sound bites: "The Soviets and their secular Afghan allies were rooting out radical Islamists that would kill others without hesitation or remorse." (Especially if they suspected spying in time of war, or promoting Christianity.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sorry yabits but your case is rather weak overall. You made a claim about a "long and well-documented" history about the CIA using aid agencies for spies but only produced 2 references. One was to a guy who died in 1961 after working in Vietnam. Another was a link from 2000 talking about some guy working with the CIA in the 1970s in South America?

Pointing to glancing references from decades ago doesn't necessarily mean there's been a long relationship. And from what I've read I've seen no information on the direct links or what these two men have done specifically. And even if you could provide more information I'm sure you'd agree that no rational person would take the actions of 2 men from decades ago and say that it's making the Taliban kill people today, especially since the Taliban are a group that kills people whenever they feel like it for whatever reason.

You'd also have to counter the fact that these people were working in an area where the Taliban were thought to have no presence. Seems kind of silly to recruit spies and send them to areas where the enemy is not though to be.

On top of that you had the Taliban mention aid agencies only after their initial response, which seems like more of an afterthought or as you said, something they just "threw in." Not really the best justification for giving the Taliban a free pass and putting the CIA on trial.

Even if you did take it seriously, you'd have to come to terms with the fact that you're relying on the statements of terrorists and taking them as fact with no critical thinking. If this is a requirement to making your case stick, then you should probably be able to see how weak it is. And in all reality there just aren't that many cases of the Taliban attacking aid agencies (thankfully), so you're really just saying that they're willfully letting the CIA operate in their country and not doing much about it. Which is kind of strange.

Look, I understand. You want to attack the CIA. But are you sure you're going about it in the best possible way? Can't you create some other case that at least sounds better? You also might want to throw in a token statement about sympathies for the aid workers. People will be able to digest your misdirections better than your current strategy of painting the Taliban as brilliant tacticians.

In the end I'd recommend you get some stronger links, or at least something that is related to Afghanistan and something that happened at least after we were born. Whoever gave you that article about Wycliffe might be able to help since you guys are probably on the same page. In the end a good propagandist would probably stop talking about the CIA and switch the focus to the war and the US in Afghanistan overall. Time for you to switch gears.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, your points definitely have a logic to them. I wish I could go back 50 years to the 1960s to a time when I believed the United States never engaged in torture or assassination. If somehow most of my experience and 75% of my brain could be sucked away by some kind of mental liposuction, I might find myself agreeing with you.

Without straying from the topic, allow me to try to respond to your main points in separate posts for each.

First, you make the statement that my references are very dated, and you are absolutely right. There's no way to get around that in a public forum. It generally takes 2 to 3 decades for the truth to come out about clandestine operations. Absolutely no one at the time suspected Dooley or the bible translators to be working with the CIA. (Although, in the case of the latter, countries started kicking out the Wycliffe people as soon as their suspicions were raised.)

What you seem to want to forget is the mention of my years in the military as a crypto tech, years that taught me to observe certain definite details in the intelligence reports I was privy to. I cannot deny my own personal experiences any more than you can yours. If those thousands of reports taught me anything, it taught me to never, ever take news reports like these at face value, especially in a war zone like Afghanistan.

If the CIA worked with medical-religious sources in the 1950s through the 1970s, there is absolutely no reason to assume they stopped working with them any time after that. Unless, that is, YOU can supply a reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And even if you could provide more information I'm sure you'd agree that no rational person would take the actions of 2 men from decades ago and say that it's making the Taliban kill people today, especially since the Taliban are a group that kills people whenever they feel like it for whatever reason.

If the Taliban killed these people, and the organization at the center of this has expressed doubts that it was the Taliban, then it likely did so for the reasons they expressed.

I believe it is highly unlikely that the Taliban will kill a truly devout Muslim. So they don't kill anyone they want to for any reason. For religious fundamentalists, there always has be a justification. There may have been a military component to it also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You'd also have to counter the fact that these people were working in an area where the Taliban were thought to have no presence. Seems kind of silly to recruit spies and send them to areas where the enemy is not though to be.

The reason you "think" the Taliban have no presence in this or that area is because you've already placed intelligence gatherers there to let you know that. Afghanistan is a rather porous country and just because certain forces haven't operated there for awhile does not mean that they won't or couldn't move in tomorrow.

You need to have an intelligence network operating ahead of time. Integrating it with a medical mission is the perfect cover: Those missions usually have a lot of the infrastructure required to relay reports in a timely manner, i.e. airfields and radio transmitters. Since they treat local people, they are prime collection points for information provided by the natives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And in all reality there just aren't that many cases of the Taliban attacking aid agencies (thankfully), so you're really just saying that they're willfully letting the CIA operate in their country and not doing much about it. Which is kind of strange.

Yes, not up until this point. And they may have been gullible enough to buy the pretense that these groups would never pass information along to the US/coalition forces that could be life-threatening to them. It will have to be seen if aid workers continue to be attacked.

If the Taliban are being properly advised (of if they've wisened up), they simply will not allow these kinds of groups the freedom to operate as they have been.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: I wish I could go back 50 years

You are going back 50 years. Your entire position is based off of reports from decades ago.

First, you make the statement that my references are very dated, and you are absolutely right. There's no way to get around that in a public forum. It generally takes 2 to 3 decades for the truth to come out about clandestine operations.

What you're saying here is that you have no hard evidence. You can dress it up anyway you like, but at the end of the day you have to admit that you have absolutely no evidence of aid groups in Afghanistan working with the CIA (or "many aid groups" as you said before).

What you seem to want to forget is the mention of my years in the military as a crypto tech, years that taught me to observe certain definite details in the intelligence reports I was privy to. I cannot deny my own personal experiences any more than you can yours. If those thousands of reports taught me anything, it taught me to never, ever take news reports like these at face value, especially in a war zone like Afghanistan.

Actually I thought you were the one who forgot your past work experience, seeing as it didn't come up until halfway through the debate and only after you gave another source as proof. As for taking things at face value, well, your entire position is based upon taking the Taliban spokesperson's "spies" comment at face value. Seems more like "do as I say, not as I do."

Yabits: I believe it is highly unlikely that the Taliban will kill a truly devout Muslim. So they don't kill anyone they want to for any reason.

So on the one hand you want us to believe that these foreigners were spies or that it was reasonable for the Taliban to suspect that they were spies, then on the other hand you're saying the Taliban didn't kill the Afghan because perhaps he was a "devout Muslim".....working with US spies?

Yabits: The reason you "think" the Taliban have no presence in this or that area is because you've already placed intelligence gatherers there to let you know that. Afghanistan is a rather porous country and just because certain forces haven't operated there for awhile does not mean that they won't or couldn't move in tomorrow. You need to have an intelligence network operating ahead of time. Integrating it with a medical mission is the perfect cover:

Or they could just be aid workers not working for the CIA going into an area that they thought was relatively safe. But I'm just using just logic.

If the Taliban are being properly advised (of if they've wisened up), they simply will not allow these kinds of groups the freedom to operate as they have been.

Again, you want us to believe two points of view that have a hard time existing together. On one hand they're astute enough to know about the "long history" of aid agencies working with the CIA so they kill aid workers, on the other hand they don't kill that many aid workers because they just aren't wise enough.

Can you find any other examples of others who agree with your point of view? I've read quite a few articles about the incident and not one mentions the CIA working with aid workers. And we both know that newspapers would fall all over themselves if they had information like that to print. It would sell a lot of papers. Maybe you're fighting this one alone? Maybe it's....personal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your entire position is based off of reports from decades ago.

Not true. In October of last year the US seemingly abandoned the strategic province of Nuristan, which borders Pakistan (and where these doctors were operating & returning from), withdrawing from all of its military outposts after blistering attacks from the Taliban. It is now a Taliban-controlled area. Special Forces still operate there, primarily directed by field reports from various "sources."

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9106-news-us-quits-nuristan-bases-as-obama-leans-to-mcchrystal-for-the-city-biden-for-the-country.html

Your entire position is the premise that there is no way any of these doctors could have provided information that would find its way to the US military or special forces. Your entire position is that, despite decades of the US spy agencies making use of quasi-religious medical organizations in many parts of the world for intelligence-gathering, that they suddenly and completely stopped this practice somewhere along the line -- and certainly could not be doing it in a province under Taliban control.

On one hand they're astute enough to know about the "long history" of aid agencies working with the CIA so they kill aid workers, on the other hand they don't kill that many aid workers because they just aren't wise enough...they could just be aid workers not working for the CIA going into an area that they thought was relatively safe.

That statement is plain dumb. Nuristan, as is now obvious, is a Taliban-controlled area without any US military outposts remaining to keep watch over things. If the Taliban were still subject to attacks by drones or special forces, and they almost certainly were, they just might wonder how their enemy is getting its information on their positions.

In war, astute people generally err on the side of not taking any unacceptable risks. The doctors failed to heed that and paid with their lives. The Taliban certainly did not fail in that regard. They certainly would have properly advised to look upon any remaining westerners in Nuristan as very suspicious.

In war, suspected spies get shot. End of story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not true. In October of last year the US seemingly abandoned the strategic province of Nuristan

Here we go again.... Here's what you said before: "The reason you "think" the Taliban have no presence in this or that area is because you've already placed intelligence gatherers there to let you know that."

It's obvious I'm dealing with someone who takes evidence and crams it into place based on what you want the end result to be. Even if the evidence changes your conclusion never does. Now what if I told you that the killing took place in Badakhshan, not Nuristan? Will you switch back to your "spy recon" position?

Your entire position is the premise that there is no way any of these doctors could have provided information that would find its way to the US military or special forces.

Ah, yet another change in the wind.... We've gone from a "LONG and well-documented" history of the CIA using aid agencies as spies to, "You can't tell me that in the history of the conflict the US government has never once received any information from aid agencies regardless of the situation."

Keep swinging....who knows which way the wind will blow tomorrow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's what you said before: "The reason you "think" the Taliban have no presence in this or that area is because you've already placed intelligence gatherers there to let you know that."

Quoting from your post above: "You'd also have to counter the fact that these people were working in an area where the Taliban were thought to have no presence."

It is plainly obvious that they were working in an area that is Taliban-controlled and the US has no longer any troop presence. Your so-called "fact" that needed to be countered was not a fact at all.

There is intelligence-gathering going on over all parts of Afghanistan. Seriously, you actually believe that it isn't? Since medical teams provide a much-needed service and have a way of winning the trust and friendship of local people, what would cause an intelligence agency like the CIA to fail to get information from them in Afghanistan just as they've done for so long in the past in other parts of the world?

And finally we have you quoting yourself over semantic absurdities: "You can't tell me that in the history of the conflict the US government has never once received any information from aid agencies regardless of the situation."

What's important is how the Taliban now views the aid workers. (How many times does a certain type of organization have to be debriefed by intelligence agencies to be considered as "not neutral" by an opposing force?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0807/International-Assistance-Mission-slayings-part-of-Taliban-war-strategy

Now what if I told you that the killing took place in Badakhshan,

LOL, which borders Nuristan and Pakistan, AND which has seen greatly increasing conflict over the past 4 months. Also interesting is the fact that this northern region is under German command, as well as the fact that one of the party was a German linguist with expertise with local languages as well as with English and Russian. She did not have a medical background.

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/badakhshan/

the Wikileaks documents reveal Germans providing names to the secret U.S. assassination force.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,709625,00.html

On a German site called, the Afghanistan Analysts Network, links to German obits for the slain linguist are included, along with this "interesting" passage:

"'There were times once when the Taleban met represenatives of other religions with deep respect. But this approach fell victim to the fanaticism of war - one of the tragic results of this conflict. Another one is the completely misleading idea of some Western strategists to integrate development and reconstrution aid into a military concept. It is a shame that, by this, aid workers are pressed into a pattern of black-and-white and foe-and-friend by the conflict parties. [...] We have to wait for the questioning of the only survivor. In Afghanistan one experiences very often that there are complicated stories behind seemingly irrational violent deeds."

Aid workers being "pressed" by both of the conflict parties to choose sides, with the western side wanting to integrate aid efforts into a military construct.

I can personally vouch that there are many complicated stories behind an event such as this one.

http://aan-afghanistan.com/index.asp?id=949

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So did you find any links showing the CIA working with aid agencies in Afghanistan yet? Or perhaps something from 1912 in Antarctica? It's all pretty much the same.

You really need to sit down and map out your strategy. It's not really fair to expect people to follow all of your positions as you pull them out of thin air then ignore them in your next post and go in a completely different direction.

The fact is that Badakhshan is relatively peaceful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10900338

"Badakhshan, a mainly ethnic Tajik region bordering Tajikistan, is one of the few Afghan provinces not to have been controlled by the Taliban before the US-led invasion of 2001. The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul says it has long been regarded as a safe area, although locals have complained about the growing threat from insurgents."

It's really difficult to keep track of everything. First you seem to accept that the area is peaceful and give credit for that information to the "doctor spies." Then you seem to go 180 on us and reject that the area is peaceful, but you actually use information about a neighboring area, not the one in question. So suddenly you don't think it's peaceful. Then you end with a blandish, "AND which has seen greatly increasing conflict over the past 4 months." Now I really have no idea what you think about the area...you've gone from peaceful, to so hostile that the US can't work there, to "greatly increasing conflict."

Blowing in the wind...

Have you decided if the Taliban thought they were spies or not? Your first position was that they were brilliant for killing the workers. Then you switched to a kind of wishy-washy position saying they just "threw in" mention of spies to threaten other aid agencies, which isn't really a resounding statement saying they believe these workers were spies. Now you're back to the original "Spies get killed during war" hardline.

Blowing in the wind....

And have you decided what the Taliban's position is regarding spies overall? You said they were brilliant for targeting them. Then when you found out they don't do it that often you said they were idiots for not targeting them. Is it really a big deal to them? You seem to see the logic in murdering aid workers then claim next that an Afghan wasn't killed because he appeared to be a devout Muslim. I guess devout Muslims get a free pass on working for the CIA. Or something like that, I couldn't really figure out what you were trying to say in the end other than making statements in a vacuum.

Blowing in the wind....

What will your position be tomorrow? I'm not sure, but it will probably include a lot of links and new information and positions that are slightly different than the ones you gave today since you obviously make things up as you go along. Honestly, just save us all the time and post some links to some articles from reputable news sources making the same claims you are. It's more convenient than watching you patch everything together with pieces that don't quite fit together. Plus, it would should that someone out there actually agrees with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

did you find any links showing the CIA working with aid agencies in Afghanistan yet?

There's a great link showing how the Taliban are suspecting aid agencies cooperating with military/intelligence operatives and dealing with the aid workers correspondingly. (Read the Japan Today article above.) OR, they are conveniently using this event to announce a new policy towards aid workers -- no longer viewing aid workers as neutral. Either way, suspected spies get shot -- even though some group may have just implemented the policy with different intent. It hardly matters; the effect is the same.

Looks like you missed all that.

Is there a historical and practical basis for the Taliban to suspect this and therefore announce this change to their previous policy? (And that it could it be a matter of life and death for Taliban leadership if they guessed wrong?) That's all amply demonstrated above, and it's obvious that some minds just can't or won't get it -- or have their own agenda to purposely twist and disinform readers.

You said they were brilliant for targeting them. Then when you found out they don't do it that often you said they were idiots for not targeting them.

Of course, readers will quickly determine that I never said the Taliban were brilliant -- another in a series of distortions and fabrications. From a tactical standpoint, the Taliban allowing medical teams to freely operate who may also be passing on information to their own nationals, may be highly disadvantageous to their health and well-being. In other words, they could be making a fatal error in accepting the teams at face value.

The Taliban previously did just that, allowing the medical teams relative freedom of movement and safety. They've now come out with a new stated policy of treating them as part of the combatant forces. Anyone with any knowledge of how the CIA has operated in the past would call this a very understandable and prudent move. Note the emphasis on the term suspected spies.

Based upon how soon this event has happened after the Wikileaks postings, it would appear that the non-brilliant Taliban are better at putting some of the pieces together than SuperLib.

I find it ironic that those who condemn the Taliban for hiding among the civilians would also likely highly condone the practice of allowing aid organizations to provide cover for intelligence-gathering, or by enlisting certain aid workers to supplement their duties with some field reports.

At the bottom line, until we wait X number of years for more stuff to be revealed or leaked is this: Which scenario is more plausible in a war zone: American linguists and professionals working with health care teams to collect information about their adversaries, or them not doing so at all? (Methinks the Taliban has just answered that for you.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So did you find any links with evidence of the CIA working in Afghanistan through aid agencies?

Did you find any links from reputable news sources making the same links that you are? I'm still not seeing your point of view anywhere else except for your own posts.

Do you personally believe that the Taliban killed the workers because you thought they were spies? Was that their motivation?

Why did they release one Afghan if they kill spies in a time of war?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting how some pieces fit: Take the case of Sharif Ali bin Zeid, a Jordanian who was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in late December of last year.

The reports to the public indicated that he was in Afghanistan on a "humanitarian mission," just as this medical team was. Fine.

The problem arose when it was revealed who bin Zeid was killed with: Seven CIA agents. And, who he actually was: a chief officer with Jordanian intelligence. The bomber was a Jordanian medical doctor who turned out to be a double-agent working for the Taliban.

And so this team of a doctor and his "assistant" on an ostensible "humanitarian mission" were actually in Afghanistan to collect information to feed to the CIA. If not for the bombing, the true connection and purpose would never have been revealed.

The evidence clearly indicates that the CIA does indeed work in Afghanistan with medical personnel of various countries while the story fed to the public is that their presence in the country is for humanitarian purposes. In this case, the officer and physician were fronted by the Jordanian U.N. mission. How much more difficult would it be to pass along information as a member of a private, obscure, otherwise-legitimate, quasi-religious organization?

Again, readers can decide for themselves as to how the Taliban might assess the situation. (Realizing that they aren't likely to obtain an internet listing of aid agencies cooperating with the CIA.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another key piece of data:

"The attack occured inside the gym at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province, in eastern Afghanistan. The base had been used to house a provincial reconstruction team providing humanitarian aid to the local Afghan population."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/31/taliban-cia-agents-killed-afghanistan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How American-centric of writers to include only the 6 Americans killed in Afghanistan and not the 4 other equally valuable members of that team. RIP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're just completely off the mark again.

Sharif Ali bin Zeid was an intelligence agent. His job was counterinsurgency and he worked for the CIA. He was the one who found the and brought in the double agent that killed the CIA workers. Yes, he also happened to be a doctor, but he was not working as a doctor in Afghanistan. And he was not working for an aid agency, he was working directly with the CIA.

After his death the Jordanian government released a statement saying he died while doing humanitarian work in Iraq, but that was to head off any anger Jordanians might have if they found out their people were being used by the CIA as agents in Afghanistan. Besides that one statement from the government, there is absolutely no evidence that this man actually performed any humanitarian work in Afghanistan whatsoever.

Now compare that with the doctors recently killed, one of whom spent 30 years actually giving medical care to Afghans. Surely you can see the difference, although I know you won't admit to it even if you did.

I don't see how your second link plays any part in the conversation. The military provides humanitarian aid. That's nothing new. But the doctors who were killed were not part of the American military's humanitarian aid system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sharif Ali bin Zeid was an intelligence agent. His job was counterinsurgency and he worked for the CIA.

This was only revealed upon his death WITH CIA agents. Prior to that, to the world at large, and to the group he was trying to infiltrate, he was involved in a humanitarian activity with a Jordanian physician.

Unless you are claiming that he was over there telling folks he was an agent working with the CIA... . If ordinary folks thought he was involved with a humanitarian aid effort, it's sufficient to prove the point that the CIA sees no problem using that as a cover. AND it's sufficient to cause others to regard the tag of "humanitarian purpose" with some skepticism once the truth got out.

Regarding the medical team, if a single intelligence operative infiltrated the group, the rest of the legitimate members of that team would have been oblivious to it. All it takes is one. Not everyone on the team was a medical professional with 30 years actually giving care. Some were pure linguists, a skill that lends itself to many applications.

Barring an infiltrator, the point holds true of the legitimate members who might have agreed to a "talk" in Kabul with folks posing as "humanitarians," like the Jordanian. (Who cares whether or not he actually performed any humanitarian work -- it's what he wanted others to think.) From outward appearances, it would just be humanitarians talking over conditions in the field.

Could the medical team have, through talking with patients and locals in Nuristan, have picked up some useful information in a strategic and sensitive part of Afghanistan that the American military had to hand over to the Taliban? It's almost certain. Is it likely that intelligence agencies would make no attempt to talk to any of these people? Not hardly.

What makes their reports so valuable is because they come from a far more relaible (read: western) source than stuff from a single Afghan local willing to sell information.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you think the Taliban thought these people were spies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you think the Taliban thought these people were spies?

The Taliban announced that these types would no longer be treated as who they claim to be, but as non-neutrals aligned with the combatants.

Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations would regard this as a highly rational precaution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the Taliban thought these people were spies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think I'm going to go ahead and bring this debate to a close. You haven't proven your case that the CIA and aid agency cooperation is "well documented." You've expanded the scope so wide that anyone who has ever set foot in Afghanistan at any time could be considered a spy because anyone could have said anything to the CIA. I suppose if we took a trip to Afghanistan tomorrow we'd be considered spies just because, by your logic, it's impossible not to be.

You keep ignoring the holes in logic such as the Afghan that was freed, other aid workers who have not been assassinated by the Taliban, and their original statement that did not mention spies. You also won't seem to form an opinion on whether or not the Taliban thought these people were spies, mostly likely because you want to be able to keep stepping across both sides of the line when needed.

Other times you've flat out misrepresented things, such as replacing the security situation in one area for another. You're smart enough to know the difference, so one can only assume that you were being willfully dishonest. I think it shows how far one will go to place blame on a group simply because they hate them.

I've asked you for any evidence that there is anyone out there giving the same opinion that you are but you've failed to provide any links. It's not because you're smarter than everyone else, it's most likely because of your addiction that requires you to take absurd positions that no one else even considers. It's called being on the fringe. It's the type of situation that would motivate someone to post a link about a guy that's been dead for nearly a half-century.

I know you'll always hold the CIA responsible for the deaths of these aid workers but keep in mind that no matter how much you and I debate the vast, vast majority of the people who read about this story won't even consider your point of view. Just about everyone in the entire world will place the blame squarely on the Taliban. I'll go ahead and end with that.

Have a good one!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits; I find it quite interesting your take on this subject and others of this type.

I personally think these people were idiot for being there in the first place what the heck were a group of Christians thinking they were doing in a place like Afghanistan I don't know.

But your take on things is enlightening, you seem to like to defend the Taliban and other like them but sometimes you are amusing.

You would think if these people were CIA spies they would have used something a little less obvious like a Muslim aid group and not a Christian one!

But then again using your own logic in what seems to be a defense and justification of Taliban tactics you must be glad that Japan and the west don't follow those same tactics because if they did then using your own way of putting you could be viewed as a danger and a risk as you put it "Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations would regard this as a highly rational precaution." due to your seeming approval of such tactics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But then again using your own logic in what seems to be a defense and justification of Taliban tactics you must be glad that Japan and the west don't follow those same tactics because if they did then using your own way of putting you could be viewed as a danger and a risk as you put it "Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations would regard this as a highly rational precaution." due to your seeming approval of such tactics.

A key point that I made previously was whether or not a side had the resources to deal with taking prisoners they suspect are spies. Some groups can simply afford to round up a mass of people they suspect -- even without the slightest bit of tangible evidence -- might get involved in espionage and put them away for several years. (The mere shock of that will certainly kill some of them.) In a battle of life and death, groups with fewer means, like the Taliban certainly, may well have to take more drastic steps as a way to ensure their survival.

You would think if these people were CIA spies they would have used something a little less obvious like a Muslim aid group and not a Christian one!

Well, you saw what happened when they tried to use a Muslim physician and his "humanitarian" handler. Your desired scenario requires Muslims to sign the death warrants on other Muslims on the behalf of non-Muslims who generally depise Islam. Rather tough to find people you can trust to sign up for that assignment.

But your take on things is enlightening...

Basic common sense is indeed all too uncommon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites