An open letter to the UNAMA about the biased behavior of this Organization

Regretfully the report published by the head of the UNAMA in Kabul, about the civilian casualties in the country does not bear impartiality. An effort has been made that the losses inflicted by the invaders are also ascribed to us and they have been totally acquitted. While every educated or uneducated Afghan can easily decide about your this judgment because he observes and feels the prevailing situation, the indiscriminate bombardment of the trespassers and their brutalities. But we do not understand why you are not considerate for the prestige of your organization and do everything for Americans? As a part of the United Nations Organization, it should have never been expected from you, but unfortunately we observe it. In the following we send you our objection regarding your biased report in the form of an open letter which will be then sent to the media in the exact from. As you repeatedly mention in your reports the numerous civilian casualties inflicted by Mujahidin and do not tell the exact time and place, is itself a point of concern and anxiety. The head of your organization, Ján Kubiš, has been quoted, “The terrifying incidents of civilian casualties have been increased by 700%.

I emphasize that the civilians are those working for the government, different officials, tribal and religious leaders and those working for peace. It is a war crime and those who commit it will be punished for their crimes.” We do not understand whom do you call civilians? Are the innocent people not civilians according to your definition who were martyred in Said Abad district of Maidan Wardak province in American bombardment sometime ago and the Mosque was destroyed? Similarly are those innocent and oppressed children and women not civilian who were martyred a few days earlier in Shaigal area of Konar province? If these people are civilian, then why are they not highlighted in your reports? On the other side you never forget the officials and their stooges!!! According to us civilians are those who are in no way involved in fighting. The white-bearded people, women, children and common people who live an ordinary life, it is illegitimate to bring them under attack or kill them. But it has been disclosed to us that the police of Kabul admin, those personnel of the security companies who escort the foreigners’ supply convoys and are practically armed, similarly those key figures of the Kabul admin who support the invasion and make plans against their people, religion and homeland, those people who move forward the surrender process for Americans in the name of peace and those Arbakis who plunder the goods, chastity and honour of the people by taking dollar salaries, all these people are civilian according to you. No Afghan can accept that the above mentioned people are civilian.

We have pledged in the beginning of our yearly operations that these people are criminals. They are directly involved in the protraction of our country’s invasion and legally we do not find any difficulty in their elimination, rather we consider it our obligation. If we accept that the killing of those people who support the invaders is the killing of civilian, then ask about the condition of the prisoners in Bagram and Pul-i-Charkhi jails where 92% are the people who are told that they have helped the Taliban, have provided food and shelter and feel sympathy for them. Then according to your calculation, why thousands of these are lying in jails for years and you don’t find any place in your reports to mention them? When every night the American brutal soldiers made tens of raids and target those houses and people who have sympathy for Mujahidin or at least have provided them food, why these raids are not mentioned in your reports? Why have you forgotten the killing and torture of women and aged people? Our mines, which are placed in the ground very carefully, are blasted by remote controls over the enemy. They kill the enemy and destroy their vehicles. We have frequently released the pictures and video clips of these incidents. But your report says, “The main cause of the civilian casualties is the landmines which have killed more than 800 people and have injured other 1600 last year.” What are your arguments for the above allegations? You might have mentioned the blasts in some parts of the country over the civilian’s vehicles in which national buses or some other transportation is targeted; we have already explained that our mines are blasted by remote controls over specific targets and are not used against the common people.

The next point is that when these incidents took place, you have not made contact with us as an impartial organ to clarify that who has planted this mine and why has it been blasted over the civilian? It seems that the information that these mines are fixed by Mujahidin is either provided by the invaders or by the puppet admin of Kabul and you consider their antagonistic reports reliable against us, whereas most of the civilian vehicles are blasted in the mines fixed by intelligence organs of the enemy just for our ill repute. The instance in place is the last year mine blast in Nangarhar province in which 11 little girls were martyred and later on some more mines were found there which were freshly planted and all of them were British made. The area was not a fighting zone either. It might have been a minor and usual incident for you that could not find place in your report but in reality it was not an insignificant and negligible incident. The obvious thing is that our enemy is exhausted with our mine tactics and has suffered serious losses and you want to defame our effective resource by their recommendation and point it out as the main reason of the civilian casualties. The reason is that the number of civilian mine casualties in the previous ten years in even less than the number you have mentioned in the last one year. The other astonishing thing is that the in-charge of your Kabul office, Yankobish has been quoted, “The deployment of those children whose brains are washed including the suicidal attacks are shocking and against the Islamic norms and values.” We consider the above propaganda ambiguous. Where have the children participated in suicidal attacks? Whether your organization has some authentic proofs which show that any child has either been exploited by us against the enemy or has been used for martyrdom attack somewhere else? The deployment of children is totally forbidden in our ranks. In practice we can say it explicitly that no one can prove the exploitation of children by us in war.

The reason is that it has no advantage; rather it harms the Mujahidin on the following basis: 1. Legally the decision of a child is not trustworthy to attack the enemy and sacrifice his life. 2. A child cannot manage to reach the target and harm the enemy. 3. A child can easily fall to the enemy’s hands and can divulge the secrets, hideouts and plans of Mujahidin. 4. A child cannot carry a vehicle or a waistcoat full of mines may be weighing more than 10 kg, to the targeted area. 5. A child cannot move tactically because of his childhood to cross the enemy’s security check posts and reach the target. 6. The deployment of children in Jihadi ranks has its own moral disadvantages which are legally forbidden. The rules and procedures of the Islamic Emirate say: (Article no.19: In all activities related to Jihad and especially in martyrdom attacks, the deployment of beardless and youngsters is strictly prohibited. Everyone should try to prevent it.) Besides all the above arguments: • What is the meaning of an unjustifiable statement by a high ranking figure like Ján Kubiš? • Whether this claim does not signify that all of your information is based upon the allegations of our enemy? • Whether we should remain doubtful that you do not want to disclose the realities? • Whether we should rely upon your information and reports anymore? • Whether we can still consider you as an impartial organization?

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.