A British soldier machine-gunned Afghan civilians killing a little girl.

The Afghani troops they were 'training' complained at the slaughter of their compatriots.

The British treated the girls wounded mother and offered financial compensation.

An impromptu civilian demonstration against the murder is immediately held outside the base.

The same soldiers who murdered the girl then open fire on the crowd before evacuating.

The author indicated the soldiers felt betrayed by the disloyal Afghan soldiers and blamed the impromtu demonstration on Taliban propaganda.

Sight of dead girl at the gates sparked a bloody mutiny
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6814206.ece

Here is an unrelated extract from the same book:
"His mates watch, and giggle, when tracer bullets from Spongebob's machine gun rip through a Taleban fighter. A wounded colonel high on morphine mistakes a helicopter for a train. Young men and teenagers fight the toughest battles for fifty years. Then play like puppies in the sand of their isolated bases, cooling off in paddling pools. Almost no one out there understands why Britain is at war in Helmand. They would not have missed it."

Almost no one back here understands why Britain is at war in Helmand, so we have that in common with our troops. What they understand that we don't is why it is okay for them to shoot a little girl in her head and simply shrug and offer the father blood money without any thought of investigation or disciplinary action.

Where exactly is it legal for British soldiers to commit infanticide? How much money was paid to the berieved father and which court decided that amount? How much money would Captain Josh Jones feel is acceptable from someone as compensation for murdering one of his younger relatives? When did Britain stop having a professional army governed by the rule of law and when did it replace it's soldiers with child-murderers and psychologically-damaged, intellectually challenged officers? Are the squaddies also allowed to murder children in the UK when they return - and if not, have they been told that?

The soldiers have been betrayed, not by the Afghan Army but by the British establishment including the Times. They have also been betrayed by the British activists who could have stopped this war before it started, or at least ended this bloody occupation by now. That murder is so commonplace in the British military that the only report of this murder carries no indignation, no calls for justice, shows that we a poisoned and sick society. I've been relatively pro-army among peace activists. I fully support the politicisation of the army, I donate small amounts when I can to charities that take care of the damaged human beings who return from Afghanistan and I've tried to build bridges between peace protestors and military families but I've never met a soldier who admitted to thinking they were above the law of common decency. That misconception is the watermark of this Times article. The reason British troops went to Afghanistan was supposedly to evict Bin Laden after 3000 innocents were killed in New York. So with him gone, why are they still there and why have tens of thousands of innocents been killed while they are an occupying power with the legal duty to provide security? To give them the gift of democracy when only 150 people in Helmand voted? 150 UK soldiers injured or killed in this election campaign to allow 150 people to vote shows that to be a lie. We withdrew from Iraq because we recognised our presence was causing the violence there not ending it. Why doesn't that lesson apply to Afghanistan?

I can tell you why most activists don't prioritise this war the way the invasion Vietnam was ended by public protest. It doesn't affect them personally yet as there is no conscription. Their taxes pay for it but they don't live in poor areas where the fucked-up squaddies return to nor do they have Afghani friends. Plus it is controversial as unlike say Climate Change, the government and the mainstream media don't agree that the war should be ended since they are complicit in it.