As Reuters reports: "NATO and Afghan forces came under heavy fire while searching a compound in the eastern Afghanistan province of Logar, setting off a gun battle that killed two United States soldiers and five insurgents, NATO and General Mustafa Mosseini, the province's chief of police said Friday. A search of the compound later turned up automatic rifles, material for making roadside bombs and blasting caps. Among the dead was a Taliban commander with ties to the Haqqani group, a Pakistan-based Afghan Taliban faction with close ties to Al Qaeda, according to NATO." One day later Reuters reported: "The French news agency reports hundreds of tribesmen took to the streets shouting anti-U.S. slogans. The news service said the demonstrators insisted that the men killed and detained were civilians. Afghan officials said that residents of Logar then set fire to several military vehicles, protesting the military action (They were all NATO military vehicles)."
Now, why in the world would these Afghans protest the killing of armed and well-known Taliban by NATO? I might understand if they were protesting the killing of civilians, especially if they were being killed recklessly. Is this common, or has it been common all these years for Afghans to protest the killing of extremists like the Taliban? No. These Afghans were not protesting the killing of armed active Taliban like the ones that US and NATO forces routed in Logar. Or, at the very least, their protests were not the ones that ended up with actions like attacking and burning NATO military vehicles. Because a day later, while I was about to post a new article on my website, yet another report was issued:
"KABUL, Afghanistan. Twelve trucks, most of them carrying fuel to a NATO base in eastern Afghanistan, were burned by an angry crowd early Sunday less than 30 miles from Kabul, according to local officials and NATO reports. The attack was thought to be in retribution for two raids by a joint Afghan-American force over the weekend, Afghan officials said."