More into for the killing
We got a little more info. on the killing last night. It was clearly a targetted killing execution style (see press report). The whole thing happened at a location five minutes from our home despite the presence of half-dozen guards with AK47 nearby. It is unclear whether he was killed because of this work affiliation with the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Development or if he was involved in some personal business he shouldn't have been. According to the bbc "He was working on a rural credit scheme, one of its aims being to reduce the dependence of farmers on growing opium." Would that be a motive for opium traders to kill him? Who knows?
Meanwhile, DACAAR follows the recommendation from the Afghanistan Non-Governmental Organisation Security Office (ANSO) and we just got a memo that reads "All expatriate staff must restrict unnecessary movement in Kabul city after 20.00 hours." Bummer. What happened to DACAAR's approach of advising us, rather than telling us what to do? I find that the meaning of the terms "restrict" and "unnecessary" is quite ambiguous. According to the Miriam-Webster, to restrict is to "to confine within bounds". Which bounds are these? As for uncessary, what if going out is necessary for our mental health. I shouldn't talk lightly about these issues, I know, but we are concerned as to how long this state of affair is going to last.
Update March 10, 2005:
There are many more rumors and speculations circulating in Kabul about the Scott.'s assasination. I am not going to turn this into a gossip column, but suffice to say that some of these stories make it very credible that it was an act of personal revenge, not a terrorist attack. Having said that, the Taliban did claim responsability for the attack but security analysts are doubful that they would still have the means to carry such an attack. Besides they often claim responsability for acts they did not commit.
This is my diary. My name is Lev and I work in Kabul for a non-governmental organization (dacaar.org).