Who Said It?

poncho · Apr 5, 2010

to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. . . . We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.
Click to expand...

Give up?

Click Here.

How many people is there in an amazing number?

Is this a problem? Depends on how it's reported in the U.S. and in this case it hasn't been reported much at all.

Here's more.

On February 12 of this year, U.S. forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded. The Pentagon then issued a statement claiming that (a) the dead were all "insurgents" or terrorists, (b) the bodies of three women had been found bound and gagged inside the home (including two pregnant women, one a mother of 10 children and the other a mother of six children, and a teenage girl), and (c) suggested that the women had already been killed by the time the U.S. had arrived, likely the victim of "honor killings" by the Taliban militants killed in the attack.

Although numerous witnesses on the scene as well as local investigators vehemently disputed the Pentagon's version, and insisted that all of the dead (including the women) were civilians and were killed by U.S. forces, the American media largely adopted the Pentagon's version, often without any questions. But enough evidence has now emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced yesterday to admit that their original version was totally false and that it was U.S. troops who killed the women:

After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

One NATO official said that there was likely an effort to cover-up what happened by U.S. troops via evidence tampering on the scene (though other NATO officials deny this claim). The Times of London actually reported yesterday that, at least according to Afghan investigators, "US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims' bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened."

What is clear -- yet again -- is how completely misinformed and propagandized Americans continue to be by the American media, which constantly "reports" on crucial events in Afghanistan by doing nothing more than mindlessly and unquestioningly passing along U.S. government claims as though they are fact. Here, for instance, is how the Paktia incident was "reported" by CNN on February 12:

SOURCE

Is this a problem?

Again, it depends on how it's reported and who gives the report.

Here's the question.

Why should we, after all the times the Pentagon has been caught lying trust it to give us accurate information, and why should we trust the networks who print the Pentagon's report's so faithfully?

Remember, we were sold a load of lies and misinformation by the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" on an almost daily basis not so long ago. So, why should we believe anything they say?

It's a wonder to me how many lies we readily almost eagerly digested to get in the mood for our endless wars. And here we are today some 9 years later still readily and eagerly in some cases digesting all the lies and disinformation about our endless wars the Pentagon and mass dream media can pump out.

Why is that? Do we love endless warfare and spending our children's future to pay for them and creating hatred towards us that much?

Dragoon68 · Apr 7, 2010

The General responded to a specific question from his own troops about incidents of escalation of force at checkpoints and noted that, in hind sight, the perceived threat was not what it was thought to be and, as a result, persons were injured or killed. The interest in this was to reduce non-combatant casualties. No warrior wants that burned in his memory for a lifetime! The problem, which isn't quoted in the news report, is that persons approaching a checkpoint sometimes act in a manner that causes those manning the checkpoint to respond with force because of the perceived threat. This might include failing to slow down, stop, or obey instructions or acting in an erratic, nervous, or suspicious manner. In a war zone it's not a good idea to make people nervous. It's certainly a tragedy when someone gets hurt or killed that wasn't a real threat but, unfortunately, they often bear the responsibility by their own conduct. I know first hand how this is - one finger on the trigger trying to make a shoot or no shoot decision knowing seconds count, not wanting to become the victim yourself, and not wanting to let your fellow warriors down. Either way you know the decision is irreversible. I know first hand how things can go bad in just a few seconds. Despite this I think the military is trying very hard not to have these type incidents while still not falling victim to a real attack masked otherwise. I think the General should be commended for its frank and honest dialog on this issue rather than have his words misused to paint a completely different picture. That's how I read this story!

Who Said It?

poncho Well-Known Member

Dragoon68 Active Member

Useful Searches

Who Said It?

poncho Well-Known Member

Dragoon68 Active Member