Wikileaks set to release something big on the 4th
- Thread starter HughJass
- Start date
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
My Lai 2.0?
Axl_Rose
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 7
Here's the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU ... r_embedded
Edit - Here's the link instead, didn't think it was right to post the actual video here...kinda made me sick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU ... r_embedded
Edit - Here's the link instead, didn't think it was right to post the actual video here...kinda made me sick.
s.a.f
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Cassin said:
Its not that graphic - black and white copter footage.
But unless they put it on the 9 o'clock news its not going to make much of an impact on the general public. I've seen many other vids like this and 99% of people dont get to see them, unless of course they go looking for this type of stuff on the internet.
But I dont even see any mention of it in the papers over here and there have been 100's of civilian casualty stories, no one realy gives a sh*t anymore if they ever did 6/7 yrs ago.
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
another videos that gives the public a graphic illustration of how a war is lost and how an insurgency is fueled with a steady stream of recruits.
people can't see videos like that and think victory could be possible in Afghanistan now, if that illusion hadn't already been shattered
people can't see videos like that and think victory could be possible in Afghanistan now, if that illusion hadn't already been shattered
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Bryan said:aussieavodart said:
The shitstorm obviously failed to make an appearance!
Don't know what the media was like in US, but the video got a run on the major news networks here. Not much of a discussion about it though.
The real story is the cover up, I doubt any of those questions are going to be asked in the mainstream media though.
s.a.f
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 67
Dont you remember all the footage of dead civilians being pulled out of the rubble of their homes after shock and awe? Or shortly after the invasion the people sat in traffic on their way to work when a firefight starts up and the marines just let rip on the entire highway with 50 cals and GPMG's. Or the treatment of prisoners at Abu grabe ect ect ...
Over here we had a major protest march against the war it achieved nothing, now 7yrs into the war on terror people dont even care when its our own troops being killed its just more statistics.
So I would'nt expect much to come from this video.
Over here we had a major protest march against the war it achieved nothing, now 7yrs into the war on terror people dont even care when its our own troops being killed its just more statistics.
So I would'nt expect much to come from this video.
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
In Afghanistan, the military has finally admitted that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women and a girl in a February raid in which Afghan government officials were also killed, according to excellent reporting by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London. They have, however, failed so far to account for their falsehoods spanning several months.
Previously the military had insisted that they killed "terrorists," and claimed that the women were killed by knife wounds administered several hours before the raid. But now it appears that the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special Forces troops excavating their bullets from the dead or dying women's bodies. As The Times' Starkey reported Monday:
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, Afghan investigators have told The Times.
Military spokespersons went further in attempting to cover up the killing by attacking Starkey, the reporter who challenged the official story. As Starkey explained:
[T]hey [US military] have... tried hard to discredit me, personally, for bringing this to the world’s attention. In an unprecedented response to my original story about the Gardez night raid they named me individually, twice, in their denial of the cover up.
They claimed to have a recording of my conversation which contradicted my shorthand record. When I asked to hear it, they ignored me. When I pressed them, they said there had been a misunderstanding. When they said recording, they meant someone had taken notes. The tapes, they said, do not exist.
In this case, as in so many, one can only assume that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up US involvement in the killing. Otherwise, officials would long ago have admitted their error and, one hopes, taken action against those responsible for the combat errors and the lies that followed. One wonders, for example, who told military officials about the knife wounds? If those wounds were, in fact inflicted by Special Forces troops trying to cover their mistake, then someone is responsible for relaying this false information. Or was the information known all along to be false by those relaying this claim to the press? Were the officials just hoping that the press would tire of exploring the incident, allowing their falsehoods to stand?
....These types of incidents, and the dehumanizing attitudes behind them, are facilitated by the “force protection†concept underlying the occupation. Military and political leadership know that domestic support for the occupation cannot be sustained if US casualties grow too rapidly. Thus, an emphasis is put on protecting US troops in ambiguous situations, increasing the risk to civilians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04062010.html
Previously the military had insisted that they killed "terrorists," and claimed that the women were killed by knife wounds administered several hours before the raid. But now it appears that the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special Forces troops excavating their bullets from the dead or dying women's bodies. As The Times' Starkey reported Monday:
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, Afghan investigators have told The Times.
Military spokespersons went further in attempting to cover up the killing by attacking Starkey, the reporter who challenged the official story. As Starkey explained:
[T]hey [US military] have... tried hard to discredit me, personally, for bringing this to the world’s attention. In an unprecedented response to my original story about the Gardez night raid they named me individually, twice, in their denial of the cover up.
They claimed to have a recording of my conversation which contradicted my shorthand record. When I asked to hear it, they ignored me. When I pressed them, they said there had been a misunderstanding. When they said recording, they meant someone had taken notes. The tapes, they said, do not exist.
In this case, as in so many, one can only assume that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up US involvement in the killing. Otherwise, officials would long ago have admitted their error and, one hopes, taken action against those responsible for the combat errors and the lies that followed. One wonders, for example, who told military officials about the knife wounds? If those wounds were, in fact inflicted by Special Forces troops trying to cover their mistake, then someone is responsible for relaying this false information. Or was the information known all along to be false by those relaying this claim to the press? Were the officials just hoping that the press would tire of exploring the incident, allowing their falsehoods to stand?
....These types of incidents, and the dehumanizing attitudes behind them, are facilitated by the “force protection†concept underlying the occupation. Military and political leadership know that domestic support for the occupation cannot be sustained if US casualties grow too rapidly. Thus, an emphasis is put on protecting US troops in ambiguous situations, increasing the risk to civilians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04062010.html