Why would I when the Globe cut this from its website while I read it in my paper?
"and even suggested that the civilians who died were Taliban sympathizers....
Oh, so THEY DESERVED to DIE in a FIREBALL, huh, WaPo?
The Globe axed this completely:
According to one privately circulated report by international observers here, some Kunduz officials said the villagers were all "relatives" of the insurgents and were "equally guilty" because they were looting fuel from the tankers when they died. The report said no families of the victims had lodged formal complaints, suggesting possible complicity.
Other accounts painted a murkier, more complex picture of both the incident and the political environment in which it took place. Nadery, whose group sent investigators to the scene, said a group of about 20 Taliban fighters had roused the villagers late at night, using a combination of "threats and persuasion" to enlist their help in moving the trucks, while allowing them to siphon off the fuel. The bombs fell at 2:30 a.m. as villagers swarmed around the tankers....
--source--"
"Apology softens Afghan reaction after US bomb attack; Civilians killed along with insurgents" by Pamela Constable, Washington Post | September 8, 2009
KABUL - When US warplanes bombed two stolen fuel trucks in northern Afghanistan early Friday, causing an explosion that incinerated civilians as well as insurgent fighters, the incident could easily have turned into a propaganda opportunity for the Taliban.
This is difficult to just read every day.
So sick of Muslim-hating, war-promoting, Zionist propaganda posing as news. It is why I NO LONGER BELIEVE a WORD!
Even their TERMINOLOGY is OFFENSIVE to a THINKING PERSON!
Instead, popular and official reaction to the lethal air strike has been far more tolerant than after similar past incidents. There have been no angry demonstrations against Western occupiers, and no blistering condemnation by President Hamid Karzai or local authorities. So far, not even the families of the dead have come forward to protest.
Well, THEY DESERVED to DIE for the 9/11 lie, right?
Taliban sympathizers that are all equally guilty!
Btw, who are these people, anyway?
Something of a catchall term for loosely affiliated insurgents without a singular command structure. Often, the Afghan government favors the phrase 'enemies of the state' (New York Times July 24, 2007)."
"The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular, but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation," says Pakistani historian and political commentator Tariq Ali. "As the British and the Soviets discovered to their cost in the preceding two centuries, Afghans never like being occupied."
Also see: Afghanistan's Other Government
And today, readers?
"More and more, people here look back to the era of harsh Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001, describing it as a time of security and peace."
Oh, oh, oh!!!! I'm so offended by the AmeriKan MSM and its bullshit!
Also see: How I Came to Love the Veil
Now I know that is Afghanistan, but we are talking about an artificial border drawn by the British who NEVER ASKED the PASHTUNS what THEY THOUGHT!!!!!!!
Besides,
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
The TALIBAN was established under U.S. AUSPICES, huh?
We can "LIVE WITH THAT?"
Well, I SURE CAN as long as the KILLING STOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This time, according to human rights activists and foreign diplomats, rising Afghan anger toward the Taliban in the once-tranquil north, a swift public apology by US military officials, and national preoccupation with a troubled presidential election have combined to deflect popular outrage over the bombing....
A senior UN official here: “This is very heartening.’’
************
In previous air strikes that killed civilians, US military officials here have tended to stonewall for days, issuing vague statements and disputing accounts by witnesses and survivors, while public hostility mounted.
Related: Slow Saturday Special: Americans Caught in Afghan Fireball
Taliban spokesmen have portrayed the events as atrocities committed by infidel foreign invaders.
They're not the only ones who see it that way.
The Kunduz bombing was ordered by German soldiers, who patrol that area. After the bombing, a Taliban website went into action, lambasting it as “a deliberate act of mass killing’’ by “the cruel crusaders’’ of the Obama administration. But this time, the tactic seemed to fall flat.
Must be an "Al-CIA-Duh"-sponsored web site -- you know, like the newspaper on my desk here.
In part this was because officials in Kunduz, instead of expressing outrage against the foreign forces, blamed the insurgents for provoking the bombing....
So we are being told here in America.
If that were true, why are we tripping all over ourselves apologizing?
However, the US public relations effort was undercut yesterday when....
Pffft!
PR EFFORT as NEWS REPORT!
"Afghan militants kill 4 US troops; NATO concedes civilians died in earlier airstrike" by Kay Johnson and Douglas Birch, Associated Press | September 9, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan - .... NATO forces acknowledged for the first time that civilians were among the dozens killed in an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks....
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said yesterday that her government won’t accept “premature judgments’’ about the airstrike in Kunduz. Germany’s military has been criticized for calling in the strike and for initially insisting it appeared only militants were killed....
At this point, I discover the Globe's website butchered the piece (no link because I had to use Safari today).
Merkel acknowledged the possibility that civilians were harmed, but she told parliament the identities of those hit were still unclear.
Yeah, but the Afghans aren't mad!
Lt. Gen. Mirza Mohammad Yarmand, who Karzai named to investigate, said it was difficult to determine whether those killed were civilians or militants. He said the Taliban commander who led the hijacking, Abdur Rahman, apparently phoned supporters with tractors from surrounding villages to try to move the fuel tankers after they got stuck in a muddy riverbank. Other villagers reportedly came to collect free fuel....
And they are ALL INNOCENT because 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!!!
--more--"
