Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Afghans say deadly U.S. raid based on misleading tip

World Aug. 29, 2008 - 06:09AM JST ( 9 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

9 Comments

0

smithinjapanAug. 29, 2008 - 12:57PM JST

They want to reach a 'common conclusion', do they? I can just see it.

American Representative: We need to reach a common conclusion as to this, ahem, unfortunate accident.

Afghanistan Gov't: Agreed. So far we have a tally of 34 children, and dozens of other civilians killed.

American Rep: hehehe... I think you misunderstood me. We need (passes a heavily padded envelope)... to reach a MUTUAL 'understanding' about how few people died here.

Afghan Gov't: I see....

American Rep: And while we're at it... find someone convenient to blame. Our intelligence has taken enough hits of late.
0

Alinsky4prezAug. 29, 2008 - 01:00PM JST

Great post, mr smith.

Nothing spells TRUTH like those voices in our heads do
0

bushloverAug. 29, 2008 - 04:14PM JST

Good Conspiracy Smitty. I would never have known the way it really was if it weren't for you. You should get a good job with that kind of intuition. So what are you waiting for... Get out of Japan and get to Afghanistan!!
0

skipthesongAug. 29, 2008 - 05:38PM JST

It doesn't really matter what happened and the truth, whatever it may be is irrelevant, JT posters have made their mind up.

A misleading report? Well, who do you blame, if that is the case, the shooters or the people who gave misleading intel?

Smitty: seems you made up your mind. But, do you really think it was hit on purpose?
0

SezWho2Aug. 29, 2008 - 06:10PM JST

skipthesong,

I think it was hit on purpose. I don't think innocent people were killed on purpose.

I also think that instead of bickering over how many were killed, the focus should be on how to prevent this from happening in the future--or if there is even a way to prevent this. However, if there is any way of ex post facto minimizing the public damage, I don't think that we are so committed to the truth that we wouldn't strongly consider pursuing that way.
0

sailwindAug. 29, 2008 - 10:43PM JST

Pretty clear where this one at.

Claims of civilian deaths can be tricky, however. Relatives of Afghan victims are given condolence payments by Karzai’s government and the U.S. military, providing an incentive to make false claims.

Don't really have to any further than that.
0

rajakumarAug. 30, 2008 - 03:44AM JST

Afghan politics = Misleading politics.
0

SezWho2Aug. 30, 2008 - 07:24AM JST

sailwind,

I think you have identified grounds for doubt, not proof of falsehood. In other words, you do have to go further than that.