They can't deny it anymore

[G_j]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4m6tQudSpI&feature=player_embedded#!


For weeks, U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan have denied they killed several dozen civilians in Sangin District of Helmand Province on July 23. But our new video exposes the truth about one of the worst civilian casualty incidents of the war. Watch our exclusive interviews with survivors and demand that your elected officials act to prevent future catastrophes like this.

First, NATO denied knowing anything about the incident.

Then, they said only six people were killed and that most of them were insurgents.

They can't deny it anymore.

Working with a brave team in Afghanistan headed by Anita, Brave New Foundation's Rethink Afghanistan project sent an intrepid local blogger into Sangin District of Helmand Province--one of the most dangerous areas of the country. He brought back extraordinary first-person accounts from survivors of the Sangin catastrophe. Thanks to his work, there's no doubt anymore: as many as 52 people were killed by a rocket fired by NATO forces.

Survivors tell of a scene of absolute carnage and despair, and when the smoke cleared, according to one local, "They did nothing and afterwards they said nothing, just like nothing ever happened."

But something did happen, and we have to act.

Watch our new video and send it to your elected officials. Tell them you'll remember how they reacted to Sangin when you enter the voting booth this November.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4m6tQudSpI&feature=player_embedded#!


Sincerely,

Derrick Crowe, Robert Greenwald and
the Brave New Foundation team

[Subdivisions]

1. Deleted Message. Name Removed. (I figured I'd save the mods the trouble). n/t

[G_j]

2. thanks nonetheless

it's an important story

[grantcart]

3. I don't know what happened at Sangin but this video proves nothing

and is highly suspicious for the following reasons.


1) In the past confirmed civilian casualties have always been accompanied by photographs of the victims. Like this one

?w=540&h=360

2) There is never 100% fatalities there are always wounded that are taken for treatment. Where are the wounded of this attack?

3) There have been many occassions where Taliban have made false claims on videos. In this case those being interviewed are rather matter of fact and without emotion talking about losing their loved ones.


Of all of the claims of civilian casualties, many of which have proven to be true, this is the thinest. The Afghan government has pulled back from its original position and is joining an investigation. If there was an incident of 52 civilian fatalities, the single largest of the Afghan war you would expect much more substantive photographic record of the casualties than this interview tape.

[bvar22]

4. Buit its the GOOD war.

We have to smoke them out or the dominoes will fall on California.
I'll bet if we put the Democrats in charge, they'll stop this.

[G_j]

9. LOL

[Poboy]

5. ttt

[robdogbucky]

6. NATO vs. the Kabul Government

"...When asked to explain the discrepancy between his tally and that of the Afghan government, the unnamed official cited "political challenges," as if "political challenges" account for a 33-person difference in the death tallies. This explanation reminds one of the Gardez massacre earlier this year, when ISAF tried to pass off its blatant lie about an American special forces team finding women "bound, gagged and executed" as a "cultural misunderstanding," when in fact they'd killed the women themselves and tried to dig the bullets out while one of them was still alive, screaming in pain. In effect, this unnamed source accused Afghan locals and officials of lying about civilian deaths because of hard feelings between them and the coalition.

What is going on here? One explanation might be that ISAF engaged in the same type of damage control campaign utilized in other horrifying incidents like the Farah airstrike and the Gardez massacre. In both cases, ISAF initially denied wrongdoing, aggressively attacked the credibility of alternative accounts that disputed the official story, and claimed that the evidence was either neutral or exculpatory. Only when new information made it impossible to deny responsibility did ISAF admit its guilt in both cases. Perhaps we're seeing a repeat of that behavior here.

Regardless of the source and possible motivation for all this contradicting information and blatant disinformation, what is clear, based on interviews obtained by our team on the ground in Sangin, is that ISAF troops killed dozens of civilians on July 23...

...This is what our elected officials need to understand: when we debate the war in Afghanistan, it's not an academic exercise. It's a string of specific incidents like Sangin, concrete moral outrages that pay us back with increased strategic risk..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-crowe/us-and-allied-forced-kill_b_672987.html


full interview transcripts available online at http://rethinkafghanistan.com






Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[G_j]

7. some key quotes there

"Regardless of the source and possible motivation for all this contradicting information and blatant disinformation, what is clear, based on interviews obtained by our team on the ground in Sangin, is that ISAF troops killed dozens of civilians on July 23...

...This is what our elected officials need to understand: when we debate the war in Afghanistan, it's not an academic exercise. It's a string of specific incidents like Sangin, concrete moral outrages that pay us back with increased strategic risk..."

[BeFree]

8. Question is:

How many more innocents must die before the decision is made to leave them alone?