|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
U.S. gunship videotaped its Afghan wedding attack national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday July 10, 2002 06:44 by cnn
 CNN buried this article in CNN Asia The AC-130 gunship involved in last week's attack that ''mistakenly'' killed civilians in southern Afghanistan recorded some images of the airstrike, but U.S. officials will not say what the video shows. CNN buried the story under CNN Asia to avoid giving it US prominence. U.S. gunship videotaped Afghan strike WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The AC-130 gunship involved in last week's attack that mistakenly killed civilians in southern Afghanistan recorded some images of the airstrike, but U.S. officials will not say what the video shows, CNN has confirmed. The air attack, which the United States and Afghanistan are investigating, killed at least 48 civilians and injured another 117 in Oruzgan province, where villagers said a wedding party was in progress, Afghan officials said. The videotape is highly classified and is so sensitive it likely won't be released without direct approval by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command. One critical unanswered question for the Pentagon is whether the imagery shows anti-aircraft artillery fire. Questions have arisen about whether the gunship crew might have mistaken celebratory wedding fire by rifles for artillery fire. Defense Department sources said ground controllers insisted they saw artillery guns firing before the gunship was called in. Central Command has initiated a formal probe, and investigators will be looking, in part, for shell casings that might have come from an artillery gun. Sources said the tape is unlikely to be released, partly because of concerns that it would set a precedent with the news media. Video taken from a gunship of controversial incidents is rarely made public. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (6 of 6)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6The old Jewish blood libel rears its ugly head. So did you get this from your Der Stuermer CD ROM or did you make it up all by yourself? Excuse me while I have my lunch of minced gentile and baby blood.
The image is a commentary on the genocide in Afghanistan, caused by the Mossad attacks on 9/11 with the complicity of the Bush regime.
Anyway, what was once a "blood libel" (back in the Middle Ages) is no longer so. The blood of wounded Palestinian children is used by the European colonial occupiers in transfusions to zionists.
And the zionazis have become infamous for their targeting of young children. Only a few days ago, the BBC brought out a videotape that shows a zionazi tank hunting down and killing fleeing children.
So spare us the sarcasm, twit.
pity that the accompanying image insinuates that Christians and Israelis are solely responsible for the Afghan atrocities. Probably a large number of the people conducting the assault on and occupation of Afghanistan are not in the least Christian.
I have read about many connections between the Bushes and Bin Ladens, The Carlyle Group, oil, Unocal, etc. But, I haven't actually seen anything specific about the Mossad connection and the terrorist attacks of September 11. It has been widely under-reported in the USA that isrealis were rounded up, questioned, and subsequently deported supposedly for visa violations. Many believe these isrealis were actually spies. What is the Mossad connection to the actual terrorist acts? Thank you.
and they're definitely not Israeli! If you think this is to do with religion and not to do with Capitalism then you're barking up the wrong tree. The US would be quite happy to bomb merry hell out of Israel if it was in their economic interests or they wanted to prove a point.
I think that the use of a picture including the Star of David is questionable, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is to be condemned but I think that the photo has (perhaps unintended) anti semitic connotations.