Today the New York Times and the Washington Post both report on the recent 'righteous' drone strike in Kabul:
Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb
U.S. officials said a Reaper drone followed a car for hours and then fired based on evidence it was carrying explosives. But in-depth video analysis and interviews at the site cast doubt on that account.
Examining a ‘righteous’ strike
Expert analysis of deadly U.S. drone strike’s aftermath in Kabul suggests no evidence of explosives in targeted vehicle
Ten innocent persons, including 7 children, were killed in that strike.
I applaud those reports. But there have been some 15,000 other drone strike since 2007. Most of those have hit innocent people but there was little reporting about them.
Three days before the drone strike happened a much bigger massacre took place.
A suicide bomber hit at the gate of Kabul airport. The bomb killed several dozen people including U.S. soldiers. But what happened immediately after the bomb went off made the incident much deadlier. Those who guarded the airport opened fire on the large crowd that had hoped to be let in to catch a flight to somewhere. In total more than 170 people died, some of them were British citizens, others were Taliban guards, most were Afghan civilians.
Local Afghan news, a BBC report on Twitter, Russian public TV (at about 3 min, German translation), China's major news agency and other reporters all spoke to eye witnesses who all confirmed the story: "Most of those dead were killed by bullets."
But 'western' media have buried that story. The sole mention of it I could find is deep down in a long NYT report about the evacuations from Kabul:
For the first time, Pentagon officials publicly acknowledged the possibility that some people killed outside the airport on Thursday might have been shot by American service members after the suicide bombing.
Investigators are looking into whether the gunfire came from Americans at the gate, or from the Islamic State.
'Officials publicly acknowledged the possibility ...' Do they call THAT 'reporting'?
There were quite obviously no ISIS shooters at the gate.
Why ain't U.S. media all over a story during which the U.S. side killed more than 100 innocent people? Is it hyping the drone attack, which killed 10, to cover for the more embarrassing act during which troops under U.S. control massacred many more than that? Because those troops were the CIA's Afghan death squads who may soon be your neighbors?
Before 9/11 U.S. intelligence knew of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and of plans for new attacks. Then came 9/11. I am by now one of those who thinks that they let it happen on purpose. That is because all the wars that followed had long been prepared for.
Following 9/11 the U.S. wars of terror displaced 37 million people and killed at least a million foreigners. The U.S. wars of terror are still going on today in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
Shouldn't 20 years be long enough to end those wars? To find some closure? To suppress the urge for revenge? To change the rather aggressive general U.S. mentality?
Unfortunately the answer to all those questions seems to be "No".
Posted by b on September 11, 2021 at 17:52 UTC