User Answers


April 26, 2012 By Joseph P. Farrell

By now we've all heard the horrible story of the cold-blooded murder of 16 Afghanis by an American soldier, and by now we've also all heard of the disarming of American soldiers during Secretary of Defense Leo Panetta's recent visit to that suffering country. But there are now reports coming out of there that the Afghanis are not buying the story that this was all the act of one "lone nut" soldier on a shooting spree:

Is the U.S. covering for additional troops involved in Afghan massacre?

The Afghanis are correct, how indeed does one person do this within a short span of time in two different villages? Why the rush to get that alleged murderer back to the USA so quickly? Why, for that matter, were soldiers disarmed during Panetta's visit.

It could, I suppose, be reasonably argued that this was a normal security procedure. But I suspect strongly that it is something else, namely, a reflection on the part of the grunts on the ground of a growing morale problem, and even a growing moral problem brought about by yet another war-without-end or any clear condition of "victory" in site, and if this horrible massacre is any indicator, a growing disenchantment with the "reasons" advanced for our being there: the "war on terrorism." The stories we have been fed since 9/11 are collapsing, and this time not even the Afghani president, in some respects a US puppet, is buying:

“'On the question of the account of the one person, supposedly, who has done this, the story of the village elders [in the region of the killings] and the affected people is entirely different. They believe it is not possible for one person to do that,' Karzai said."

Rest assured, we will hear next to nothing of the Afghanis' version of this tragic event on our compliant media. But the questions that the Afghani Parliamentary inquiry raises deserve to be address, nay, if there is to be any justice in the matter, they must be addressed.