November 26, 2005
The "Taliban Bodies" Report. . . Gumbad Revisited
U.S. Central Command has released their Executive Summary-Investigation into the Gumbad Incident (previously I had used the name reported by the press, Gonbaz) where the corpses of two Taliban fighters were burned by soldiers from the 508th Infantry (Airborne) and that information was subsequently broadcast by Psychological Operations troops in order to "smoke out" more suspected Taliban hiding in the area.
I previously blogged about this incident as the story broke. All previous posts are in their own category here, or if you prefer to read them in order, use these links.
Oh Brother. . .
Ok, time to elaborate. . .
So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
Martinkus, Dupont and The Truth. . .
TIME begins to correct the record. . .
On to the report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Investigation into the Gumbad IncidentBACKGROUND
On Sept. 30, Soldiers from Company B, 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry (Airborne), Regional
Command South, Combined Joint Task Force-76 (CJTF-76) engaged the enemy near
Gumbad, in the Shah Wali Kot district in northern Kandahar Province. The Gumbad area
has been a location of known enemy activity. The engagement left one U.S. Soldier,
one Afghan National Army soldier, two Taliban fighters dead, and several wounded in
action. Twenty-four hours after the combat action, local nationals from Gumbad village
had yet to retrieve the enemy combatant remains.The following environmental and operational conditions existed:
· The temperature in that area exceeded 90 degrees with no shade nearby.
· The rocky terrain was such that it prevented the Soldiers from burying the
remains.
· The hilltop where the enemy combatant remains were located afforded the best
tactical advantage for follow on combat operations.
· The unit believed that it would remain at this position for another 48 hours.
· Enemy forces were still suspected to be in the area, but were at that time not
located.On Oct. 1, at approximately 1400 hours, an officer from the unit decided to burn the
bodies for hygiene reasons and to protect his Soldiers. At the time of this decision, his
battalion commander was meeting with village leaders in Gumbad village to brief them
on the combat actions of the previous day and to coordinate with them the retrieval of
the remains of the enemy combatants. (The battalion commander was unaware of the
fact that the officer had directed the burning of the enemy remains). At approximately
1600 hours, the battalion commander contacted the officer to let him know that the
villagers were moving to the position to retrieve the enemy remains. It was at this time
when the battalion commander was advised of his subordinate’s directive to burn the
remains -- he immediately ordered that the remains be extinguished. The unit
complied. When the villagers reached the position, they found the remains were not
able to be moved. They returned to Gumbad and let the battalion commander know that
they would dispose of the remains the next day.Several hours after the burning of the enemy remains had started, a psychological
operations loudspeaker team, after hearing about the burning of remains on the tactical
radio, decided to use that information in two subsequent messages directed towards
both the village and towards an adjacent mountainous area where the enemy was
suspected to be hiding.
So there you have it. The actual facts of the incident which vary considerably from the initial reporting and the subsequent play the issue received in the Main Stream Media. Rather than a deliberate offense to Islam, the bodies were burned for hygienic reasons, and the PsyOps operative utilized battlefield information to affect a "Words not Bombs" approach to dealing with hiding Taliban fighters still in the area.
The report goes on to address the legality of the burning of the bodies, refuting claims that the Airborne troop's actions were a violation of the Geneva Convention. The report also admits that the soldiers involved do not normally receive training in the procedures for cremation of battlefield remains and notes that the officers involved exercised poor judgment in their decision-making and reporting process.
1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. Coalition forces did not violate the Law of War.
2) The Law of War requires the internment of enemy remains by burial or cremation. In particular, Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention allows for the cremation of enemy remains for hygiene reasons and religious purposes.
3) CJTF-76 Soldiers are given basic training on the Law of War which only covers that enemy combatants may be buried or cremated, but does not go into the procedures that are to be followed. Procedures for cremation are much more extensive than what the Soldiers on the ground understood.
4) While not a violation of the Law of War, the burning of remains is not an acceptable practice according to Islamic religious beliefs and customs. CJTF-76 acknowledges that Islamic custom calls for the burial of the dead within 24 to 72 hours of death and that any burial should be conducted by Muslims.
5) The Soldiers at Gumbad did not have a thorough knowledge of the local Afghan traditions with respect to burial. This incident was the first time that this unit had killed enemy combatants at close range and had to determine what to do with the remains.
6) Finally, CJTF-76 investigation shows that there was no intent to desecrate, only to hygienically dispose of the enemy remains. The weather was hot, the remains were heavily damaged by gunfire, laying exposed for over 24 hours and beginning to rapidly decompose. The unit planned to remain on that hill for 48 to 72 more hours and thus made the decision to dispose of the remains in this manner for hygiene reasons only. The investigation also found that there was no action taken to hide this incident. When ordered to extinguish the remains by a senior officer who was at the time coordinating with local villagers to take custody of the enemy remains for burial, the unit complied immediately.
7) Based on the criminal investigation, there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of desecration or any violation of the Law of War. However, there was evidence of poor decision-making and judgment, poor reporting and lack of knowledge and respect for local Afghan customs and tradition. Two Soldiers displayed poor judgment during this incident. They have received General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand.
It's unfortunate that the officers involved are going to have their careers curtailed because they now have GOM'R's in their personnel file, everyone makes mistakes, and these officers believed they were acting in the proper manner with regard to battlespace hygiene and in accordance with the Geneva Convention (Sections 17 and 120 are relevant to this issue, unfortunately, the soldiers did not fully exercise the provisions of Section 120; they failed to ascertain the identity of the Taliban corpses), but that's the Army and they were the officers in charge.
Personally, I think it's asking a bit much for every soldier on the line to be thoroughly versed in the Muslim culture, but we're trying to fight the proverbial "sensitive war" here I guess. The media over-reaction to the incident insured that someone was going to get the shaft despite their commitment to the mission of actually rooting out the Taliban remnants, which should have been the story in the first place and not some fabricated story about "intentional desecration".
With regard to the PsyOps operation on the scene, this activity took place hours after the burning of the bodies and was the result of the PsyOps operatives learning of the event and deciding to use the event to draw out Taliban forces hiding among a civilian population. Despite the seeming humaneness of using "words not bombs" to deal with the situation at hand, the report finds that the PsyOps operatives went too far and their messages were in violation of standing policy:
1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. psychological operations forces did broadcast two loudspeaker messages designed to incite fleeing Taliban to fight. These messages mentioned the burning of enemy remains and were in violation of standing policies for the content of loudspeaker messages.
2) The criminal investigation revealed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the remains were burned for the purpose of providing content for the loudspeaker message. However, the investigation did reveal that the loudspeaker operator did willfully violate known standards for message content and standards for reporting his activities during the conduct of missions. Additionally the operator and his supervisor failed to follow documentation and reporting procedures surrounding this incident. Their conduct falls well below the acceptable standards of behavior for Soldiers.
3) As a result of these actions, two Soldiers who displayed poor judgment and sub-standard performance during this incident received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, both were issued General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand – the most serious administrative action that the command can impose. The command also directed that the two Soldiers and the unit commander be reassigned to other duties for rehabilitative reasons.
Again, it's unfortunate that these soldiers got GOM'Red for the incident, but considering the political hay and inflammation that the initial media reports created in the region (sound familiar?), someone was going to get punished, again we're seeing the "sensitive side of war".
When this story first came to my attention via Dan at Riehl World View, I knew I smelled a rat in the reports first coming in which linked the two events. The Centcom report confirms what I sniffed out at the time, that the incidents were "separate" although "related":
Two Separate but Related Incidents. While the initial media report presented the impression that the burning of enemy combatant remains and the broadcast of offensive loudspeaker messages were one action, CJTF-76 investigation revealed that the incident at Gumbad was comprised of two separate, but related actions: first, the hygienic disposal of remains subsequent to the firefight in Gumbad; and second, the broadcast of information pertaining to the burning of enemy combatant remains.
What's unfortunate about the reporting from Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus was their depiction of the U.S. Soldiers as "intentionally desecrating" the Taliban Bodies and their connection of two separate events into one inflammatory event. While it's my belief that Stephen Dupont acted in good faith in his reporting and his attempts to objectively record an event that was certainly important, Dupont's story was hijacked by a known anti-war activist and a "reporter" who operates from a distinct and visible bias, the distortion of the facts by Martinkus was picked up by AP and other news outlets and by midday, the story was broadcast and printed worldwide as an "intentional desecration" perpetrated by U.S. soldiers even as Dupont himself was trying to correct Martinkus's distortion.
I find it highly doubtful that the MSM will go to any lengths whatsoever to fully correct the record with this incident, when objective reporting and fact-checking pointed to the same conclusions reached by Centcom the MSM reluctantly gave it buried mentions and didn't fully correct the inflammatory reporting of Martinkus. In fact, the MSM has already begun to repeat its policy of inflammation by now reporting mainly on the reprimands of the troops and not the larger charges that were fabricated by Martinkus and which the troops were cleared of. Some are even still playing the incident as one solitary incident of desecration rather than two "separate but related" incidents.
So now we have another case closed of "false but accurate" reporting with regard to the War on Terror. Once again we've seen the media get hijacked by the anti-war activist left that mostly seeks only to portray the U.S. and her actions in the worst possible light. Once again we see the media ignore common sense rather than use it to sniff out the truth of the situation.
The reporting by Martinkus twisting and manipulating Stephen Dupont's on-the-scene coverage disturbs me, both in the content of the reporting and the glee with which the MSM picked it up and ran with it. Just like the Korans (not) flushed at Gitmo, the media has disregarded the truth in favor of a biased and partisan position designed to damage U.S. - Islamic relations and risk undoing the good work of our military in order to make a few headlines and grab some viewers, regardless of the consequences.
Hopefully the next time that Martinkus files a report critical of the U.S. Military, the MSM will examine the evidence and report only the true facts and not the propaganda of the anti-war left. I won't hold my breath though.
--Jason
NOTE: This seems like a good time to throw in a link to Urban Legends about the Iraq War without the need for a separate post.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:03 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
October 24, 2005
And the Chicken Littles of the Global Warming Crowd scream ---- Dammit!!!!
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly -- CNN
I say: "Ooooohhhh! That's gotta hurt!"
If you're curious about Icebergs, check out my posts on B15A, if you like dancing penquins, you might try searching for "Penguin" here too.
If you're here for a Taliban Burned Bodies update, it's coming later today, but first I want to listen to Alan Nathan's Battle Line... You can guess the topic. We'll see how he does with it.
By the way, Colonel Hunt fumbled the ball, he has since recovered it, but he's still not got it in full possession. Keep working on this Colonel Hunt, we're depending on you to bring the truth to light and protect our troops from the media. You've got access Colonel Hunt. USE IT!!!
I've also put all the Taliban Bodies Burned posts in their own category.
--Jason
PS - I wonder how the title of this will be interpreted when I trackback it???
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 23, 2005
TIME begins to correct the record. . .
You're probably aware I'm blogging alot about the Taliban Burned Bodies story. I've got the original post that was pretty popular and well linked here, then a disection of the "Interview with Stephen Dupont" that draws out the REAL FACTS from Dupont's own words, and then I begin to examine the radical bias of anti-war activist and embedded war reporter (there's some oxymoronic irony for ya) John Martinkus.
I didn't find this until today (and give a tip and a link in a second) but TIME magazine has broken ranks with the MSM pile-on and has begun to present some actual facts:
"Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses"Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
There simply wasn't enough room on the rocky hilltop above Gonbaz village in southern Afghanistan for the U.S. platoon and the corpses of the two Taliban fighters. The Taliban men had been killed in a firefight 24 hours earlier, and in the 90-degree heat, their bodies had become an unbearable presence, soldiers who were present have told TIME. Nor was the U.S. Army unit about to leave—the hilltop commanded a strategic view of the village below where other Taliban were suspected to be hiding.Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused—probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation might have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont. Instead, when the footage aired on Australian TV on Wednesday, it unleashed world outrage. A Pentagon spokesman described the incident as "repugnant" and said that the army was launching a criminal investigation into the alleged desecration of the corpses, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention on human rights.
Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."
Muslims traditionally bury their dead, and as one Kabul cleric Mohammed Omar told newsmen, "the burning of these bodies is an offense against Muslims everywhere. Bodies are burned only in Hell." But as one U.S. officer in Kandahar pointed out, the Taliban and al Qaeda never show any qualms about defiling the bodies of dead Afghan or American soldiers. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, anxious to quell any new wave of protests against the U.S. troops in Afghanistan of the sort that followed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo, publicly condemned the burnings. A statement from the U.S. military command for Afghanistan said, "Under no circumstances does U.S. Central Command condone the desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants."
Congrats to TIME for being among the first in the MSM to not buy the "hit pieces" that Martinkus and Dupont have spun from lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.
Thanks to CounterColumn for tipping me to the TIME story, be sure to visit Jason's (not me) post on the issue where he points out the adherence to the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM-27-10) which states:
Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.
Just like the "Koran-flushing" incident, it's up to the average Jane and Joe and Jason to get the word out and make the media actually focus on the facts.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 21, 2005
Martinkus, Dupont, and The Truth
LATEST UPDATE TO THIS STORY IS HERE
Only two, of the three above, go together. The odd one out is left in a cold dark place when all is said and done.
If you're a little fuzzy on what I'm saying at this point, you might want to take look back at my two previous articles, "Ok, time to elaborate" and "What's really going on. . .(The Interview with Stephen Dupont)".
For those who don't want to click on the links, or for those who repost this in their aggregator sites, I'll give some brief background.
At the beginning of October there was some military action near Gonbaz, Afghanistan. During the course of that action, American forces burned two Taliban Bodies that were rotting in the open and conducted a successful PsyOps operation to draw Taliban fighters out of a village where they were hiding among civilians.
Now here's where things get sticky, but if you hang out and finish this article with me, you'll see it's not really sticky, but something does definately smell.
Embedded with American troops were two Australian Journalists. One was Stephen Dupont, here's his picture, and here's his website, he's a photojournalist for Contact Press Images, he seems to be an excellent photographer; and while I question his "objectivity" in earlier posts, I believe that he's honest, but still susceptible to pre-conceived biases in his reporting. The second reporter is John Martinkus, you may remember Martinkus because he tends to "become the news" rather than simply stick to reporting it.
Martinkus, the reporter, was captured by insurgent forces in Iraq over a year ago. While most hostages in Iraq don't fair so well, Martinkus was able to convince his captors that they should release him. Ya see, Martinkus is an anti-war activist, he's been a featured speaker for "Coalition to Stop the War" events and he's written a highly critical book on the American actions in Iraq. Martinkus convinced his captors that he was of more value to them alive than he was dead. After all, what's the point of cutting off the head of someone who, if you release them, will go out and attack your enemy using their own institutions against them. Martinkus is a friend to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's actually a supporter of their causes and he's sneakily gotten himself embedded with American forces in Afghanistan and been patiently waiting for a series of events that he could mischaracterize, politicize and twist with the intention of hurting the efforts to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq and peace to the greater Middle East.
All of my statements grow from investigations I undertook, of my own accord, but with a little prodding from Dan Riehl at Riehl World View. Dan got a tip from Richard of HyScience, and passed it on to me for my opinion. On first glance at the info, Dan and I both came to the conclusion that some political chicanery was a afoot, after one or two minutes of googling, we came to Stephen Dupont and based on what we perceived as Duponts bias, we began to deconstruct the emerging story of the Taliban Bodies Burned in Iraq (here's where AP picked up the story).
I've already covered Dupont and come to the conclusion that while Dupont disagrees with American activities and prosecution of the War on Terror, he's reporting honestly what he sees, he has bias, but he understands that and has tried to balance his bias with honesty. Martinkus is a different animal altoghether.
Given the same facts and on the same scene, Martinkus tries to put apples and oranges together repeatedly and count them as the same objects. He makes connections where there are none, and tries to paint innocent (although intense and horrific) events with a sinister and conspiratorial brush.
Despite the facts, Martinkus pens a hit piece on the American military with the intent to further his anti-war aims and incite hatred for Americans among Muslims. Martinkus' report can be found at the Dateline program page, the transcript is a bit difficult to get to, so it's here in .txt format.
So lets look at the "body burning incident":
Dupont makes it clear to the world that it was the Airborne forces conducting operations in the region that burned the two rotting Taliban corpses inside their position, he makes it clear that they burned this corpses because they were out in the open for 24 hours an were beginning to decompose and posed a health risk. Dupont also makes it clear that the solidiers believed that they were burning the corpses for hygenic reasons (whether they were right or wrong on the hygiene issue is immaterial, they are not doctors and morticians, but even a layman knows you try not to remain in close contact with rotting corpses).
Martinkus chooses to disregard the hygenic concerns of the Airborne troops, in fact, he disregards the Airborne troops altoghether, he has bigger fish to fry, he wants to go after American policy and presense in the region, and he finds his weapon when PsyOps operatives arrive on the scene to try and coax, persuade, trick and infuriate the Taliban fighters into engaging the Americans who are reluctant to engage them inside the village.
Martinkus "reports":
At the top of the hills above the village the soldiers have taken the tactics of psychological warfare to a grotesque and disturbing extreme. US soldiers have set fire to the bodies of the two Taliban killed the night before. The burning of the corpses and the fact that they've been laid out facing Mecca is a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
I offer this photo to show beyond a "shadow of a doubt" (sorry bout that pun) that this "reporting" is actually a "hit piece" to mischaracterize the actions and incite Muslim anger throughout the world.
Simple examination of the photo shows that the corpses WERE NOT laid out facing West, if they were, they would be oriented in line with the shadows on the ground, instead they are oriented perpendicular to the shadows, unless you live at the North or South pole, you can test this for yourself if you go outside with a compass in the morning or afternoon. Face West or East and observe your shadow.
So we know that they were not "laid out facing Mecca" and do not demonstrate a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
We also know, from the interview with Stephen Dupont who took the picture, that it was NOT the psychological warfare operatives who burned these bodies. The PsyOps operatives arrived on the scene LATER (how later does not matter), and while they DID use the incident as part of their PsyOps plan to draw out the Taliban, they DID NOT burn the corpses as part of the plan. The PsyOps operatives used the fact that the bodies had to be burned for hygenic purposes and twisted the event to suit their PsyOps operational plan. In other words.
The PsyOps operative lied to the Taliban soldiers in the village in the hope it would infuriate them and drive them into the open.
Guess what Mr. Martinkus? That's their job. PsyOps is not the practice of telling your enemy the truth, it's telling the enemy what you think will disturb them, it's telling your enemy what you think will enrage them and cause them to make mistakes and engage in poor tactical descisions that you can take advantage of.
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND HER ARMED FORCES!!!!
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE DESIGNED TO ALSO INFURIATE THE MUSLIM WORLD AGAINST AMERICA!!!!
That's right, you heard it here. Mr. Martinkus has taken events, twisted them out of proportion and then broadcast that psychological warfare element back at the people of America and the world. Just as the PsyOps operatives wished to enrage the Taliban and get them out into the open where they could be destroyed, Mr. Martinkus is trying to get the American people to become enraged at the actions of our own military. But we know the facts now Mr. Martinkus! You can't twist them anymore, we've got Stephen Dupont's pictures to disprove your words. We've got your history in the anti-war movement and your own words supporting the actions of terrorists and insurgents to prove that you sir, are on the other side. Mr. Martinkus is fighing of behalf of the Taliban through the use of psychological weapons of his own
The counter to Psychological Warfare is knowing the truth. We now know the truth, it's right there in Mr. Dupont's pictures. Now the challenge is to spread the truth among our forces and people of the world that Mr. Martinkus is attacking us with his psychological weapon of a hit piece. We, the bloggers, and hopefully the American Mass Media, need to counter Mr. Martinkus' warping of these events with the truth of the events. The truth must be heard. It's not a pretty truth, PsyOps isn't designed to make you feel good about things, it's designed to make you unstable, weak and easy to break. Our boys did the right thing in burning the corpses for hygenic reasons, and our boys also did the right thing by using WORDS INSTEAD OF BOMBS to get the Taliban out of Gonbaz.
So which of the three did not belong??? Martinkus!
--Jason
NOTE: Thank you for taking the time with me to look at the events objectively, I encourage you to read my earlier posts, "Ok, it's time to elaborate" and "So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)". If you have information to share, I encourage you to send a trackback or leave a comment. I've been overwhelmed with supportive emails and positive encouragement to continue my examination of this event and the greater context, so I'll continue to do that. Please come back for more. The media is going to continue to spread Martinkus' own PsyOps attack if it's not countered with the truth. Spread that photo around and point out that the "desecration" did not take place, and if any of you are a physician with information about how corpses decay and why they must be removed from the area to prevent disease, I encourage you to email me at Jason-at-JasonColeman-dot-com. There are still a few loose ends to tie up, but they just loose ends that people are unclear on, they don't amount to intentional desecration and I want to get that out. Thanks again, and I'll see ya round the 'sphere.
-JC
UPDATE: Linked at:
The Political Teen who has a funny Chris Matthews doing the Karl Rove Scooter Libby boogie video on his Main Page.
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who was the first to trackback my "Ok, time to elaborate post" with this post on MVRWC.
Mudville Gazette
Indepundit
Two Babes and a Brain
Wizbang
California Conservative
Stop the ACLU
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
NOTE: If you are new to this story, you may or may not wish to refer to THIS POST FIRST and then return to this one, but be warned the story is complex and confusing, so if you're looking for easy reading, just stay here.
SUGGESTION: I would recommend that you read the entire article first and then go back through and use the audio and video clips. I think that would be the easiest way to follow this rather complex story.
The purpose of this post is to add to an explanation of what the REAL STORY is with regard to why two Taliban soldiers bodiers were burned in Afghanistan as mentioned in this article and this article, reported by two individuals embedded with an American Airborne unit in Afghanistan. The story orignally "broke" on the Australian program, Dateline. The Dateline piece (which you can view a video clip of HERE (requires Realplayer)) consists of an interview between the show's host and Stephen Dupont, one of the embedded reporters who captured video of the incident. The interview is about 6 minutes long and is a one on one exchange to discuss footage that Dupont took outside the village of Gonbaz, Afghanistan.
We don't know ALOT of "details" about the operation, at this point we are merely analyzing the "Burning Bodies" incident with the broad and small strokes available, but this is what SEEMS to be clear and accurate:
1) Airborne forces had an engagement with Taliban forces on the approximate date of September 30. In this engagement 2 Taliban we're killed. The Taliban corpses were in close proximity to the American airborne unit's position.
2) Additional Taliban forces were "holed up" in the village, hiding amongst a civilian population. The Airborne soldiers had the situation in hand and probably held a perimeter around the village.
3) 24 hours or so after the Taliban were killed, the decision was made to burn the Taliban bodies for hygiene reasons by the Airborne forces on the scene. The Airborne forces burned the bodies and Stephen Dupont there and took video footage of the burning of the Taliban corpses.
4) Later, a Psychological Operations group arrived on the scene. This PsyOps group proceeded to conduct psychological operations against the Taliban forces inside the village with the intent to "Smoke em out" (Dupont's Words) and force the Taliban to come out of the village and attack the Airborne soldiers and PsyOps unit.
5) The methods used to draw out the Taliban forces were VERBAL IN NATURE. The PsyOps operatives used megaphones to broadcast into the village, and the wording of these messages included defamatory statements to the Taliban soldier's honor and statements were made that the burning of the dead Taliban soldiers' bodies took place while they were facing West (toward Mecca).
Now we'll pause for a minute and look at the words of Stephen Dupont. I've got three audio clips from the interview and I've transcribed them to the best of my ability. There might be some slight differences in the transcript due to accents and mumbling, but I think that if you read the transcripts first, then listen to the clips and read along again, you'll find them very close.
Audio Clip 1 - The Different Views (MPG format)
This clip deals with how the two different groups of soldiers viewed the burning of the bodies. It needs to be noted that only the Airborne unit actually took part in burning the bodies, and they did so for hygiene purposes. Now, later (we don't know how long at this time, but LATER), a PsyOps unit arrived in the battlespace. This audio clip from the Dateline broadcast is the Interviewer and Stephen Dupont discussing why the bodies were burnt and how later, the PsyOps unit used the event in their broadcasts via loudspeaker to the hold-out Taliban forces in the village.
The Transcript -
Interviewer: Do you think they understand the significance of what they were doing? I mean the burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca, and then actually going to the trouble of reading, to you, in English, the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the TalibanStephen Dupont: Look, I think the, Airborne unit that were responsible with burning of the two Taliban soldiers, weren’t really thinking in that way. I think that the Psychological Operations unit that did the broadcast, of the incident with the Taliban including some of other broadcasts, ther. .they’re. . I think they are quite well aware of it, these are older guys, I mean that’s their job, they are PsyOps, ya know, they use this as a weapon.
Remember that Stephen Dupont was on the scene, he's there, embedded with these Airborne troops and filming this event. He says quite plainly that the Airborne troops DID NOT view the burning of the bodies as part of the Psychological Warfare. In a little bit we'll see how the Airborne troops did view the burning of the corpses.
We also see that the PsyOps group, in the opinion of Stephen Dupont, who was also on the scene for the later psychological operation, did INTEND to use statements designed to imply that the burning of the bodies was to desecreate them, to humiliate the Taliban soldiers taking refuge in the village. The PsyOps troops are not playing patty-cake here and Dupont realized this. Dupont admits that the PsyOps groups understood that their role was to inflict MENTAL STRESS on the holed up Taliban fighters with the INTENT to provoke them into coming out and fighting the Airborne troops guarding the perimeter. Dupont recognizes that PsyOps is a weapon of war.
Now lets move on to the second clip.
Audio Clip 2 - Two speparate groups (MPG format)
This clip shows how there were two separte groups, the Airborne and the PsyOps, both acting in different roles within the battlespace. Dupont describes what the Airborne troops reasoning was for burning the bodies, and points out that they were not intent on desecration. He also discusses the actions of the PsyOps operatives and their reasons for STATING to the Taliban in the village, that the corpses were desecrated. I identify the Airborne unit in brackets as [Airborne] merely for clarification between the two separate groups.
Transcript
Interviewer: What you seem, what you seem to be saying is that the guys [Airborne] who burned the bodies probably did think that they were doing it for the reasons of hygiene, that tha was mentioned in the story. . .Stephen Dupont: I believe that and tha was the feeling I got when I climbed up this hill and as I got to the crest of this hill, they [Airborne] started burning the bodies, and of course my initial reaction was, ya know like, my god, I’ve got to film this, this is really important stuff, and uh I’ve gotta I’ve got a, you know, inaudible, it’s my responsibility as a journalist to get some of it. . .
Interviewer: But PsyOps had a different purpose?
Stephen Dupont: I believe so, I think these guys, were, were really kinda, you know they, they said, they said to me, look you know, we’ve been told to burn the bodies, because the bodies have been here for 24 hours and they’re starting to stink, so for hygiene purposes, this is what we’ve gotta do. Later on, when I was down with the Psy Ops operation people, um they used that as a sort of psychological um you know warfare, I guess, you’d call it, they used that fact the Taliban were burned facing West, as they say in the the announcement. . . .
Interviewer: Now would you deliberately say it again to humilack, the Taliban. . .
Stephen Dupont: They deliberately they deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them.
Interviewer: Smoke em out
Stephen Dupont: Smoke em out. They want the Taliban to fight them because they can’t find them otherwise.
So now things are becoming clearer. Stephen says that he does believe that the Airborne unit was burning the corpses of the two Taliban soldiers for hygenic purposes. We can get into rotting corpses later, but for our purposes here, lets keep it simple. The Airborne troops were ordered by their officers in the field to burn the corpses because they had been in the elements for 24 hours and were beginning to smell. Stephen recognizes that this was the intent of the Airborne troops, and it WAS NOT the intent of the Airborne troops to desecrate the bodies. As we'll see a little later, the corpses were NOT placed deliberately facing West (toward Mecca) and that the corpses were merely burned for hygenic purposes.
Now in this clip Dupont also goes into the role and scripting of the PsyOps unit a bit. Dupont recognized again that the purpose of the PsyOps unit is to conduct psychological warfare against the Taliban fighters in the village. Dupont states that for the purposes of the announcements into the village, the PsyOps "used the fact" that they were facing West. Dupont admits that tht PsyOps operatives were intentionally tring to incite anger in the Taliban so that they would come out and fight. That the goal of the announcements by the PsyOps operatives was to "Smoke em out". Note that "used the fact" is a turn of phrase, and does not necessarily mean that the corpses were actually "in fact" facing West, as we'll get into later.
Before we make any conclusions here, lets finish up with the third clip.
Audio Clip 3 - Is Psy Ops Working? (MPG format)
Transcript
Interviewer: Do you think that the Psychological War is working?Stephen Dupont: Look, I, I think it’s having some, success, I do believe. I think it’s very very slow. But I think there is a certain amount of success, because they are engaging with the enemy, as in, The Taliban. The Americans are, using this, um, you know, psychological warfare, to announce, to make announcements to get the enemy to fight them. It is working on that level. And they are being attacked and so they are responding and they are taking prisoners of war, and so forth. So in the eyes of the Americans and the coalition there is a sense that things are working but it’s very very slow.
Now here we see that Dupont feels that the Psychological Operations are in fact, working. If you view the entire clip (available again HERE (Realplayer Required), you hear more about why Dupont thinks are going slow. He talks about "thousands of caves" and a place that is "like the moon" and talks for a while about the difficulty of finding the Taliban who do not wear uniforms and the Interviewer suggests are like "ghosts". What's at issue in this part though is NOT how fast or slow the war is going, but rather if the actions of American soldiers involved in this event were intailing the desecration of Muslim corpses, or to effectively prosecute a war against and enemy who:
1) Hides among an civilian population in a Village, and
2) Must be drawn out of this civilian population in order to engage and defeat the enemy with as little collateral damage to the village and villagers, who in this case are mostly, if not completely different.
The BIG issue at stake in this latest bruhaha over the burning of Taliban corpses is the tactics that were used to draw the enemy out so that they can be engaged and destroyed, or possibly captured as prisoners of war. It needs to be made clear here that war is not necessarily a spectator sport. To overuse a phrase, "War is HELL!" and warriors need to bring all the force they can to bear against their enemy in order to affect victory over the objective and opposing forces. No one in their right mind would honestly suggest that using loudspeakers and "implying" that desecration of corpses has been done is a "nice" thing to do. However, as Dupont admits, it is working to draw the enemy out so they can be engaged.
I'd suppose that there were alternatives to using the PsyOps operatives to engage the enemy. After all, the Airborne troops that had the Taliban cornered COULD HAVE simply leveled the village. That course of action would have led to the deaths of the villagers, and I think that the commanders on the field should be commended for not opting for that option to deal with the situation.
The troops could have entered the village and searched for the Taliban fighters door to door. They wouldn't be wearing a uniform and would be difficult to identify. A Taliban soldier might hide among a scared population or opted to ambush the American soldiers when they entered the village. This might result in unnecessary American or civilian casualties when a firefight breaks out in the village, and again, this is not the most desirable option.
So what was the decision in the field? The decision was made to engage the Taliban hold-outs using PsyOps techniques. The descision was made to broadcast messages into the town designed to provoke a rage in the enemy, so that he might recklessly engage the American forces and so doing, make a critical tactical mistake, allowing the Americans to defeat the enemy and minimize civilian and American casualties. It seems, that according to Dupont who was on the scene, that this option was the one that the commanders in the field decided to use. Dupont admits that PsyOps are effective if slow, but effective nonetheless.
Now lets just talk straight for a second, and be honest about it. Are the statements the PsyOps operatives used in their announcements "offensive"? Probably. . . and they are designed to be so. The "intent" is to drive the enemy into a rage so they flush themselves out. So harsh words are used, and mean things are said. The intent is to anger the enemy, and the best way in the eyes of the PsyOps opeatives to do that was to insult the Taliban hold-outs in the village. To deman their manhood and bravery, to call them "ladies" and to tease them. The PsyOps operatives also TOLD the Taliban hold-outs that their comrades had been desecrated, that their bodies had been burned while facing West so that they could not enter paradise. IN REALITY HOWEVER, neither the PsyOps, nor the Airborne troops actually desecrated the bodies. They merely made statements that they did. The bodies were not desecrated, they were burned for hygenic purposes, to stop the smell that distracted the American soldiers, and to prevent the spread of possible natural, yet harmful biologic (bacterial and other) agents that would spread into the air around the corpses, could be carried by insects or other pests or could possibly cause other health risks to the soldiers who were preparing to settle in for a bout of blasting insults and rock music into the village via loudspeakers. There was no way for the commanders on the ground to know whether the Audible Siege would last an hour, and evening, a day or a week, but the PsyOps operation was going to move forward. Having rotting corpses lying around your position while the troops awaited the emergence of the Taliban holdouts was not a good idea. You can hear in Duponts statements that the terrain is rugged and burial was probably not a viable option and would waste valuable resources unnecessarily. So the decision was made by the commander of the Airborne unit to burn the bodies in place. If you look at the situation through the eyes of the commander in the field, that was probably the best, if not the most tasteful, descision to make given the circumstances.
Now as I understand it, and I could be wrong, so I'll ask fellow bloggers for a little help here, but it is my belief that when enemy combatant dead are encountered on the field, every reasonable effort should be made to handle the dead with respect to the enemy culture first, and when such accomodation cannot be made, that the burning of corpses for hygenic purposes is acceptable under the Geneva Convention. We should not expect our forces in the field to become undertakers in the middle of a battle, and we should not expect them to work around rotting corpses when a hygenic alternative is available. So we could beat that horse all day, and maybe I'll address that issue in another post, but for this particular post, the intent is to clarify the events, and dispell the myths and untruths that are spreading like wildfire through groups opposed to the war or through the agitation of the media.
The troops that burned the two Taliban corpses DID NOT do so to desecrate the remains of the dead, the burning of the corpses was a hygenic move and NOT a part of the PsyOps plan. The PsyOps operatives did not even participate, nor did they order the desecration of corpses. A commander in the field, presumably the Airborne commander, did order that the corpses be dealt with so that the troops could continue their mission, which was to defeat the enemy. Which is exactly why we put our military in the field, to defeat an enemy. That's what they did. It wasn't pretty, but war rarely is. The psychological weapons employed were strong, and rightly so. When you engage an enemy, your goal is to win the battle, not to make the combat, whether it be physical or mental, fun, or even palatable.
Psychological warfare is an accepted part of war. In comparison to carpetbombing or artillery strikes, it even seems preferable. Civilian casualties are minimized and your enemy fights from a weakened position. Those are both objectives sought by any battlefield commander and that's exactly what occured in this case.
There will be more to come but I'll part with this image.
Now I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be, I'm just a humble blogger following the evidence as it shows itself, but I do recognize something about this picture that is relevant. It is my belief that the corpse in this picture is NOT facing west. Judging solely by the relationship of the body on the ground and the shadows in the picture, it is my estimation that this body is aligned more on a north-south axis rather than an east-west axis. If other bloggers can offer more definative evidence to support this, please leave a comment or a trackback and I will include it wherever applicable in future posts.
More to come. . . [LATEST UPDATE TO THIS STORY IS HERE.]
--Jason
UPDATE: New post on John Martinkus
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
I'm here. . .
People are having trouble sending comments and trackbacks. I attribute this to my recent upgrage to Moveable Type 3.2 and not having it locked down and fine tuned. I'm here though, working on posts, editing audio and making transcripts to make this whole issue CLEARER to the average casual reader who's getting bombarded with MSM blatherings about UNTRUTHS. I'll approve your comments and trackbacks manually every 10 or 15 minutes.
So if you are looking for the REAL STORY of what happened with U.S. Troops Burning Taliban Bodies, stay tuned, and I'll try to make it as easy to understand and clear as possible. If you want to work for it and understand how this story developed this morning, continue down or click over to "Ok, time to elaborate".
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
Ok, time to elaborate. . .
NOTE: New posts in this series HERE and HERE. Also linked at the end.
So first, go read this post (it's the one I made a short while ago). I wanted to just give Dan from Riehl World View a link for a good catch, but it's evolved a bit since then. I should also give a HatTip to Richard from HyScience.com for starting the ball rolling. So after a few emails back and forth with Dan, a larger picture emerges, and I want to lay it out as I see it here.
First lets start with the story Dan first turned me onto:
Report: U.S. Soldiers Burned Bodies of Taliban Fighters, Taunted Villagers
And here's an earlier story from the Sydney Morning Herald:
Film rolls as troops burn dead
Now these articles stem from the Australian program Dateline, which aired this segment (Requires Real Player) which is an interview with Stephen Dupont. Go ahead and take the time to watch it. You can find the transcript here.
Now it's important that after you read the articles and you watch the clip to realize that the troops that allegedly burned the bodies (to my knowledge, the actual event video hasn't been released as of this writing) did so because of legitimate hygiene concerns. The Taliban soldiers had been dead for over 24 hours and were begining to become a concern. So in keeping with good battlefield hygiene practices, they disposed the bodies in the most effective and safest means possible, burning. It's quite obvious that soldiers dug in around a position, with enemy forces in the vicinity, cannot be expected to go out and bury the bodies; and the Taliban certainly wasn't going to come out and collect them (this is a war, remember). So we can't really fault them for burning the bodies.
Now the reporter on the scene, Stephen Dupont, who was embedded with the American troops, himself admits that it was later, when a PsyOps unit arrived on the scene, that more was made of the burning than actually took place, IN ORDER TO "smoke out" and "provoke" a fight with other Taliban fighters on the scene. Taken as it is, a separate tactical event, this is not that big a deal. The goal of armies is to find and engage the enemy, to root them out and destroy them. PsyOps has long been considered a legitimate and effective means of waging war. All parties to conflicts use it and it generates the desired effects.
Now what the two articles are doing is trying to CONNECT unrelated dots. The articles, and Stephen Dupont himself, are trying to connect dots that aren't necessarily connected. Their purpose? I can only suppose that the purpose is to make American soldiers look bad and to try to incite Islamic hatred outside of this particular incident. By connecting these two SEPARATE events, the burning of the bodies for legitimate health reasons and the later PsyOps operation, the articles are trying to imply that the Soldiers who burned these bodies did so to "offend" Muslims, when it fact they did not.
Now it IS true that the PsyOps operatives used the burning to enrage or offend the soldiers they were trying to "smoke out" but that's a separate incident entirely and not related to the actual act of burning. I'd suspect that if half of the PsyOps techniques that were used on the battlefield were taken out of true context and broadcast as "representative" of combat soldiers actions, that people would positively FREAK OUT. Let's remember folks, the goal of PsyOps troops IS to freak out the enemy and provoke them into making mistakes that combat troops can capitalize on and destroy the enemy. That's their job!
So IF the bodies were burned for legitimate hygiene reasons, as the reporter on the scene suggests, that's a GOOD THING.
And IF the PsyOps operatives used the event to gain tactical advantage over the battlespace and draw the enemy out, that's ALSO A GOOD THING.
The articles though, try to lead the reader in another direction entirely and are attempting to take the tactical conflict out of it's isolated and local context and apply it to a general interpretation of the continuing war against Taliban remnants and al Queda in Afghanistan.
So let's move on.
Now Dan and I traded some links back and forth and began looking at Stephen Dupont.
This is the photo that Dupont chooses to be his representative image on his bio page on his own website (it's a flash site, so I can't link directly, you'll have to navigate to the bio page). Take a look at it for a second. Photographers ply their trade by taking images that represent something, an ideal, an event, a feeling or just a directed representation of the subject. I'm no expert and I don't pretend to be, but what that image represents to me is that Stephen Dupont is trying to show himself as somehow "connected" to the Afghans and Taliban in general. The garb and manner of the picture may not be exactly representative of Taliban or Afghan attire, but that's the perception that I believe the lay observer will get. Stephen is trying to send a message with that image, and I REALLY REALLY don't think that that message is "I'm an impartial objective observer/journalist". To me, and I suggest, the average lay observer, that image represents that Stephen identifies himself with the Taliban, or at the very least, Afghans.
If you take a surfing trip through Stephen Dupont's website, you'll see that Dupont tends toward supporting an agenda, and that adgenda is somewhat, if not decidely, anti-Western. Furthermore, if you take a look at Dupont's sponsoring agency, Contact Press Images, you'll find that they also aren't necessarily an impartial objective group themselves, they use phrases like "this so called 'war on terror'" and invite the reader to remember the "last Americans in Vietnam were hurriedly evacuated from a Saigon rooftop" [italics mine]. This group obviously starts from a position of opposition to the Global War on Terror and they leave objectivity at the door when they go out to cover a story.
Even the Australian Dateline, takes a particularly biased approach to the story, by leading with:
Since September 11, we've all become uncomfortably familiar with names like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and maybe even Bagram in Afghanistan. They're all places we now associate with human rights violations or worse - military atrocities and possibly potential war crimes. But after our first story tonight, you can add another placename to that list - Gonbaz in southern Afghanistan, about a 100km from the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
Now this paragraph says ALOT. First, they leave out that September 11th was an attack on the United States by al Queda, and that al Queda was sponsored, harbored and protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they jump to associating September 11th, not with the attack on the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the 4th failed attack on another target, but they associate September 11th with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and stretch to include Bagram, labeling all as "human rights violations", "military atrocities" and "possibly potential war crimes".
I ask you? Is this what September 11th is associated with? I think not, maybe the War on Terror is, but not Septemeber 11th. The media is quick to point out that Iraq is not connected with 9-11 (despite the truth that Iraq WAS associated with al-Queda and merely that there was not an OPERATIONAL link between the specific 9-11 attack and Iraq), so why the mention of Abu Grahib and Fallujah?
The answer can only be that they wish to connect these dots illegitimately as well. September 11th is connected to the attacks on America, and the attacks on America are associated with the Global War on Terror, and the War on Terror is connected to the War in Iraq. However, by jumping over links in the chain and associating events in the manner that the Dateline lead-in does, the bias in the piece that follows is evident from the beginning.
Now I'll leave it to you, the reader to go back and view the articles, video, Dateline website and Stephen Dupont on your own and drag your own conclusions, but to ME, this whole shebang is a "hit piece" of local and separate events, taken out of context and rewoven to convey a wholy different representation of what actually occured.
What can we objectively say happened:
1) That allegedly (the video is still MIA, but I'm sure it will surface) American soldiers did the prudent and militarily accepted thing and burned bodies that were beginning to rot while they laid siege to an area where Taliban fighters were holed up.
2) That PsyOps operatives later arrived on the scene and tried to use localized events to affect a tactical advantage and flush out enemy troops so that they could be engaged and hopefully destroyed.
These two events ARE CONSISTENT with standard military practices and do not represent some grander evil scheme to "offend Islam", they DO NOT represent a "military atrocity" and they do not represent a "human rights abuse" as the articles and the Dateline piece would lead the reader to believe.
I can almost guarantee that this is not going to be the way this story is picked up and run with by the media and it certainly won't be interpreted that way by the anti-war crowd, the anti-American crowd, or the left in general. I'd expect that,unless this video never surfaces,we're in for a long road where unrelated dots are connected over and over again. I expect that this will develop into a media firestorm, and direct accusations will be made against the President, Donald Rumsfeld and the American Military that this is an evil and disrespectful affront to Islam and Muslims everywhere.
The detractors will try to use this incident to incorrectly claim that this was an atrocity, that it was a war crime and that our mission to destroy the forces of al Queda and the Taliban is a war on Islam itself, despite all the real indications to the contrary, this will become the latest marching mantra of the left and the latest call to denounce the War on Terror and a justification to pull out our troops before the mission is done. The left will call for someones head to roll over this even though it's perfectly consistent with the Geneva convention to dispose of battlefield dead and the PsyOps activities were consistent with standard and accepted activities of war.
This will be a firestorm and many half-truths, outright lies and slanders of our troops, their leaders and the goals of the War on Terror will be crafted around this actual non-event.
Thanks for your time.
ADDED NOTE: Hyscience got this ball rolling last night with the initial tip on the backgrounds of the reporters, today they've put up The Media's New Abu Ghraib
--Jason
UPDATE: After checking email, Dan left me one last tip to chase down for the night. While he and I chased down info on Stephen Dupont, we neglected to take a look at John Martinkus, Dupont's apparent co-reporter.
Martinkus is probably best known as the reporter who "googled his way to freedom" when captured by nationalist forces in Iraq.
Thanks to Tim Blair, I learned a little more about Martinkus which I think also points to bias in the reporting of this incident. Martinkus himself has participated in anti-war events and has spoken out against the War on Terror and the American presence in Iraq. Martinkus was a featured speaker at an event organized by the "Stop the War Coalition" and has authored a book, Travels in American Iraq, which is apparently very critical of the American efforts in Iraq and the War on Terror.
Martinkus has also drawn fire from Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer:
Kidnapped Australian journalist John Martinkus was attacked today by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and former hostage Steve Pratt for appearing to say that Iraqi terrorists had a reason to kill some hostages.Mr Martinkus, who was kidnapped and interrogated for more than 20 hours in Baghdad before being freed last weekend, sparked outrage when he said of his captors:"(From their perspective) there was a reason to kill (British hostage Ken) Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans; there was not a reason to kill me (and) luckily I managed to convince them of that."
Mr Downer said today it was pretty much the most appalling thing any Australian had said about the Iraq war.
He accused Mr Martinkus of giving comfort to terrorists by saying that their actions were understandable.
So, not only are Stephen Dupont's "objective journalist" credentials suspect, it appears that "co-reporter" John Martinkus is an anti-war activist and quite possibly a sympathizer with the very enemies that the forces he was embedded with are fighting.
NOTE: The Tim Blair links are from his old site. His current site is timblair.net.
UPDATE 2: Well folks, IT'S ON, as of 5:30 a.m. U.S. central time, Google News is listing 170+ reports on this "event" and just as expected, almost all are playing the "desecration" and "affront to Islam" angles and giving the bias of the reporting a pass. Another MSM "hit piece" on our military is underway.
UPDATE 3: Drudge / Breitbart have picked it up now.
UPDATE 4: The first pictures are showing up on the web now.
UPDATE 5: Checking in on some of the lefty blogs, the meme is already developing that the bodies were intentionally faced west and the PsyOps teams were somehow instrumental in this "symbolic" placement. Nevermind the "reporters" own admission that the Airborne units they were embedded with burned the bodies for hygiene reasons and the PsyOps operatives arrived sometime after the bodies were burned. The accusations and total disregard for the truth have begun.
UPDATE 6: Centcom Statements on the event ONE TWO THREE
Centcom site for News Releases
UPDATE 7: This post is also cross-linked with The Political Teen's Open Trackback Thursday. HEY, if the really big boys and girls aren't blogging much today, I gotta do what I gotta do to get the word out.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: NEW POST - So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: An examination of John Martinkus, PsyOps operator in his own right.
UPDATE: 11/26/05 - Centcom issues their report.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:30 AM | Comments (16)
October 19, 2005
Oh brother. . .
Dan at Riehl World View threw me a heads up, go read for yourself. I'm sure that there's either much more to this. . . or much less to this, than is being reported. BUT! I know we're going to be hearing this bleated about over and over and over and over again till it's either proven (and of course, disciplining the guilty won't be acceptable to the lefties) or it's proven to be completely untrue (which won't matter to the left either).
Now it's out there. So I guess it's time to say . . . Play ball.
Go read it and I'm sure your head will hurt too.
--Jason
UPDATE: Before you go, just make sure to remember this face:
This is the "Stephen Dupont" that is reporting this tripe. Dan has a link to his other "work".
UPDATE2: If you arrived at this individual entry from an external link, you may want to take a look at this post where I elaborate.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
