Saturday, December 22, 2001
12:36 pm
What is the truth about this bombed convoy?
If it was full of Al Qaeda fighters, then why would (identifiable) tribal elders say it was full of other tribal elders? If it was full of tribal elders, why would the Pentagon insist on a line that will make them look like bare faced liars in two days time?
It seems to me that neither side has a stake in sticking to its story if not true. But one side is sticking to what is probably a lie.
There are of course two other explanations. One side may not know the full story, although how likely is that in reality? They're not journalists for God's sake. Both US intelligence and the elders' local knowledge is likely to give a good picture of what happened, at least after the event.
Alternatively they could have been both Taliban leaders and tribal elders. After all Pashtun elders are likely to have been Taliban leaders, or at least allies. However if they are no longer Taliban leaders and have switched sides (and if they were going to Kabul to see Kharzai sworn in, which is what this alternative would have presupposed, they did switch sides) then this would tend to confirm the tribal elders' position.
If I had to make a call, and I certainly don't feel confident doing so, I would say that the elders are probably right - and that the Americans made a mistake. If this is the case, do they know that they've made a mistake? Their intelligence must be good enough to have confirmed the real facts on the ground.
So if this is a deliberate lie, why do they continue with it? Probably panic rather than malice. Expect a quiet admission between 24 and 27 December. This may work in the West where the spin doctors honed their skill, but aren't they forgetting that the Muslim world doesn't celebrate Christmas?
As usual I hope I'm proved wrong.
If it was full of Al Qaeda fighters, then why would (identifiable) tribal elders say it was full of other tribal elders? If it was full of tribal elders, why would the Pentagon insist on a line that will make them look like bare faced liars in two days time?
It seems to me that neither side has a stake in sticking to its story if not true. But one side is sticking to what is probably a lie.
There are of course two other explanations. One side may not know the full story, although how likely is that in reality? They're not journalists for God's sake. Both US intelligence and the elders' local knowledge is likely to give a good picture of what happened, at least after the event.
Alternatively they could have been both Taliban leaders and tribal elders. After all Pashtun elders are likely to have been Taliban leaders, or at least allies. However if they are no longer Taliban leaders and have switched sides (and if they were going to Kabul to see Kharzai sworn in, which is what this alternative would have presupposed, they did switch sides) then this would tend to confirm the tribal elders' position.
If I had to make a call, and I certainly don't feel confident doing so, I would say that the elders are probably right - and that the Americans made a mistake. If this is the case, do they know that they've made a mistake? Their intelligence must be good enough to have confirmed the real facts on the ground.
So if this is a deliberate lie, why do they continue with it? Probably panic rather than malice. Expect a quiet admission between 24 and 27 December. This may work in the West where the spin doctors honed their skill, but aren't they forgetting that the Muslim world doesn't celebrate Christmas?
As usual I hope I'm proved wrong.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2001
(202)
-
▼
December
(71)
- Happy New Year And now my new year question, does...
- Margolis caught out Eric Margolis has just penned...
- Free Republic Feedback OK some feedback from Free...
- Who said this? Indeed, because we share the euro ...
- Bennett's Petard I've been directed (by Iain Mur...
- India and Pakistan Redux Another point on India a...
- Today's article Little feedback (alright no feedb...
- The Guardian makes sense - shock The article that...
- Another one James Alexander McLintock is being he...
- No nonsense or too boring for words? Any comments...
- What a wag George Fernandes the Indian defence mi...
- Iain Murray has highlighted an article in the Time...
- More evidence that Charles Kennedy is doing Iain D...
- With this India-Pakistan standoff still inching ah...
- There they go again Is there anything good about ...
- Will this be the next crusade? Sam Francis starts...
- Appeasers? Lest there be any doubt where the gove...
- Shock. Terrorism at home Does Welfare Cause Terr...
- How to work my links I have finally got the links...
- Video Nasty Bin Laden's latest video has been por...
- EUphobia The EU have put out a list of groups the...
- Scared of logic To those few of you who have been...
- Feedack: This from an irate reader: Thanks for t...
- I know it's Christmas, but before I forget I've be...
- Now I find it is thanks due to Brian Linse for pay...
- A great piece from Matthew Parris, who lampoons fa...
- They don't like it up 'em The Yanks over at Free ...
- Gee, thanks. A real Goldstein paid for my web l...
- I suppose its fame of a sort. I've been positione...
- Thank You To whoever removed the advertising from...
- This is more or less what I sent out to the subscr...
- Thank you to Natalie Solent for linking to me as h...
- I wonder what's going to happen over this little d...
- Euro Question Why does the punditocracy assume th...
- What is the truth about this bombed convoy? If it...
- A quick trip over to the Conservative Friends of I...
- As a service to all American supporters of Sinn Fe...
- I won the argument. The Counterfeit conservatives...
- Another Blog mention, this time from the American ...
- The House of Lord’s debate on Afghanistan is worth...
- Now we need an alliance with Russia. No matter th...
- Some speculation that America was planning to depo...
- Something on the roots of Islamic anger. Says tha...
- Fantastic piece, if two months old, from Justin Ra...
- Last week's article has sparked off a wide ranging...
- A revolt This is news, an Early Day Motion in the...
- What are they playing at? Now they're bugging dis...
- Tora Bora's fallen (they say) and Al Qaeda's been ...
- Praise to the BBC I don't usually say that the BB...
- Doubts on the video Apart from the first point, I...
- Americans 'covered up massacre of 280 Taliban': B...
- Will it get banned this time? More than a year ag...
- Excellent Richard Littlejohn piece in The Sun: ON...
- Well, it started, some are doubting the authentici...
- Weirdo Roundup Is this guy for real? TODAY'S LET...
- Birds of a White Feather I know I shouldn't be lo...
- After all the false starts, the Telegraph finally ...
- So, UK Mortgages are the cheapest in europe. Ther...
- Big Words From The Sun TONY Blair was last nigh...
- Remember when? Its not instant feedback, but its ...
- Around the Web An old Free Life Commentary from S...
- Happenings in BlogLand For daring to question the...
- That was fast It was a mere matter of hours ago t...
- Recomendation I've been recommended by Natalie So...
- Such an easy war, this. Go in defeat the Taliban,...
- Guess what folded? I never direct you to the Lib ...
- Black Boxes. Have any of the black boxes become p...
- Why oh Why? That stalwart MP Paul Marsden is a to...
- Blunkett spells it out According to David Blunket...
- Egg on face time Those eighty prisoners, were the...
- Why am I not surprised? The BBC don't like the Sw...
-
▼
December
(71)
0 comments:
Post a Comment