The Inhumanity of the US Army Laid Bare

A recent investigative piece by The New York Times sheds light on the terrifying amount of murders the US Army covered up and just how little they actually care about human life.

The report examines 1300 military assessments which have been obtained recently. Up until now merely 20 assessments were public.

The cover-up begins even before any assessment, as the military decides for itself whether any allegation of civilian casualties are “credible.” As the report shows a plethora of clear murders are covered up as “noncredible”:

JAN. 6, 2017 — MOSUL, IRAQ

The military deemed this case noncredible, finding that the target was an ISIS site and that no civilians had been harmed. But interviews with survivors, as well as video footage and photos, showed that 16 civilians were killed.

After this stage, even if they have to admit an allegation is “credible,” the nonchalant way they brush off the murders they commit is nothing less than cruel:

Yet despite this unrelenting toll, the military’s system for examining civilian casualties rarely functions as a tool to teach or assess blame.

Not only do the records contain no findings of wrongdoing or disciplinary action, but in only one instance is there a “possible violation” of the rules of engagement. That stemmed from a breach in the procedure for identifying a target. Full investigations were recommended in fewer than 12 percent of the credible cases.

In many cases, the command that approved a strike was responsible for examining it, too. And those examinations were often based on incorrect or incomplete evidence. Military officials interviewed survivors or witnesses in only two cases. Civilian-casualty reports were regularly dismissed because video showed no bodies in the rubble, yet the footage was often too brief to make a true determination.

Further, even when a case is deemed credible, and an investigation is conducted, the actual death toll is deliberately covered up for a “more palatable” amount of murder, which itself could only be a concept in their amoral democracy:

Roughly 37 percent of the allegations deemed credible stemmed from prior ground investigations by journalists or nongovernmental organizations; in those cases, the acknowledged death tolls roughly tracked outside reporting. But in the other cases, The Times’s own reporting found that the civilian toll was nearly double that acknowledged by the military. (That did not include ISIS fighters’ wives and children, whose information was difficult to verify.)

The documents identify children killed or injured in 27 percent of cases; in The Times’s ground reporting it was 62 percent. In 40 percent of the sites visited, survivors had been left with significant disabilities, which were not tracked by the military.

The cover up is not merely on the assessment level, but on the ground as well:

In an interview — speaking anonymously because of a nondisclosure agreement — an analyst who captures strike imagery said superior officers would often “tell the cameras to look somewhere else” because “they knew if they’d just hit a bad target.”

In the end, the author of the report arrives at the conclusion that the military was never concerned with reducing the civilian death toll] and that the processes of assessment were only implemented as a “psychological veneer.” But do the bloody-handed butchers of the US Armed Forces really need it? As the report writes:

In chat logs accompanying some assessments, soldiers can sound as if they are playing video games, in one case expressing glee over getting to fire in an area ostensibly “poppin” with ISIS fighters — without spotting the children in their midst.

Being the kind of person to sign up for service in the US Armed Forces, it is unsurprising for them to act like the base animals that they are. But then the question remains, why is the veneer of procedure actually there?

The answer is that the fundamental underpinning of democracy is appearance, not substance. Democracy, a system built fundamentally on the concept of compromise, has no place for truth or conviction. It, by design, empowers the kind of amoral sociopaths who are willing to do anything to achieve electoral success. So while they are unwilling to let go of the material gains of the endless wars, they know they can manage to keep the public outcry to a minimum through the smoke and mirrors of “procedure.”

This is also the reason why the US government goes after whistle blowers with such ferocity even when there is a public outcry of support for those whistle blowers. Other bloody-handed Western democracies in turn readily give their support for prosecutions of truth tellers, as seen in the recent case of Assange and the UK.

RELATED: Is Julian Assange a Terrorist?

The democratic, freedom-loving West, who ostensibly prides itself on allowing dissent and liberty, suddenly marches in lock step whenever their true nature is revealed.

Never forget that the blood of these people is also on the hands of the traitors who praised the West and their crusades of democracy. To fall far the siren song of “human rights” and “democracy” is to dishonour the memory of the martyred and the murdered.

“What happened wasn’t liberation. It was the destruction of humanity.”

-Qusay Saad, whose wife and two children were murdered by the US.

RELATED: A Step-By-Step Guide to Avoid Accountability for War Crimes: Afghanistan Edition

RELATED: Rural Afghan Women Speak, Bleeding-Heart Warmongers Can’t Hear

RELATED: Pentagon (Once Again) Finds Killing Muslim Civilians “Lawful”

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“In many cases, the command that approved a strike was responsible for examining it”
It’s like expecting from a cat to guard the milk. Simply ludicrous.