Death in the corn pt 3-2 PARA in AFGHANISTAN

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

Part 3 of Michael Yon with 2 Para in afghanistan...

 

from Yon's website:

"Some of the French apparently had run out of ammunition and were captured, killed, and their uniforms stripped. Several showed signs of being killed at close range. One of them had his throat slit."

That's another load of BS which has been debunked God knows how many times...really starting to wonder about Yon's agenda, he's been distillating false informations about the french in Afghanistan for the past days.

He obviously knows rock all about french forces and should stick to what he knows, ie US and maybe brit forces

Basing his analysis on such crap reporting as that, describing a supposedly captured french female soldier (what next ?) I really can't see how this journo can be trusted

"Maybe I will make her my wife,” said Mullah Rahmatullah, a local commander, describing a captive female soldier in a boastful conversation with a researcher for The Globe and Mail."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wparatroopers20/BNStory/International/home

 

I think you need to read Yons' article again. He is saying he saw the report, not that everything the Taliban told a G&M researcher was true.

 

Check Yon's website; he currently is on a crusade to show his and Globe's reports are bona fide.

"French and NATO Intentionally Deceiving the Public" is the title of his piece.

Yeah right, another conspiration theory...and to exonerate the writer, he adds "For the record, I have no intention of publishing any part of the secret report". That's convenient...

 

Not on a crusade. stop your knee jerk.

Media reporting in Afg is getting more restricted in a number of ways, and Yon is making the point that when the truth is getting spinned and counter briefed, then it impacts more on the institution that is doing it.

His more critical point was that if parts of the coalition are not equipping or funding their troops properly (brits compensation payments, french ammo and radios), then the war is difficult to win. It is easier to pick on media sources for not telling the truth, than look internally at if the system isn't performing.

IIRC french kit and support has already been highlighted as a bit shaky WRT the hostage release op in puntland.

 

Had you read my other posts (I understand you have other things to do too), you'd had seen that the kit shortage issues are valid and that I have myself pointed them out on a number of occasions, including long before the ambush took place.

What is deplorable is that this journo is spreading blatant disinformation ( captured troops, captured french female soldiers, etc, etc) which is playing in the hands of the enemy.

All this because he has been shown a "NATO Secret" document which I include here.



A "NATO Secret" CONOPS or AAR and a "NATO secret report" are two things he seems to be unable to differentiate; instead of researching properly, he prefers to rely on a second hand and very shoddy report from a canadian paper and to then add his own layer to the already staggering amount of stupidity which has been written on the subject by people more interested on prolonging the " french surrender monkey" stereotype than anything else.

 

So, erm yeah, french ambush, very controversial, what do people think of the article actually about 2 Para?

 

Someone has an agenda... you're right.

Oh wait, it's you.

 

Well, we're going way off topic here, but I've worked quite a bit with French forces. Firstly, I found his account entirely believable, and secondly, if we ask 'who should we trust here?', I'll just say 2 words: 'Rainbow Warrior'.

On reflection, I'll say a few more: if you think we can trust the French official mouthpiece, let's also say 'Pieds Noir' (betrayal of your own people anyone?)

So to summarise: option (a): believe an independent reporter who appears to have an intelligent and sensible view that free speech and honesty is, by and large, the best policy, and that we damage our credibility otherwise.

Option (b). Believe NATO and the nation who have a proven record of treating inconvenient facts or people as something to be ignored or buried...

Tough call.

 

Adding your prejudice and bias to the situation wont change facts. The Globe report Yon bases his drivel on is nothing but BS so his "analysis" can only be flawed

Yon reports that there are or were french captives in Taleban hands - false

That they ran out of ammo - false again

that they were "bailed out" by US forces - false once more

that they had no radio contact - false yet again

Just four simple examples out of a list several assertions that were debunked not by NATO or the french general staff but by french journalists belonging to the opposition to Sarkozy such a Mr Merchet from the Libération daily or to the conservative right like Mr Guisnel from Le Point.

Both have no reason to believe the party line considering they have revealed on several occasions the lack of essential kit that the french TF suffers from.

Apart from that you are of course free to believe that the Talebans are roaming the afghani mountains with french female POWs in tow like Mr Yon believes....

 

Yon has never at any stage stated there were female PWs. As I said before I really do suggest you go back and re-read what he has actually written.

 

From Yon's website:

Yesterday (20 September 200, I linked an article in the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail concerning the Taliban ambush of French troops in Afghanistan on August 18. The article was based on a secret report that I have read very carefully. The Globe and Mail article described the contents of the report accurately.


And here is the "accurate" report that Yon bases his drivel on:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wparatroopers20/BNStory/International/home

Insurgents have spread rumours in recent weeks that they captured French soldiers during the ambush, perhaps even videotaping their executions. “Maybe I will make her my wife,” said Mullah Rahmatullah, a local commander, describing a captive female soldier in a boastful conversation with a researcher for The Globe and Mail.

Yon read the Globe. He thought it was a great report and endorsed it lock stock and barrel.

He got proven wrong by other journos and even members of the french Pn which was attacked but refuses to admit it.

Some prefer to believe an outsider who read a magazine to the testimony of people who were there.

C'est la vie.

 

Froggy, ...hop off and lets get back on topic!

 

Try reading the bits you put in bold again

ie the female captive bit wasn't in the report. Yon stated the points from the report in the article were accurate, not the whole article.

 

Yeah right, very convenient...he was able to choose from the article what was right and what was not thanks to his immense knowledge of both the incident and the french armed forces.

Look he is wrong, plain and simple and guilty of spreading false information in a particularly bad piece of pseudo-journalism.

Playing the mouthpiece to a badly researched article from the Globe was a particularly stupid thing to do just two days before an important vote in the french commons which could have put a stop on the whole mission.

You seem to think it's the way to go, that's your right. But when the french public, thanks to such blatant lies, will have had enough of Afghanistan, it'll be too late to complain that you and Canada are doing the fighting alone.

End of the topic as far as I am concerned