Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
The story is entirely believable in my opinion, including the "begging" part (I assume he was interrogated meanwhile, but that was uninteresting for the author).

I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.
Fuchs,

I understand what you're saying. In a nutshell, people occasionally do very horrible things in war. But I think you are overlooking that some elements of the article make zero sense regardless of the intent of the individuals involved. In particular, silenced rifles for an air assault raid on a building? That makes no sense. First off, what is the value of silencing your gunfire if you lose the element of surprise immediately upon your arrival? Once inside the building, the silencer would extend the length of the barrel, making it more difficult to maneuver in the building and increase the odds of a malfunction (for example, if you strike the side of the silencer on a wall or doorway, this is more problematic than if you strike the end of a muzzle). This makes about as much sense as a unit opting to carry shotguns in lieu of rifles for a movement to contact. The assertion that this detail in the story is "BS" is not based upon the morality of the actors. It is based upon a straight-face test of, "is anybody really that stupid?" Certainly no professional force is that stupid, especially if it arrives at and then leaves the scene in two extremely loud Chinooks. Do you see why that particular piece of information does not make any sense? That is not to reject the article in its entirety, but just to highlight that some of the information in the article is highly suspect.

As I noted earlier, I do not reject the possibility that some atrocity occurred. I've had tasks associated with the mitigation of black SOF in Iraq dumped onto my lap before. There were at least a few occasions when they were, in my opinion, overly reckless. But we should temper our leaps to judgment by looking at each fact, rather than the story as a whole. We do not need to believe or reject the article in its entirety. We can recognize that some elements of the article may be believable and some are not. I see some believable elements of the German article, but see much of it as obvious fabrication.

In regard to the "IO" angle, the elements that I regard as obvious fabrication would most likely be seen by most Americans as "likely fabrication" so I don't think this article is all that troubling. It will appeal to people who already hold very skewed negative views of the US military. It is preaching to that choir, isolated in its echo chamber. For those who are indifferent or hold no strong opinions or who are predisposed to assuming no ill intent on the part of our Soldiers (which, thankfully, is still the vast majority of Americans), this will be perceived as just another crackpot article, assuming that anyone even notices it (which is pretty unlikely).