Obummer Willing To Kill Civilians, But Not Torture Terrorists!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

hellblazer

New member
Sep 20, 2008
3,019
86
0
The Teleprompter-In-Chief wants to make sure terrorists get their blankies, but doesn't care if Afghani civilians die. Say what?





By RAHIM FAIEZ and JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez And Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writers – 41 mins ago


KABUL – Bombing runs called in by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from fighting between Taliban militants and Afghan and international troops, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The U.S. promised a joint investigation.


A provincial councilman said he saw about 30 bodies, many of them women and children, after villages bought them to a provincial capital.
Overall death toll estimates varied widely. Villagers estimated from 70 to well over 100 civilians may have died, according to local and regional officials. But no government official could confirm such a toll.


Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. Karzai meets with President Barack Obama in Washington on Wednesday.


In remarks at a Washington think tank Tuesday, Karzai alluded to the problem of civilian casualties without mentioning the bombing deaths. He said the success of the new U.S. war strategy depends on "making sure absolutely that Afghans don't suffer — that Afghan civilians are protected."
"This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality," he added in a speech at the Brookings Institution. Asked later what he meant by that remark, Karzai said, "We must be conducting this war as better human beings," and recognize that "force won't buy you obedience."


The latest fighting broke out Monday soon after Taliban fighters — including Taliban from Pakistan and Iran — massed in Farah province in western Afghanistan, said Belqis Roshan, a member of Farah's provincial council. The provincial police chief, Abdul Ghafar, said 25 militants and three police officers died in that battle near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area near the border with Iran.


Villagers told Afghan officials that they put children, women, and elderly men in several housing compounds in the village of Gerani — about three miles to the east — to keep them safe. But villagers said fighter aircraft later targeted those compounds, killing a majority of those inside, according to Roshan and other officials.


The top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, confirmed that U.S. coalition forces participated in the battle. Julian said five wounded Afghans sought medical treatment at a military base in Farah.
"We offer our condolences to those affected by today's operations and will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened," Julian said.


Abdul Basir Khan, another member of Farah's provincial council, said Farah's governor had hoped to send a delegation to the bombing site Tuesday to investigate, but that officials decided not to go because of how dangerous the region was. It wasn't clear when investigators might reach the village.
The United Nations often takes a lead role in investigating high-profile civilian death cases, but the U.N. doesn't have any officials in Farah province.


A Western official in Kabul said Marine special operations forces — which fall under the U.S. coalition — had called in the airstrikes. The official asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to release the information.
Khan said villagers brought bodies, including women and children, to Farah city to show the province's governor. Khan estimated that villagers brought about 30 bodies.


"It was difficult to count because they were in very bad shape. Some had no legs," Khan said.
Farah's hospital treated at least three wounded villagers, including an 11-year-old boy whose chest, arms and shoulders were completely bandaged. A girl named Shafiqa had bandages under her chin. Two of her toes were severed in the fighting.


"We were at home when the bombing started," she told AP Television News. "Seven members of my family were killed."
Khan said villagers told him more than 150 civilians had died, but he said he had no way to know whether that claim was true.
The issue of civilian deaths is complicated in Afghanistan. Journalists and human rights workers can rarely visit remote battle sites to verify claims of civilian casualties. U.S. officials say Taliban militants sometimes force villagers to lie and say civilians have died in coalition strikes.
But the villagers' claims on Tuesday were bolstered by the wounded at Farah's hospital shown on AP Television News. And Khan's account of several truckloads of bodies taken to Farah city added more weight to the claims.


Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of Bala Baluk, said he saw dozens of bodies when he visited the village of Gerani.
"These houses that were full of children and women and elders were bombed by planes. It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number, it is too early," Qadderdan, who no longer holds a government position, told The Associated Press by telephone. "People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands."
Qadderdan said the civilian casualties were "worse than Azizabad," a reference to an August 2008 strike in a district immediately to the north of Bala Baluk.


An Afghan government commission found that an operation by U.S. forces killed 90 civilians in Azizabad, a finding backed by the U.N. The U.S. originally said no civilians died; a high-level investigation later concluded 33 civilians were killed.


After the Azizabad killings, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, announced a directive last September meant to reduce such deaths. He ordered commanders to consider breaking away from a fire-fight in populated areas rather than pursue militants into villages.
 


Obama has been slaughtering brown civilians in Afghanistan since he got into office. Big deal.

If you're a righty, this is a problem for you, as you are supposed to love killing all brown people because they are Al Qaeda., but when a black man does it, you feel, sorta cheated.

If you're a lefty, this is a problem for you, because you claim to want peace but recognize that it is necessary for Obama to perform mass abortions by bombing in order to stop global warming.

Basically, whatever your political ideology, murder of civilians can always be justified. Remember, if a democracy uses a nuke, it's not a weapon of mass destruction and the dead people are only collateral damage.
 
Obama has been slaughtering brown civilians in Afghanistan since he got into office. Big deal.

If you're a righty, this is a problem for you, as you are supposed to love killing all brown people because they are Al Qaeda., but when a black man does it, you feel, sorta cheated.

If you're a lefty, this is a problem for you, because you claim to want peace but recognize that it is necessary for Obama to perform mass abortions by bombing in order to stop global warming.

Basically, whatever your political ideology, murder of civilians can always be justified. Remember, if a democracy uses a nuke, it's not a weapon of mass destruction and the dead people are only collateral damage.

LOL 100% true, that's the really funny thing about politics. Both sides can always justify their actions, but only when it's their guy in office.
 
you know you could make some nice monies by posting this on a political blog.
here you'll just get schooled by master debaters, until someone drops some manboobs on the table.

...moobs, if you will.

often hairy, droopy, sickly looking moobs from men of all ages, races, and creeds.
moobs without political bias, without ego-serving agendas.
moobs, that simply wish to be.

yes my friends -- these moobs are what we should be focusing on in these troubled times.
these moobs represent all that we have fought for, all that we have killed for, all that our sons and daughters have died for.

our moobs speak truth when exposed, and they are often exposed when we need them most. our moobs serve us well when the media attempts to spin the corporate sanctioned use of military force to secure opium production in foreign lands into a holy and moral crusade against terror, throwing punditry from both sides into a steaming pit of intellishit where blame is laid on interchangable political mouthpieces packaged and presented to be in power.

when these periodic debates have no clear victor and have devolved into worseless personal attacks and fecal flinging, I find comfort when I am blessed with the vision of some dude's feminine bosom -- it serves as a reminder that yes, this shit is useless and yes, a manboob trumps any and all arguments that have been or could be conceived.

in fact no response can compare to the venerable moob in its capacity to express so eloquently the collective frustration and disappointment of populations from all walks of life, in any number of countries around the world, in response to such masterfully presented propaganda pieces -- courtesy not of the current nor past administration, but of the corporate interests which fund them.

so I thank you, anonymous moobers around the world.
your femininish, oft female-hormone-addled breasteses have given us so much hope in this dark hour of human existence.
 
please don't use words like SH$% and FUC# here, it's offensive. If you can't cuss, get the fuck out
 
It'd be nice if you could negotiate with 7th century retards who think their god would like to see you either kill or convert anyone who not only doesn't buy their fairy tale, but doesn't buy the most dogmatic radical view of it.

It would be nice if saying nice words to them or giving them a hug would keep them from voyaging out into the modern/civilized world and killing large numbers of innocent people on purpose which has other side effects such as shaking global financial systems at their core. (9/11 -> unprecedentedly low interest rates for unprecedentedly long period -> financial bubble -> global recession)


If that was the world we lived in poppies wouldn't be growing in Afghanistan, cotton candy would, and the rugged mountains would be made not out of jagged rock, but gummy bears.


Here's some moobs before I list this thread in the turd filter:

 
not really a side effect of taliban action, mostly a side effect of corporate greed and republican admin turning a blind eye.

which has other side effects such as shaking global financial systems at their core. (9/11 -> unprecedentedly low interest rates for unprecedentedly long period -> financial bubble -> global recession)
 
i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.
 
not really a side effect of taliban action, mostly a side effect of corporate greed and republican admin turning a blind eye.

When funds are too cheap for too long of a time people act stupid, because they're getting rich no matter what they do or how retarded they are. I've described the system before as being a ferrari enzo without brakes. 9/11 was the spark plug which ingnited it, the fed was the drive shaft which transmitted the energy and made the wheels turn, good regulations should have been the brakes, but there weren't any or they were defective.
 
Spot on.

i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.
 
please don't use words like SH$% and FUC# here, it's offensive. If you can't cuss, get the fuck out

LOL!

manboobs1.jpg

my.php
 
i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.

What he said.
 
It'd be nice if you could negotiate with 7th century retards who think their god would like to see you either kill or convert anyone who not only doesn't buy their fairy tale, but doesn't buy the most dogmatic radical view of it.
But here is the point. Most of the attackers on 9/11 were not from Afghanistan. Most Afghans are illiterate and have never used a telephone, let alone watched TV. Most of them have absolutely no concept of where America is on the map of the world, let alone where they are!

They do live like it is the 7th century, but the country has no infrastructure to speak of. It really is a bunch of goat herders living in caves.

So this notion that they pose some huge risk to the world is simply not true. They fight like motherfuckers when the British, Russians and now Americans try to occupy them, but the Afghan people have never waged a war of aggression.

Even most of the NATO allies are refusing to send more troops to Afghanistan, no one in Western Europe sees the Afghanis as any sort of threat, not even the British or Spanish, both of whom had their own terrorist attacks.

For example, how many people can find Afghanistan on a map? Been at war with them for 8 years. Anyone know where it is? What about the language? Anyone know what they speak? How about the population? The capital city? Besides poppies, what is their biggest export? Import?

A real tragedy of the media, is that Taliban is conflated with Al Qaeda. They are two completely different groups. It would be like confusing Nicholas Sarkozy with Gordon Brown.
 
i don't have an opinion either way but i find it kinda ironic that the afghan people even though they weren't responsible took to the streets on 9/11 and cheered and burned american flags. Now they're upset that we aren't doing more to protect them from the people they were cheering for.
I don't doubt this may have happened in Iran or Pakistan, but I don't think it would have happened in Afghanistan. Afghans are 98% poorer than Americans, so find your average American, take away 98% of his quality of life, and you have someone too poor to have clean water, let alone buy a flag from Talibans'R Us to burn in a street march.

Of course, the media loves to mix that stuff up. If you really pay attention during network news, they are notorious for running graphics and images that are not related to the story, but could be confused as being part of the story. I remember seeing Russian Missle trucks being shown while MSNBC was talking about Iranian protests. They had nothing to do with one another, but the message clearly was that Iranian protests = Iranian Missile attacks.

good regulations should have been the brakes, but there weren't any or they were defective.
Regulations are the grease. They create pockets of criminality no one can see.
 
But here is the point. Most of the attackers on 9/11 were not from Afghanistan. Most Afghans are illiterate and have never used a telephone, let alone watched TV. Most of them have absolutely no concept of where America is on the map of the world, let alone where they are!

The taliban allowed them to operate there though because they shared, more or less, the same backwards religious beliefs.


So this notion that they pose some huge risk to the world is simply not true. They fight like motherfuckers when the British, Russians and now Americans try to occupy them, but the Afghan people have never waged a war of aggression.

The risk they pose is not theoretical or hypothetical. The risk the taliban posed was manifested in 9/11 by allowing terrorists safe haven and training ground.

Even most of the NATO allies are refusing to send more troops to Afghanistan, no one in Western Europe sees the Afghanis as any sort of threat, not even the British or Spanish, both of whom had their own terrorist attacks.

I don't know if this is true. I don't know if they don't want to send troops because they don't see it as a threat or for other reasons.

But whether they see it as a threat or not does not confirm or invalidate whether or not it is a threat. Like I said, it's not theoretical or hypothetical to propose that the taliban are a threat. They've proven to be a threat to us in the past. Even if it was not them who attacked us, they were accomplices. Even if their intentions were not bad and they allowed Al Qaeda to set up shop there only because it is in their culture to extend hospitality and unflinching support and protection to a guest, they were still enablers of terrorists which attacked sites around the globe including the U.S.



It would be like confusing Nicholas Sarkozy with Gordon Brown.

I know the difference and I still think they should be bombed to hell in order to be kept as weak as possible. But unlike the OP, I don't really give a shit who's giving the orders to do it.
 
At the risk of taking this completely offtopic, I always wondered what would happen if Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and they just carried on with tending their goats, harvesting their poppies, and then one day, SlapChop Vince donated them a million slap chops so they could have happy lives.

What would happen to 7th century goat farmers if their real exposure to western culture and convenience was the slap chop? How would their society change?

Would it really be bikini, martini, linguine and the end of shariah law?
 
I think i read in the divinci code somewhere that the slapchop will bring world peace, but not before there is a manufacturing shortage causing WW3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.