RSS
From the Associated Press:
US, Taliban set peace signing for America’s longest war
By MATTHEW LEE
43 minutes agoWASHINGTON (AP) — America’s longest war may finally be nearing an end.
The United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal Saturday after a conflict that outlasted two U.S. commanders in chief and is now led by a third eager to fulfill a campaign promise to extricate America from “endless wars.” …
In the Qatari capital of Doha, America’s top diplomat will stand with leaders of the Taliban, Afghanistan’s former rulers who harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as they plotted, and then celebrated, the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people.
It will likely be an uncomfortable appearance for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who privately told a conference of U.S. ambassadors at the State Department this week that he was going only because President Donald Trump had insisted on his participation, according to two people present.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
That’s the end of bacha bazi
. For now.
Over there.
This will be Trump’s greatest legacy. History will remember our post-9/11 military campaigns as what they were – a colossal national and human disgrace. If it was Bin Laden’s plan to lure the US into an un-winnable quagmire in Afghanistan on 9/11, he succeeded.
You mean you actually believe it?
How old are you?
Were not impotent before the world, still will control the air above Afghanistan largely. The money saved can help many people in the US via reduced taxation, less debt wtc.Replies: @bomag
These wars matter to the "who's on top" question in Afghanistan and Iraq. But from the American perspective they simply do not matter. Note, i'm well aware they matter to individuals affected--killed, maimed. But to America's trajectory as a nation they just don't matter.
In the long run--between "what's for breakfast tomorrow" and "heat death of the universe"--the one thing that really matters in terms of the quality of life you have and the quality of nation that your children inherit is ... immigration.
Or enemies know this and seek to drown you and the American nation in immigrants--ending our Republic of free citizens and replacing it with a balkanized, cheap-labor, diversitopia that they direct, boss and loot. If Trump makes no significant progress on stopping this, he's not just an irrelevancy but a collossal, "blown opportunity" failure.
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
Denying China a land corridor to Iran and projecting non-niceties at Russia´s underbelly and China´s Wild West and last not least the New Silk Road have never been about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaida, Taliban or female genitals (arguably the stupidest and most counterproductive of pretenses) - not even about the fabled Unocal pipeline.
The US isn´t going anywhere ... all this is just a pre-election stunt - and it isn´t going to work on men who have lived in war for two generations and been fucked over by Americans with annoying regularity every two years or so. Though if history is any guide - if I were Ghani I´d be shopping for FSB bodyguards :P
No white genocide after all! BBC releasing alternate history drama where blacks enslave whites. Before snarking, familiarize yourself, if you have not already, with the show Scandal and its popularity with black women.
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/
I could understand abducting slaves, as the Muslims have done, though I find it hard to imagine they'd have been much use in the mines of Africa.
But go to England, why? Fog shortage?
You mean the longest kinetic war; the century-and-a-half war of the government against the people continues unabated.
Well, at least Trump is making excellent use of the current news coverage focused on coronavirus. This is probably the ideal time to get this kind of thing done – people aren’t paying too much attention.
Not good enough, not even close to fast enough. Who is judging whether or not the Taliban is meeting counter-terrorism conditions and what is that timetable? Bring them all home within 30 days, zero visas for Afghans who “helped” us too.
Didn’t we get involved around 1982? Something like that.Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
In the meantime, there might be a war between NATO member Turkey and Russia.
I think it’s pretty likely that war will be avoided again. But over the past few years we’ve had several such crises, none of which resulted in a big war. There will come one such crisis which will result in a big war. It’s just inevitable. The First World War didn’t start immediately as a result of the first big great power crisis. There were several such crises, and the participants slowly learned that they can behave recklessly, because, after all, it never resulted in a war. Until, one day, it did.
But it's a reminder that this NATO thing needs to be either trimmed or flat out ended. Turkey's Syrian adventurism shouldn't be my problem. (Anymore than they were interested in supporting our middle east adventursim.)Replies: @reiner Tor
That's the key point here: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the dead Turks weren't.
A sovereign government and its allies have the legal and moral right to defend against invading military. So Turkey can't run to Teacher (the UN or NATO) and bleat.
Anyway... as I was sayin': Russia knows that the US has no stomach for land war in Europe - the US is finished as a 'power' that near-peers need to worry about (the US hasn't taken on a near-peer by itself since 1812).
They also know that if the US balks then NATO will sit on its hands.
Turkey's fucktard-in-chief decided he wanted to flex on Syria, and it's backfiring horribly. If you're LARPing as a potentate, you best not be shown the be impotent if some of your Janissaries get splashed.
If the Turkish people have any sense they will give Erdogan the same treatment that Italy and Romania gave their respective preening fuckwits (Mussolini and Ceaușescu, respectively).Replies: @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Dacian Julien Soros
Now if there is a bombing in Kabul next week that kills a bunch of people connected to the Taliban, we will have pretty good idea whether or not Trump has any control over the MIC.
The war against the “Barbary pirates” has been much longer.
And the war of the American state against its people has gone on nearly as long as that.
Except it’s millennia, not centuries. As far as just the USA is concerned, if the idiot dichotomy of Dem/GOP had been transcended by the election of Ron Paul to the White House, this would have happened on January 21, 2009, and teenage soldiers who hadn’t yet been born on 9-11-2001 wouldn’t still be dying in Afghanistan (and Iraq). We still need Nuremberg 2.0.
That wasn’t his plan.
Maybe Trump wants troops and ships away from China, especially if he has been informed that one of our agencies there for the military games in October/November might have acidentally done something to emit this virus in any way.
A trend in the last 4 years was the return of Al-Qaeda to safe havens in Afghanistan
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/al-qaeda-returns-to-afghanistan-amid-fears-of-new-jihadist-alliance-with-isis-and-taliban-a7010651.html
Still must make sure the Taliban fears the US enough to keep its promise to squash Al-Qaeda. Running too fast out of Afghanistan will give Taliban impression of impunity.
The idea that the Taliban 'fear' the US is laughable.
They have been beating the US for the entire conflict - when you're the insurgency, you win just by continuing to operate. That's how the weak win wars.
The US wants out, so it has sought terms.
Translation from Empire-speak: the US is acknowledging its inability to impose its will on Afghanistan, and is asking the Taliban to stop kicking it in the balls.
If you're the Empire and you leave before you get a formal surrender from the opposition, that counts as a loss. If you have spent almost two decades trying to beat an insurgency and you approach your enemy and ask for terms, that counts as a loss (it's practically a surrender).
.
Sportsball analogies can sometimes be useful, so here's a particularly laboured one.
Imagine if Tyson Fury called out a 100lb 85 year old, and at the end of 11 rounds the old guy was still on his feet and Fury's corner approached the old guy's corner and sought an agreement to stop the bout and call a draw.
What would that do to Fury's reputation? Do you think his rep would be intact because it wouldn't count as a 'loss'?
Nope: he would forever be known as the heavyweight who failed to beat that old guy that time. More to the point: anyone interested could watch the tape and see why Fury couldn't beat the old guy, and adapt their own strategies accordingly.
But yeah... "oderint dum metuant" - lol nobody who hates the US fears them anymore.
(Obviously 'US' in this context means the US Death Machine: government, military, 'intelligence' torturers etc. The people outside the Death Machine are never a problem, even if they're retarded compared to the rest of the West).
Wonder why Pompeo is reluctant to participate? Could be he senses an agreement similar to the Paris Peace Accords which basically let the U.S. scrape South Vietnam off it’s shoe, and left it to its fate?
It’s not from the joke Guardian headline generator, it’s real:
–AOC misspeaks about science being a religion (“believes”), and Pence’s defunding of a gay program stemming from a lack of belief in AIDS, which, whatever his motives, is self-evidently untrue.
–Ted Cruz pointed out AOC’s misstatememt in a tweet.
–The Guardian: “Ted Cruz tried to mock AOC’s scientific knowledge, it didn’t end well … He may have picked the wrong opponent. Ocasio-Cortez, as it transpires, has an award in microbiology from MIT.”
Some of you might be wondering why a doctoral microbiology degree from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology would be described as an “award.” What the British paper refers to is an award AOC got in high school for a science fair project, literally one of those cardboard triptych things where you describe dissolving teeth in Coca Cola. This was before she demonstrated her stoichiometric fluency with a stint in mixology.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/28/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ted-cruz-coronavirus
By the way, how about them Democrats pledging to not make the Corona response political inbetween frequent cheap shots across the aisle?
Already Twitter is aflame over this with “what about the women? Are they safe?”
Let us never forget Obama’s transformation of this conflict into a moronic and costly nation-building designed to turn Kabul into a gender equity paradise. All backed with U.S. firepower of course. A perfect summation of the neoliberal worldview.
The “War on Terror” has cost $6.4 trillion. That’s $20,000 per American, or about $80,000 for an average 4-person American family.
The median net worth for an America family is about $100,000. So something to consider.
7,000 soldiers have died in these wars. 7,000 American contractors killed in these wars.
Over 1 million U.S. soldiers injured in these wars.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaruiz/2013/11/04/report-a-million-veterans-injured-in-iraq-afghanistan-wars/
Over 1.3 million foreign civilians dead.
The above are conservative estimates.
The median net worth for an America family is about $100,000. So something to consider.
So there's still about $8 trillion left to plunder
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
There’s tens of thousands of people over there who have been siphoning Coalition money and living like kings for years.
I have long worried about what those people will do once there’s no more treasure for them to steal.
Some of them will want to come over here. What steps are we going to take to make sure they can’t do that? A lot of them will have millions in overseas bank accounts. We could give them investment green cards, I hope we do not.
I do not want to reward these SOBs!
They're called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 "Homeland Security." That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That's not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn't anyone speak up against that? It's primarily because there's a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being "unpatriotic."
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you're support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I've watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the "troops." Every single game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5zM9Jg1P8
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named "Chris Kyle" went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFf-ARi1F8k
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today's America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.Replies: @newrouter, @dfordoom, @The Wild Geese Howard, @bomag
This will be Trump’s greatest legacy.
You mean you actually believe it?
How old are you?
The median net worth for an America family is about $100,000. So something to consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Iqufzf1Hk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVr0MSEW2SU
7,000 soldiers have died in these wars. 7,000 American contractors killed in these wars.
Over 1 million U.S. soldiers injured in these wars.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaruiz/2013/11/04/report-a-million-veterans-injured-in-iraq-afghanistan-wars/
Over 1.3 million foreign civilians dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn8Q9A6OHTQ
The above are conservative estimates.Replies: @Felix Krull, @JohnnyWalker123
The “War on Terror” has cost $6.4 trillion. That’s $20,000 per American, or about $80,000 for an average 4-person American family.
The median net worth for an America family is about $100,000. So something to consider.
So there’s still about $8 trillion left to plunder
The median net worth for an America family is about $100,000. So something to consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Iqufzf1Hk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVr0MSEW2SU
7,000 soldiers have died in these wars. 7,000 American contractors killed in these wars.
Over 1 million U.S. soldiers injured in these wars.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaruiz/2013/11/04/report-a-million-veterans-injured-in-iraq-afghanistan-wars/
Over 1.3 million foreign civilians dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn8Q9A6OHTQ
The above are conservative estimates.Replies: @Felix Krull, @JohnnyWalker123
By the way, you always hear posters here claim that Whites are endlessly “empathetic” and “guilt ridden.” Supposedly, Whites are obsessed with the welfare of the Non-White races.
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush’s Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as “offensive” to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
Here was Bush’s response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.
The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a “bad person,” without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of “empathy” towards “people of color,” why didn’t the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn’t it controversial for a White woman to mock a “man of color”?
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was “worth the cost” that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn’t that racist?
Didn’t John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn’t John McCain sing “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann”?
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make “sand glow in the dark.” If Whites are “guilt ridden,” would they be cheering that?
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn’t that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so “self-hating,” then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There’s something called a “revealed preference.” It means that if you want to understand how people think, don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of “revealed preference.” It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don’t particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there’s no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of “White guilt” is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it’s usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.
One reason this stuff "disappeared" from the media was it so obviously a phony concocted number, without any real "human interest" element to back it up. The Lancet study was basically an assertion that there would be more Iraqis around if the US hadn't invaded. Similar studies before the invasion claimed sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
In fact, Iraq's population was 25 million in 2003 and 38 million today--a continuous 50% increase. The 30 years war it is not.
Actual dead--violent deaths--for that entire interval seem to be roughly 200K. And half of those are after the US left. And even of those, the US killed maybe something on the order of 20-30,000 people, and the rest are from insurgents--including plenty of non-Iraqi Sunnis--plus criminal gangs, tribal feuds, regular old murder. The US conducted about the "cleanest" war by any invading force in human history. Usually once an army shows up there's a whole lot of killing--and raping and starving.
Now whether an Iraqi thinks this was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam or a big US war crime ... depends almost entirely on their sectarian identity. For Shias and Kurds--sure. Get the bastard out. For Sunnis--hell no. All of which tells you the joint isn't a real nation to start with.
~~
BTW, if our standard is the Lancet one, then Jewish/leftist minoritarianism in the US has killed around 50 million white people. White people who should exist and but do not exist--a few murdered, but mostly aborted or simply never conceived--under the new anti-white regime, using feminism, homosexuality, anti-natalism, affirmative action, crime, drugs and immigration displacement.
Whites in the US have suffered a stupendous demographic contraction and displacement ... unlike Iraqis.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Lot
There's your answer .
America is full of black Africans Native American Indians from South America and Asians.
Populations of Iran Iraq and Libya are White. America is mixed race with a huge population of the dregs, blacks
Black and Brown and Yellow Lives don't matter a damn if the Blacks and Browns and Yellows are unlucky enough to be in their own countries.
White American empathy and altruism are in fact merely cheap virtue-signalling.
No, it was important to get payback. Gratitude to the dead and maimed Anericans.
Were not impotent before the world, still will control the air above Afghanistan largely. The money saved can help many people in the US via reduced taxation, less debt wtc.
I don’t know that this was his plan, but his followers today are certainly happy how everything turned out.
I have long worried about what those people will do once there's no more treasure for them to steal.
Some of them will want to come over here. What steps are we going to take to make sure they can't do that? A lot of them will have millions in overseas bank accounts. We could give them investment green cards, I hope we do not.
I do not want to reward these SOBs!Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
There are millions of people here that are siphoning govt money and living like Kings.
They’re called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 “Homeland Security.” That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That’s not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn’t anyone speak up against that? It’s primarily because there’s a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being “unpatriotic.”
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you’re support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I’ve watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the “troops.” Every single game.
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named “Chris Kyle” went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today’s America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.
Are you able to shoot a target at 5000+ feet with a rifle and a scope?
The business of America is war.
I estimate that at least half of every defense dollar is spent on waste, fraud, and sheer bureaucracy.
I deal directly with plenty of gov't agencies. They are all plenty grafty, etc. The OP point is that at least it should be channeled through American citizens, as opposed to watching foreign doctors come in here and load up on medicare fraud.
One of my many fantasies* was that President Trump was going to reform military contracting rules and existing contracts** to severely curtail their profits and therefore warmongering. At least institute special taxes to prevent war millionaires (millionaire contractors! How quaint). The cost of the military is heavily the cost of contracts. At nearly a trillion bucks a year, the military is so expensive that it threatens our security. The military used to have people who oversaw contracts, especially monopoly producers. I don’t remember when that was ended, but I’m sure contractors lobbied our worthless Congresscritters for it, abetted by generals who saw big consulting contracts in their futures.
*Politcal fantasies, not the other kind.
**How can we modify existing contracts? Easy, voluntary 10% price reductions annually or they don’t qualify for future contracts.
He was probably told that the best he could hope for was to delay the “ditching the helicopters off the coast of Nam” moment until after the election. We’ll probably hear “we won every battle; but the leftist Democrats stabbed us in the back” in perpetuity after that.
Bin Laden’s 4D Chess plan was to make American air travel as unpleasant as possible for decades. He knocked that one out the park.
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/Replies: @Rob, @Change that Matters, @Pop Warner, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Blubb
Pretty weak tea. Slavery doesn’t have many advocates who will say, ‘oh my God! What if I were a slave?’ Sure, slavery has some apologists, who think US blacks are better of than Africans and Africa would still have been a shithole, but I think most ‘racists’ and almost all white nationalists wish slavery had never happened in the US. Maybe there are some intellectual fans of capitalism who are glad the presence of blacks here made the US a lot less socialist than Europe, but that’s a mighty small fan base.
Good! September 11, 2020 will mark the 19th anniversary of 9/11. It would be inevitable that a child not even born then will be killed or wounded in Afghanistan. There was never anything to be ‘won’ in Afghanistan after the toppling of Mullah Omar’s regime which took a couple of months. The rest was ‘nation building’ in a tribal society.
Or, that wasn’t his plan.
If this is “Trump’s greatest legacy” then his presidency will be an abysmal failure.
These wars matter to the “who’s on top” question in Afghanistan and Iraq. But from the American perspective they simply do not matter. Note, i’m well aware they matter to individuals affected–killed, maimed. But to America’s trajectory as a nation they just don’t matter.
In the long run–between “what’s for breakfast tomorrow” and “heat death of the universe”–the one thing that really matters in terms of the quality of life you have and the quality of nation that your children inherit is … immigration.
Or enemies know this and seek to drown you and the American nation in immigrants–ending our Republic of free citizens and replacing it with a balkanized, cheap-labor, diversitopia that they direct, boss and loot. If Trump makes no significant progress on stopping this, he’s not just an irrelevancy but a collossal, “blown opportunity” failure.
Combat deaths in Afghanistan have averaged less than twenty per year over the last five years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#Casualties_by_month_and_year
By way of comparison, about 450 people were getting murdered annually in Chicago over the same time period. So whatever our Afghanistan deployment is at this point, it might stretch the definition a bit to call it an active “war.” Just the same, lets get the eff out of there ASAP.
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
Was.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/lancet-despair-doesnt-kill-defending-whiteness-does/
The methodology was quite good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5vD_Ub2K_c
They asked families to tell them how many people have died. 92% of deaths were supported by a death certificate presented.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60058-0/fulltext
Lancet deliberately avoided recording deaths in war-torn places like Fallujah. So to the extent that the survey is off, they likely UNDERESTIMATED the true death toll.
I think it's pretty likely that war will be avoided again. But over the past few years we've had several such crises, none of which resulted in a big war. There will come one such crisis which will result in a big war. It's just inevitable. The First World War didn't start immediately as a result of the first big great power crisis. There were several such crises, and the participants slowly learned that they can behave recklessly, because, after all, it never resulted in a war. Until, one day, it did.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Kratoklastes
Fortunately we didn’t elect the scumbag Romney, so that shouldn’t drag in the US.
But it’s a reminder that this NATO thing needs to be either trimmed or flat out ended. Turkey’s Syrian adventurism shouldn’t be my problem. (Anymore than they were interested in supporting our middle east adventursim.)
FYI Steve:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4835742002
Round and round it goes where it stops nobody knows.
Also, what happens when the data science kids start sounding like our fellow commenter Nicholas Stix?
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/Replies: @Rob, @Change that Matters, @Pop Warner, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Blubb
What would London look like if Blacks enslaved whites? We don’t BBC fantasies to imagine it. Read Paul Kersey on this site to see it in action daily. Hint: it’s nothing like the trailer at that link.
But it's a reminder that this NATO thing needs to be either trimmed or flat out ended. Turkey's Syrian adventurism shouldn't be my problem. (Anymore than they were interested in supporting our middle east adventursim.)Replies: @reiner Tor
You seem remarkably ignorant of your government’s foreign policy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-pompeo/u-s-reviewing-options-to-assist-turkey-after-attack-in-syria-pompeo-idUSKCN20M3AT
Trump’s foreign minister thinks that when a NATO member sends troops to the territory of a neighbor to assist jihadists, and the troops of the neighbor are shooting back, then it’s “aggression.”
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/Replies: @Rob, @Change that Matters, @Pop Warner, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Blubb
I guarantee a big part of the show will be its black female writers drumming up lurid romances between the black female protagonist(s) and handsome white slave men. Is it retribution against black men for fetishizing white women or did the bedwench never leave the master’s chambers?
Where is the evidence that Bin Laden was even behind the September 11th attacks?
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he’s never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops “lose” Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden “hide” in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn’t Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How’d Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he’d likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must’ve missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly “killed” in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein’s sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was “killed” in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals…… Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There’s a dispute over whether he fought back. It’s not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
Instead, starting with the buried at sea nonsense, everything that subsequently came out - or really what didn't come out - only solidified my suspicions.
Not a single photograph of the corpse has leaked out? Not one?
Not believable.Replies: @J.Ross
Same thing for all of your "facts" - WTC7 did collapse so there must have been something that caused it to collapse. It wasn't impossible or else it would still be standing. Occam's Razor says it was related to the airplanes that struck the nearby skyscrapers the same day, but maybe it was really a Mossad demolition team or space aliens who just by coincidence picked that day to demolish it.
I still don’t understand why Trump ‘flipped’ on getting out of Syria and finally making peace, which he campaigned on.
In Dec. 2018, during a dispute about the border wall (he was set to again get $0.000 for the wall, another humiliation), out of the blue he tweeted “US is getting out of Syria,” which many interpreted as Trump “shooting a few hostages” to show he was serious on the border wall.
That was about a week before Christmas. Within a few days, Secretary of Defense Mattis resigned in protest against those tweets, and said he could no longer serve the US government if the US was getting out of Syria. Tweetman said, “There’s the door, jerk.” Then he reversed his position and stayed in Syria anyway, with no real change afaict. Was it all a con? What was the point of all the tweeting? What was the point of Mattis leaving?
This is why I like to refer to DJT as “Tweetman.”
(If you ever read the Philip Giraldi columns that are posted at Unz, you’ll see he has grown more and more anti-Trump for similar reasons. Few are as powerful as “Musical Chairs in the White House,” Feb. 25, 2020.)
It was in 2006 when the study was done.
The methodology was quite good.
They asked families to tell them how many people have died. 92% of deaths were supported by a death certificate presented.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60058-0/fulltext
Lancet deliberately avoided recording deaths in war-torn places like Fallujah. So to the extent that the survey is off, they likely UNDERESTIMATED the true death toll.
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
Johnny, making appeals to leftist “authority” here is not particularly compelling.
One reason this stuff “disappeared” from the media was it so obviously a phony concocted number, without any real “human interest” element to back it up. The Lancet study was basically an assertion that there would be more Iraqis around if the US hadn’t invaded. Similar studies before the invasion claimed sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
In fact, Iraq’s population was 25 million in 2003 and 38 million today–a continuous 50% increase. The 30 years war it is not.
Actual dead–violent deaths–for that entire interval seem to be roughly 200K. And half of those are after the US left. And even of those, the US killed maybe something on the order of 20-30,000 people, and the rest are from insurgents–including plenty of non-Iraqi Sunnis–plus criminal gangs, tribal feuds, regular old murder. The US conducted about the “cleanest” war by any invading force in human history. Usually once an army shows up there’s a whole lot of killing–and raping and starving.
Now whether an Iraqi thinks this was “worth it” to get rid of Saddam or a big US war crime … depends almost entirely on their sectarian identity. For Shias and Kurds–sure. Get the bastard out. For Sunnis–hell no. All of which tells you the joint isn’t a real nation to start with.
~~
BTW, if our standard is the Lancet one, then Jewish/leftist minoritarianism in the US has killed around 50 million white people. White people who should exist and but do not exist–a few murdered, but mostly aborted or simply never conceived–under the new anti-white regime, using feminism, homosexuality, anti-natalism, affirmative action, crime, drugs and immigration displacement.
Whites in the US have suffered a stupendous demographic contraction and displacement … unlike Iraqis.
The U.S., by the way, never truly "left."
Even if it did "leave," so what? Didn't the U.S. destroy their govt and military back in 2003, leaving the whole place in chaos?It's pretty simple. If you invade a country an additional 1 million die, you're responsible for all 1 million deaths. Not a fraction of that. All those people would be alive if not for America.
You're 20,000-30,000 estimate is wrong. The Lancet study estimated that 31% of the deaths were due to America, 24% due to other forces, and the remainder were unknown. So if you do the math, perhaps 600,000 Iraqis were directly shot down by U.S. coalition forces.Half the country wants Trump out. If China invaded America to "liberate" us from Trump and killed your family in the process, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy about it.
America, by the way, hasn't been a "real nation" for large fractions of its history. In particular, during the Civil War, the Ellis Island era, and probably even today. For some reason, I doubt too many Americans would "welcome" an invading force that killed 1 million people.Well, you're wrong about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XabUEmE7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTwIG_y-oM0
According to estimates, about 5 million Iraqis have had to flee their homes because of a war. Unlike Whites, Iraqis don't have leafy suburbs with big McMansions to move to.
Your assertion that the Iraq War is the "cleanest" conflict ever is at odds with reality.
Does this look like a "clean" conflict?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yr-LaMhvro
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hC2oW5P8
Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. A large fraction of Americans (especially Whites) attach zero value to foreign lives, while attaching significant value to the lives of their fellow countrymen. So say what you want about Whites, but they aren't especially "empathetic" or "guilt ridden."
The 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 are given infinitely more attention than the 1+ million Iraqis who've been killed by America. Does that sound like something that'd be happening if Whites were "noble-minded" and "guilt ridden" people?
By the way, U.S. sanctions (following the first Gulf War) killed 500,000 Iraqi children who couldn't access food and medicine. American Whites have never faced anything of the scale, other than during the Civil War (something which White Southerners are still mad about even today).
If you're wondering why the Iraqi population growth rate is so high, it's due to the high child mortality rate. Birthrates tend to be extremely high in areas with high child mortality, as parents can't be sure as to how many our their children will die young. Not all of that is America's fault, but a lot of it is.
As for Whites, most of them don't want to take care of large families. They prefer a more self-oriented middle-class life. That's why the White population (and Asian population) isn't increasing that quickly anymore.
For you to compare that to millions of people being widowed, orphaned, displaced, or killed in Iraq is pretty remarkable.Replies: @Jack D
It’s a cozy little worldview that Ron Unz, Corbynist dhimmi-leftists, and the Iranian government like to promote.
I find it incomprehensible, though so retarded I’m not willing to make much effort at it.
There’s someone else here who comments as “Amerimutt Golums,” which is a 4chan meme of an idiotic and morbidly obese “american” who is the slave of Jewish manipulators.
https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/315/104/58c.png
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
I thought this killing Bin Laden charade was phony within hours of hearing about it, but I kept thinking something would come out proving my inclination wrong.
Instead, starting with the buried at sea nonsense, everything that subsequently came out – or really what didn’t come out – only solidified my suspicions.
Not a single photograph of the corpse has leaked out? Not one?
Not believable.
If Trump supporters threatened to vote for whoever the Democrat was, if Trump backs Erdogan, would Trump pay any attention?
Instead, starting with the buried at sea nonsense, everything that subsequently came out - or really what didn't come out - only solidified my suspicions.
Not a single photograph of the corpse has leaked out? Not one?
Not believable.Replies: @J.Ross
Just ask one of the people involved in the — oh no, wait, you can’t, they all died in the same helicopter crash.
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/Replies: @Rob, @Change that Matters, @Pop Warner, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Blubb
Wasn’t that called the Barbary Pirates?
One reason this stuff "disappeared" from the media was it so obviously a phony concocted number, without any real "human interest" element to back it up. The Lancet study was basically an assertion that there would be more Iraqis around if the US hadn't invaded. Similar studies before the invasion claimed sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
In fact, Iraq's population was 25 million in 2003 and 38 million today--a continuous 50% increase. The 30 years war it is not.
Actual dead--violent deaths--for that entire interval seem to be roughly 200K. And half of those are after the US left. And even of those, the US killed maybe something on the order of 20-30,000 people, and the rest are from insurgents--including plenty of non-Iraqi Sunnis--plus criminal gangs, tribal feuds, regular old murder. The US conducted about the "cleanest" war by any invading force in human history. Usually once an army shows up there's a whole lot of killing--and raping and starving.
Now whether an Iraqi thinks this was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam or a big US war crime ... depends almost entirely on their sectarian identity. For Shias and Kurds--sure. Get the bastard out. For Sunnis--hell no. All of which tells you the joint isn't a real nation to start with.
~~
BTW, if our standard is the Lancet one, then Jewish/leftist minoritarianism in the US has killed around 50 million white people. White people who should exist and but do not exist--a few murdered, but mostly aborted or simply never conceived--under the new anti-white regime, using feminism, homosexuality, anti-natalism, affirmative action, crime, drugs and immigration displacement.
Whites in the US have suffered a stupendous demographic contraction and displacement ... unlike Iraqis.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Lot
No, it was actual deaths that took place. Not assertions about how many more people would be around. In 92% of cases, actual death certificates were produced. You should read the study methodology.
That’s a dramatic underestimate. The real number is about 1 million as of now.
The U.S., by the way, never truly “left.”
Even if it did “leave,” so what? Didn’t the U.S. destroy their govt and military back in 2003, leaving the whole place in chaos?
It’s pretty simple. If you invade a country an additional 1 million die, you’re responsible for all 1 million deaths. Not a fraction of that. All those people would be alive if not for America.
You’re 20,000-30,000 estimate is wrong. The Lancet study estimated that 31% of the deaths were due to America, 24% due to other forces, and the remainder were unknown. So if you do the math, perhaps 600,000 Iraqis were directly shot down by U.S. coalition forces.
Half the country wants Trump out. If China invaded America to “liberate” us from Trump and killed your family in the process, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be happy about it.
America, by the way, hasn’t been a “real nation” for large fractions of its history. In particular, during the Civil War, the Ellis Island era, and probably even today. For some reason, I doubt too many Americans would “welcome” an invading force that killed 1 million people.
Well, you’re wrong about this.
According to estimates, about 5 million Iraqis have had to flee their homes because of a war. Unlike Whites, Iraqis don’t have leafy suburbs with big McMansions to move to.
Your assertion that the Iraq War is the “cleanest” conflict ever is at odds with reality.
Does this look like a “clean” conflict?
How about this?
Your post is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. A large fraction of Americans (especially Whites) attach zero value to foreign lives, while attaching significant value to the lives of their fellow countrymen. So say what you want about Whites, but they aren’t especially “empathetic” or “guilt ridden.”
The 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 are given infinitely more attention than the 1+ million Iraqis who’ve been killed by America. Does that sound like something that’d be happening if Whites were “noble-minded” and “guilt ridden” people?
By the way, U.S. sanctions (following the first Gulf War) killed 500,000 Iraqi children who couldn’t access food and medicine. American Whites have never faced anything of the scale, other than during the Civil War (something which White Southerners are still mad about even today).
If you’re wondering why the Iraqi population growth rate is so high, it’s due to the high child mortality rate. Birthrates tend to be extremely high in areas with high child mortality, as parents can’t be sure as to how many our their children will die young. Not all of that is America’s fault, but a lot of it is.
As for Whites, most of them don’t want to take care of large families. They prefer a more self-oriented middle-class life. That’s why the White population (and Asian population) isn’t increasing that quickly anymore.
For you to compare that to millions of people being widowed, orphaned, displaced, or killed in Iraq is pretty remarkable.
Do we get credit for all the people that Saddam did NOT kill during that period or is this some phony kind of math where we get the debits but not the credits?And yet Saddam still had plenty of money to build more palaces and buy weapons.
You are just spouting Leftist dribble.
To the extent (admittedly not much nowadays) that the recruits come from the ghetto of Chicago, they might reduce their risk of death by leaving the ghetto and being deployed to Afghanistan.
One reason this stuff "disappeared" from the media was it so obviously a phony concocted number, without any real "human interest" element to back it up. The Lancet study was basically an assertion that there would be more Iraqis around if the US hadn't invaded. Similar studies before the invasion claimed sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
In fact, Iraq's population was 25 million in 2003 and 38 million today--a continuous 50% increase. The 30 years war it is not.
Actual dead--violent deaths--for that entire interval seem to be roughly 200K. And half of those are after the US left. And even of those, the US killed maybe something on the order of 20-30,000 people, and the rest are from insurgents--including plenty of non-Iraqi Sunnis--plus criminal gangs, tribal feuds, regular old murder. The US conducted about the "cleanest" war by any invading force in human history. Usually once an army shows up there's a whole lot of killing--and raping and starving.
Now whether an Iraqi thinks this was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam or a big US war crime ... depends almost entirely on their sectarian identity. For Shias and Kurds--sure. Get the bastard out. For Sunnis--hell no. All of which tells you the joint isn't a real nation to start with.
~~
BTW, if our standard is the Lancet one, then Jewish/leftist minoritarianism in the US has killed around 50 million white people. White people who should exist and but do not exist--a few murdered, but mostly aborted or simply never conceived--under the new anti-white regime, using feminism, homosexuality, anti-natalism, affirmative action, crime, drugs and immigration displacement.
Whites in the US have suffered a stupendous demographic contraction and displacement ... unlike Iraqis.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Lot
600,000 is a statistical number they pull out of their Ass. Do a search for 600,000 children and see it just means ‘a lot’. Remember Clinton’s Iraqi sanctions were starving 600,000 children before the Second War even began.
They raided the hideout and found Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin.
The U.S., by the way, never truly "left."
Even if it did "leave," so what? Didn't the U.S. destroy their govt and military back in 2003, leaving the whole place in chaos?It's pretty simple. If you invade a country an additional 1 million die, you're responsible for all 1 million deaths. Not a fraction of that. All those people would be alive if not for America.
You're 20,000-30,000 estimate is wrong. The Lancet study estimated that 31% of the deaths were due to America, 24% due to other forces, and the remainder were unknown. So if you do the math, perhaps 600,000 Iraqis were directly shot down by U.S. coalition forces.Half the country wants Trump out. If China invaded America to "liberate" us from Trump and killed your family in the process, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy about it.
America, by the way, hasn't been a "real nation" for large fractions of its history. In particular, during the Civil War, the Ellis Island era, and probably even today. For some reason, I doubt too many Americans would "welcome" an invading force that killed 1 million people.Well, you're wrong about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XabUEmE7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTwIG_y-oM0
According to estimates, about 5 million Iraqis have had to flee their homes because of a war. Unlike Whites, Iraqis don't have leafy suburbs with big McMansions to move to.
Your assertion that the Iraq War is the "cleanest" conflict ever is at odds with reality.
Does this look like a "clean" conflict?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yr-LaMhvro
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hC2oW5P8
Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. A large fraction of Americans (especially Whites) attach zero value to foreign lives, while attaching significant value to the lives of their fellow countrymen. So say what you want about Whites, but they aren't especially "empathetic" or "guilt ridden."
The 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 are given infinitely more attention than the 1+ million Iraqis who've been killed by America. Does that sound like something that'd be happening if Whites were "noble-minded" and "guilt ridden" people?
By the way, U.S. sanctions (following the first Gulf War) killed 500,000 Iraqi children who couldn't access food and medicine. American Whites have never faced anything of the scale, other than during the Civil War (something which White Southerners are still mad about even today).
If you're wondering why the Iraqi population growth rate is so high, it's due to the high child mortality rate. Birthrates tend to be extremely high in areas with high child mortality, as parents can't be sure as to how many our their children will die young. Not all of that is America's fault, but a lot of it is.
As for Whites, most of them don't want to take care of large families. They prefer a more self-oriented middle-class life. That's why the White population (and Asian population) isn't increasing that quickly anymore.
For you to compare that to millions of people being widowed, orphaned, displaced, or killed in Iraq is pretty remarkable.Replies: @Jack D
Who says? In what courtroom? By whose calculation? Why won’t George Bush die in a jail cell like Milosevic if he is responsible for killing a million people?
Do we get credit for all the people that Saddam did NOT kill during that period or is this some phony kind of math where we get the debits but not the credits?
And yet Saddam still had plenty of money to build more palaces and buy weapons.
You are just spouting Leftist dribble.
One reason this stuff "disappeared" from the media was it so obviously a phony concocted number, without any real "human interest" element to back it up. The Lancet study was basically an assertion that there would be more Iraqis around if the US hadn't invaded. Similar studies before the invasion claimed sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
In fact, Iraq's population was 25 million in 2003 and 38 million today--a continuous 50% increase. The 30 years war it is not.
Actual dead--violent deaths--for that entire interval seem to be roughly 200K. And half of those are after the US left. And even of those, the US killed maybe something on the order of 20-30,000 people, and the rest are from insurgents--including plenty of non-Iraqi Sunnis--plus criminal gangs, tribal feuds, regular old murder. The US conducted about the "cleanest" war by any invading force in human history. Usually once an army shows up there's a whole lot of killing--and raping and starving.
Now whether an Iraqi thinks this was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam or a big US war crime ... depends almost entirely on their sectarian identity. For Shias and Kurds--sure. Get the bastard out. For Sunnis--hell no. All of which tells you the joint isn't a real nation to start with.
~~
BTW, if our standard is the Lancet one, then Jewish/leftist minoritarianism in the US has killed around 50 million white people. White people who should exist and but do not exist--a few murdered, but mostly aborted or simply never conceived--under the new anti-white regime, using feminism, homosexuality, anti-natalism, affirmative action, crime, drugs and immigration displacement.
Whites in the US have suffered a stupendous demographic contraction and displacement ... unlike Iraqis.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Lot
You’re wasting your breath with him. Jews are always all-powerful oppressors, Americans always their evil puppets, Muslims always the innocent victims.
It’s a cozy little worldview that Ron Unz, Corbynist dhimmi-leftists, and the Iranian government like to promote.
I find it incomprehensible, though so retarded I’m not willing to make much effort at it.
There’s someone else here who comments as “Amerimutt Golums,” which is a 4chan meme of an idiotic and morbidly obese “american” who is the slave of Jewish manipulators.
They're called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 "Homeland Security." That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That's not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn't anyone speak up against that? It's primarily because there's a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being "unpatriotic."
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you're support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I've watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the "troops." Every single game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5zM9Jg1P8
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named "Chris Kyle" went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFf-ARi1F8k
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today's America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.Replies: @newrouter, @dfordoom, @The Wild Geese Howard, @bomag
> Some guy named “Chris Kyle” went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? <
Are you able to shoot a target at 5000+ feet with a rifle and a scope?
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
” Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.”
There’s your answer .
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
Do you ever stop talking?
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
Where is Ayman al Zawahiri? He is a much better “hider” than bin Laden.
That 600,000 is probably the number arrived at by the 17 intelligence agencies.
I think you’re right. Something will happen and we’ll have to keep our men there for a while, then we’ll have to send more in and it will go in as before.
Didn’t we get involved around 1982? Something like that.
Yes, you are right. However, this is nothing new. President Kennedy actually ordered the pull-out from Vietnam on October 5, 1963 - he approved the recommendations in Section I B ((1 - 3) of the Taylor/McNamara Report from the week before and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. There was to be no formal announcement of this policy, and it was to be implemented gradually, but there were no strings attached. JFK wanted us out of Vietnam, and was determined to see it through,, no matter what happened on the ground over there.Of course, "something" did indeed happen seven weeks later, and JFK's policy was reversed under LBJ.https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htmWe'll see what form that same "something" shall take this time around . . .
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
Iranians Iraqis and Libyans ( real Libyans not black immigrants) are White and those countries are a lot Whiter than America.
America is full of black Africans Native American Indians from South America and Asians.
Populations of Iran Iraq and Libya are White. America is mixed race with a huge population of the dregs, blacks
Is that really true?
Way back in 2006, the Lancet (which is an extremely prestigious academic health journal) estimated that Bush's Iraq War had killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. After being in the news for less than a few days, the story just disappeared. I remember at the time, the story made lots of people angry. Angry not because of the enormous of people that America had killed, angry because it was seen as "offensive" to President Bush and the troops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531277/Iraq-war-has-killed-650000-says-study.html
Then remember when Bush went to Iraq and that journalist threw a shoe at him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAXN_ZGlx8
Here was Bush's response, which seems to lack all self-awareness.The interesting thing was that the media presented the shoe thrower as a "bad person," without going into depth as to why he might be angry. If Whites are so full of "empathy" towards "people of color," why didn't the media make more of an issue of this?
Then remember when Colonel Gaddafi was killed? Hillary mocked him. Why isn't it controversial for a White woman to mock a "man of color"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
What about the time that Madeline Albright said it was "worth the cost" that 90s-era sanctions on Iraq had killed over 500,000 Iraqi children? Isn't that racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Didn't John McCain joke about selling cigarettes to Iranians to give them cancer?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-mccain-iran/mccain-jokes-about-killing-iranians-with-cigarettes-idUSN0832180920080709
Didn't John McCain sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Ted Cruz talked about carpet bombing Iraq to make "sand glow in the dark." If Whites are "guilt ridden," would they be cheering that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRyBAURKuc
If 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and in response over 1 million Muslims were killed, isn't that a disproportionate response? If Whites are so "self-hating," then how can they be supportive of all these foreign wars?
There's something called a "revealed preference." It means that if you want to understand how people think, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
The fact that Americans (especially American Whites) are so comfortable with killing extreme numbers of foreigners in response to a relatively small terrorist attack is an example of "revealed preference." It tells you that despite all the rhetoric in the media (which is mostly controlled by Jewish people), most American Whites don't particularly value the lives of Non-White foreigners and are more than comfortable killing them if the need arises. Even if there's no need, American Whites okay with killing them anyway.
American Whites do value certain things. Such as their personal safety. Their middle-class consumerist lifestyle of suburban mcmansions, oversized SUVs, big screen tvs, and eating out all the time. Sportsball. If anything should threaten any of that, Americans are willing to kill enormous numbers of people to defend all that.
American Whites do not, however, value the lives of Non-White foreigners. So all this talk of "White guilt" is BS.
When was the last time any U.S. politican suffered any political consequences or serious damage to their reputation for being too bloodthirsty to Non-White foreigners? Maybe like the late 60s and early 70s?
It is a fact that an American politician can vote for policies that kill, injure, torture, maim, and displace millions of Non-White foreigners and not face any type of political reprecussions. To the extent that any reprecussions ever do exist for these type of things, it's usually because the public becomes appalled that too many American troops are dying. Not because of foreign casualties. For example, during Vietnam, most of the protests were related to U.S. youth being drafted and send to fight overseas. Once the draft was ended and the military became all-volunteer again, overseas wars stopped being protested much.Replies: @ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @donut, @Alden, @dfordoom
Yep, I agree. White Americans are not allowed to express their hatred of non-whites at home. So they vent their hatred on non-whites in non-white countries. It’s difficult not to see American foreign policy as plain old-fashioned racial hatred. Or at least it’s difficult not to see white Americans’ support for their nation’s foreign policy as motivated by plain old-fashioned racial/ethnic hatred.
Black and Brown and Yellow Lives don’t matter a damn if the Blacks and Browns and Yellows are unlucky enough to be in their own countries.
White American empathy and altruism are in fact merely cheap virtue-signalling.
Were not impotent before the world, still will control the air above Afghanistan largely. The money saved can help many people in the US via reduced taxation, less debt wtc.Replies: @bomag
Dunno. Seems we thrashed about rather ineffectively, while being invaded by ~2 million foreigners a year and spending huge amounts of money for something, something.
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
Who cares? Not me
They're called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 "Homeland Security." That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That's not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn't anyone speak up against that? It's primarily because there's a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being "unpatriotic."
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you're support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I've watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the "troops." Every single game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5zM9Jg1P8
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named "Chris Kyle" went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFf-ARi1F8k
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today's America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.Replies: @newrouter, @dfordoom, @The Wild Geese Howard, @bomag
Yep. The abject grovelling to the military by conservatives is particularly pathetic and disgusting but liberal these days are almost as bad,.
The business of America is war.
They're called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 "Homeland Security." That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That's not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn't anyone speak up against that? It's primarily because there's a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being "unpatriotic."
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you're support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I've watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the "troops." Every single game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5zM9Jg1P8
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named "Chris Kyle" went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFf-ARi1F8k
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today's America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.Replies: @newrouter, @dfordoom, @The Wild Geese Howard, @bomag
I’d add that American military spending is extremely inefficient.
I estimate that at least half of every defense dollar is spent on waste, fraud, and sheer bureaucracy.
Let us never forget Obama's transformation of this conflict into a moronic and costly nation-building designed to turn Kabul into a gender equity paradise. All backed with U.S. firepower of course. A perfect summation of the neoliberal worldview.Replies: @Redneck farmer
That started under Bush II.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4835742002
Round and round it goes where it stops nobody knows.Replies: @Redneck farmer
When we did real life math back in the 80s, the people who sucked at math said, “I’m good at math, I just can’t do word problems.”
Also, what happens when the data science kids start sounding like our fellow commenter Nicholas Stix?
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
You need to learn to use
the MORE tag. A good rule of thumb is to put pictures, media, and lunacy all below the fold.
I’m surprised to be agreeing almost completely with Johnny Walker and DforDoom here, along with disagreeing with AnotherDad for a change.
I don’t think this nonchalance about casualties is about taking out on brown people what they can’t take out here due to PC. I think its about just not giving a damn at all about them. If these wars had been declared by Congress for reasons of defending the actual country of America*, it’d be one thing to say that you don’t care how many enemy are killed, or even the more the better.
These wars are no such thing. The deaths of Americans are an order-of-magnitude lower than during the Vietnam War years averaged. Most Americans DON’T know anyone who’s had anyone sent home in a bodybag. This is all just infotainment as people get into all these details about who’s supporting who, what about ISIS, which regime needs to go next … etc.
Most Americans still can’t comprehend that the US has become the bully of the world since the end of the Cold War, squandering decades worth of good will built up during the successful fight against Communism, along with, yeah, multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. That “thank the troops” business is crap that I won’t participate in.
Go back and remember, if you were a U2 fan, the album The Joshua Tree. It had some great music, but one that wasn’t a great tune and pissed me off with its anti-American preaching was Bullet the Blue Sky. I’ve got to say that the song applies pretty well now – see Peak Stupidity‘s “Outside it’s America”.
.
* I think nobody believes that “fighting ’em over there, so we won’t have to fight them over there” crap anymore, after the millions of people from over there have been allowed to come here.
But it's not just entertainment. The appeal for many people is that it's a blood sport. People get killed. That makes it more exciting than football or professional wrestling. As long as the people getting killed are just dirty foreigners who don't count because they aren't even Americans.
So there's an edge of sadism to it.Yes. And being a bully is only fun when you get to pick on people who are weak and powerless. In the current geopolitical situation the weak and powerless means pretty much every country outside the US.
What's worrying is that a lot of Americans are increasingly inclined to put Russia into the weak and powerless category. And many are inclined to see China as a weak dorky kid who could easily be beaten up now but might in a few years grow up to be too big to be bullied. So they'd like to beat China up now.
What are the chances that Americans will upheld their side of the “deal”? It’s not not even a treaty, it won’t be even discussed in the Senate. One day, either because Melania use her teeth during “love” making, or when the Talibans will be impacted by some natural disaster, The Orange Gibbon will take his word back. He does it to his co-nationals, he does it to the Russians and Chinese who could nuke him, he did it to countless flip-flop wearers across the third world. His predecessors screwed Saddam, Gaddafi, the Jong Uns, months after shaking hands and making “deals”.
Talibans can’t be that stupid. This deal will be over by the time the beautiful Pompeo get back to his equally Rubensian wife.
Didn’t we get involved around 1982? Something like that.Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
Alden said: “Something will happen and well have to keep our men there for a while, then we’ll have to send more in and it will go in as before.”
Yes, you are right.
However, this is nothing new. President Kennedy actually ordered the pull-out from Vietnam on October 5, 1963 – he approved the recommendations in Section I B ((1 – 3) of the Taylor/McNamara Report from the week before and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. There was to be no formal announcement of this policy, and it was to be implemented gradually, but there were no strings attached. JFK wanted us out of Vietnam, and was determined to see it through,, no matter what happened on the ground over there.
Of course, “something” did indeed happen seven weeks later, and JFK’s policy was reversed under LBJ.
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm
We’ll see what form that same “something” shall take this time around . . .
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
The whole Bin Laden thing is an obvious lie/invention. Nothing of the official story makes any sense. The American average public is so retarded, they fall for anything. P. T. Barnum and H. L. Mencken were right.
Still must make sure the Taliban fears the US enough to keep its promise to squash Al-Qaeda. Running too fast out of Afghanistan will give Taliban impression of impunity.Replies: @ben tillman, @Kratoklastes
Whatever. I’m still waiting for a reason to believe Al Qaeda is actually a real thing.
How does a sickly man on dialysis coordinate a sophisticated terrorist attack that happens thousands of miles away in a country that he's never visited?
How does he even understand U.S. airport security procedures and the intricate mechanics of staging a hijacking?
Why did Bin Laden initially deny responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks? (See link below)
https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
How did the U.S. troops "lose" Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001?
How did Bin Laden "hide" in a huge mansion in Abbotabad (a city with a huge Pakistani military presence) for a decade?
If he was getting regular medical treatment for dialysis, who was facilitating that medical treatment? If the Pakistanis were really helping us search for Bin Laden for all these years, wouldn't Pakistani hospitals be on the lookout for a tall Arab man with kidney issues? How'd Bin Laden get that treatment and avoid detection?
Even if Bin Laden was getting regular dialysis, how did he survive for all those years anyway? Most people on dialysis survive 2-4 years, while getting regular medical treatment. How did Bin Laden survive for 10 years? Especially given the poor third world care he'd likely be getting in Pakistan, 10 years is a LONG time. Even more especially, just think of how Bin Laden must've missed regular appointments when U.S. and Pakistani troops were looking for him.
Then when Bin Laden was supposedly "killed" in 2011, there was no video released of the raid. There were no pictures released of the corpse. Why? When the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein's sons in 2003, they immediately released pictures of the corpses.
After Bin Laden was "killed" in 2011, he was immediately buried at sea. Why? According to the U.S. govt, he was buried at sea in respect of Islamic rituals...... Except, according to Islam, dead people are always buried in the ground. Never at sea. If the U.S. govt needed a place to secretly bury him, they have lots of locations. Like Diego Garcia.
When Bin Laden died, there were lots of conflicting stories released around that time. According to some stories, he was armed. According to other stories, unarmed. There's a dispute over whether he fought back. It's not clear if he was killed inside or taken outside and executed. Why so much confusion? How hard is it to get the story straight?
How did WTC 7 collapse?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg/400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNG_Q7uN74Replies: @Patrick in SC, @Bragadocious, @Ron Mexico, @Alden, @Rob, @Dumbo, @Jack D
Everything is impossible until it actually happens and then it’s not impossible anymore. If Bin Laden couldn’t survive without dialysis and yet he survived, either your assumption is wrong to begin with (i.e. he didn’t really need dialysis) or else he was getting it somewhere and somehow. Just because we don’t know how and where doesn’t mean he wasn’t getting it – it just means that we don’t know how.
Same thing for all of your “facts” – WTC7 did collapse so there must have been something that caused it to collapse. It wasn’t impossible or else it would still be standing. Occam’s Razor says it was related to the airplanes that struck the nearby skyscrapers the same day, but maybe it was really a Mossad demolition team or space aliens who just by coincidence picked that day to demolish it.
Funny how such numbers seem always to consist of a 6 followed by a lot of zeros. E.g., Heinrch Graetz on CHMIELNICKI AND THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS OF POLAND BY THE COSSACKS:
The number of Jewish families said to have perished in ten years of this war (600,000) is certainly exaggerated, but the slaughtered Jews of Poland may well be rated at a quarter of a million.
They're called defense contractors.
Our former Vice President Cheney (who used to be CEO of Halliburton) gave many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton. It was later revealed that they had engaged in enormous amounts of billing fraud.
The total cost of the Iraq War alone is $5 trillion. Then you have other foreign wars. Then you have all the domestic spending on post-911 "Homeland Security." That adds up.
People here sometimes say that America is going bankrupt because it gives too much in healthcare, education, and food stamps to NAMs. That's not quite correct. America is going bankrupt because it spends too much on the military and other types of national defense.
Why doesn't anyone speak up against that? It's primarily because there's a very extreme form of right-wing political correctness that protects the U.S. military from all criticism. So everybody is afraid of being accused of being "unpatriotic."
Even if the military goes overseas and wastes trillions of dollars (while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians), you're support to cheer them on. Even liberals dare not utter even the most mild condemnation of the U.S. military.
Corporate America, which is supposedly dominated by liberal, is endlessly praises the military too.
Above all else, the entertainment industry loves kissing @ss to the military.
In literally sportsball game that I've watched post-911, there have been non-stop shout outs to the "troops." Every single game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5zM9Jg1P8
Why? Lots of people work hard every day, without getting any shout outs. Lots of people have difficult and dangerous jobs. Why do we worship the military so much?
Remember this movie? Some guy named "Chris Kyle" went to Iraq and sniped a lot of people. Then they made a movie glorifying him. Why? I thought Hollywood was run by liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFf-ARi1F8k
The fact is that of the various flavors of political correctness that exist in today's America, one of the more extreme is worship of the U.S. military.Replies: @newrouter, @dfordoom, @The Wild Geese Howard, @bomag
Well, the military is plenty woke and cucked, so I’m not sure how much they help the right/conservative cause.
I deal directly with plenty of gov’t agencies. They are all plenty grafty, etc. The OP point is that at least it should be channeled through American citizens, as opposed to watching foreign doctors come in here and load up on medicare fraud.
Talibans can't be that stupid. This deal will be over by the time the beautiful Pompeo get back to his equally Rubensian wife.Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom
What’s the matter, not enough human sacrifice for you, demon? You’re upset that not enough bodies are being sacrificed to Ba’al, like under previous regimes?
Only a true demon reacts with anger at the prospect of winding down pointless wars. If you were human, you would be ashamed of yourself.
Your daily reminder that up to half of the posters here are not even conservative traditionalists at all, but degraded leftist trolls/blackpillers who have nothing to live for other than tearing down those who try to do good in this world. Doing the right thing never comes easily in the US gov of today. It will always be fought every step of the way by embedded leftists, giving endless fodder for the pathetic naysayers. This world is a constant battle of good vs. evil, and it will never be otherwise.
It's the other way around: Americans are on offensive in their country, and have been for decades, and they will always be.
This game of good American, bad American is not working. Your claim that YOU want peace is denied by everything you did. have you voted for warmonger Obama? or for warmonger McCain? for murderous Clintons? or for murderous Trump? You validated their war. Talibans never did that.
You got it wrong, kid … all wrong.
Denying China a land corridor to Iran and projecting non-niceties at Russia´s underbelly and China´s Wild West and last not least the New Silk Road have never been about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaida, Taliban or female genitals (arguably the stupidest and most counterproductive of pretenses) – not even about the fabled Unocal pipeline.
The US isn´t going anywhere … all this is just a pre-election stunt – and it isn´t going to work on men who have lived in war for two generations and been fucked over by Americans with annoying regularity every two years or so. Though if history is any guide – if I were Ghani I´d be shopping for FSB bodyguards 😛
I think it's pretty likely that war will be avoided again. But over the past few years we've had several such crises, none of which resulted in a big war. There will come one such crisis which will result in a big war. It's just inevitable. The First World War didn't start immediately as a result of the first big great power crisis. There were several such crises, and the participants slowly learned that they can behave recklessly, because, after all, it never resulted in a war. Until, one day, it did.Replies: @AnotherDad, @Kratoklastes
Russia knows that since the US has just surrendered in Afghanistan, the US has no stomach for involving itself in any conflict that results from Russia doing its job in Syria.
That’s the key point here: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the dead Turks weren’t.
A sovereign government and its allies have the legal and moral right to defend against invading military. So Turkey can’t run to Teacher (the UN or NATO) and bleat.
Anyway… as I was sayin’: Russia knows that the US has no stomach for land war in Europe – the US is finished as a ‘power’ that near-peers need to worry about (the US hasn’t taken on a near-peer by itself since 1812).
They also know that if the US balks then NATO will sit on its hands.
Turkey’s fucktard-in-chief decided he wanted to flex on Syria, and it’s backfiring horribly. If you’re LARPing as a potentate, you best not be shown the be impotent if some of your Janissaries get splashed.
If the Turkish people have any sense they will give Erdogan the same treatment that Italy and Romania gave their respective preening fuckwits (Mussolini and Ceaușescu, respectively).
What seems sure is that Russia has a relatively weak hand in Syria (basically just two bases), and Erdogan has now fully committed himself to defending Idlib, while Russia and Assad seem determined to take the city and the surrounding areas. Something must give, and backing down by either side looks increasingly to lead to a loss of face. So it’s an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
It’s also interesting that Pompeo is now talking of Turkey’s right to “self-defense.” A pretty expansive definition of self-defense, if you ask me.
As I said, probably something will be worked out. Nothing ever happens. But such crises (like the First and the Second Cruise Missile Strike at Syria in Response to Assad Gassing His Own People Crisis, the Soleimani Crisis, etc.) cannot go on forever, without one of them eventually leading to a big conflagration. Likely not this time, but it’s bound to happen, sooner or later.
We are somewhat chaotic, but in a laissez-faire, live-and-let-live way. We don't do lynching, despite what (((they))) say.
Still must make sure the Taliban fears the US enough to keep its promise to squash Al-Qaeda. Running too fast out of Afghanistan will give Taliban impression of impunity.Replies: @ben tillman, @Kratoklastes
Priceless. Absolutely fucking priceless.
The idea that the Taliban ‘fear’ the US is laughable.
They have been beating the US for the entire conflict – when you’re the insurgency, you win just by continuing to operate. That’s how the weak win wars.
The US wants out, so it has sought terms.
Translation from Empire-speak: the US is acknowledging its inability to impose its will on Afghanistan, and is asking the Taliban to stop kicking it in the balls.
If you’re the Empire and you leave before you get a formal surrender from the opposition, that counts as a loss. If you have spent almost two decades trying to beat an insurgency and you approach your enemy and ask for terms, that counts as a loss (it’s practically a surrender).
.
Sportsball analogies can sometimes be useful, so here’s a particularly laboured one.
Imagine if Tyson Fury called out a 100lb 85 year old, and at the end of 11 rounds the old guy was still on his feet and Fury’s corner approached the old guy’s corner and sought an agreement to stop the bout and call a draw.
What would that do to Fury’s reputation? Do you think his rep would be intact because it wouldn’t count as a ‘loss’?
Nope: he would forever be known as the heavyweight who failed to beat that old guy that time. More to the point: anyone interested could watch the tape and see why Fury couldn’t beat the old guy, and adapt their own strategies accordingly.
But yeah… “oderint dum metuant” – lol nobody who hates the US fears them anymore.
(Obviously ‘US’ in this context means the US Death Machine: government, military, ‘intelligence’ torturers etc. The people outside the Death Machine are never a problem, even if they’re retarded compared to the rest of the West).
My point was that the Americans will restart the war. I never said that tomorrow Talibans should bomb America. The truth is that they never did it until now. They are a bunch of flip-flop wearers, facing a nuclear power which sent hundreds of thousands of heavily-armed savages.
It’s the other way around: Americans are on offensive in their country, and have been for decades, and they will always be.
This game of good American, bad American is not working. Your claim that YOU want peace is denied by everything you did. have you voted for warmonger Obama? or for warmonger McCain? for murderous Clintons? or for murderous Trump? You validated their war. Talibans never did that.
That's the key point here: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the dead Turks weren't.
A sovereign government and its allies have the legal and moral right to defend against invading military. So Turkey can't run to Teacher (the UN or NATO) and bleat.
Anyway... as I was sayin': Russia knows that the US has no stomach for land war in Europe - the US is finished as a 'power' that near-peers need to worry about (the US hasn't taken on a near-peer by itself since 1812).
They also know that if the US balks then NATO will sit on its hands.
Turkey's fucktard-in-chief decided he wanted to flex on Syria, and it's backfiring horribly. If you're LARPing as a potentate, you best not be shown the be impotent if some of your Janissaries get splashed.
If the Turkish people have any sense they will give Erdogan the same treatment that Italy and Romania gave their respective preening fuckwits (Mussolini and Ceaușescu, respectively).Replies: @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Dacian Julien Soros
Libya not working out so hot either.
I don't think this nonchalance about casualties is about taking out on brown people what they can't take out here due to PC. I think its about just not giving a damn at all about them. If these wars had been declared by Congress for reasons of defending the actual country of America*, it'd be one thing to say that you don't care how many enemy are killed, or even the more the better.
These wars are no such thing. The deaths of Americans are an order-of-magnitude lower than during the Vietnam War years averaged. Most Americans DON'T know anyone who's had anyone sent home in a bodybag. This is all just infotainment as people get into all these details about who's supporting who, what about ISIS, which regime needs to go next ... etc.
Most Americans still can't comprehend that the US has become the bully of the world since the end of the Cold War, squandering decades worth of good will built up during the successful fight against Communism, along with, yeah, multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. That "thank the troops" business is crap that I won't participate in.
Go back and remember, if you were a U2 fan, the album The Joshua Tree. It had some great music, but one that wasn't a great tune and pissed me off with its anti-American preaching was Bullet the Blue Sky. I've got to say that the song applies pretty well now - see Peak Stupidity's "Outside it's America".
.
* I think nobody believes that "fighting 'em over there, so we won't have to fight them over there" crap anymore, after the millions of people from over there have been allowed to come here.Replies: @Hail, @dfordoom
Here are the final lines of “Bullet the Blue Sky,” supposedly recorded in the second half of 1986 and released on their album in March 1987:
One reading of this, in future years, is that the “run, run into the arms of America” is a pretty good line to poetically denote immigration to the US, which is definitely the legacy of the El Salvador intervention.
From wiki:
In classic-America, the “El Salvador contribution” to total US population stock was some number so low that we can only but round it to 0.0%; today it could be as high as 0.75% nationally, concentrated mainly in California and the Washington DC area, and in the latter they have been the dominant Hispanic group since the late ’80s, I think.
All for what?
The immigration angle here was definitely unintended by Bono when he wrote the lyrics ca. late summer or fall 1986. Another thing he did not expect was the Reagan Amnesty of late in that year (1986) that set the stage for later chain-migration out of El Salvador.
That's the key point here: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the dead Turks weren't.
A sovereign government and its allies have the legal and moral right to defend against invading military. So Turkey can't run to Teacher (the UN or NATO) and bleat.
Anyway... as I was sayin': Russia knows that the US has no stomach for land war in Europe - the US is finished as a 'power' that near-peers need to worry about (the US hasn't taken on a near-peer by itself since 1812).
They also know that if the US balks then NATO will sit on its hands.
Turkey's fucktard-in-chief decided he wanted to flex on Syria, and it's backfiring horribly. If you're LARPing as a potentate, you best not be shown the be impotent if some of your Janissaries get splashed.
If the Turkish people have any sense they will give Erdogan the same treatment that Italy and Romania gave their respective preening fuckwits (Mussolini and Ceaușescu, respectively).Replies: @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Dacian Julien Soros
We don’t know what the USA has the stomach for. Getting out of the useless war in Afghanistan is a way to free up resources for a confrontation elsewhere. There were lots of similar miscalculations in 1914, for example the German leadership didn’t take it seriously that Tsar Nicholas would protect a doubly regicidal regime in Serbia, and thus most of them went on a vacation for two weeks in July, at the height of the crisis.
What seems sure is that Russia has a relatively weak hand in Syria (basically just two bases), and Erdogan has now fully committed himself to defending Idlib, while Russia and Assad seem determined to take the city and the surrounding areas. Something must give, and backing down by either side looks increasingly to lead to a loss of face. So it’s an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
It’s also interesting that Pompeo is now talking of Turkey’s right to “self-defense.” A pretty expansive definition of self-defense, if you ask me.
As I said, probably something will be worked out. Nothing ever happens. But such crises (like the First and the Second Cruise Missile Strike at Syria in Response to Assad Gassing His Own People Crisis, the Soleimani Crisis, etc.) cannot go on forever, without one of them eventually leading to a big conflagration. Likely not this time, but it’s bound to happen, sooner or later.
I don't think this nonchalance about casualties is about taking out on brown people what they can't take out here due to PC. I think its about just not giving a damn at all about them. If these wars had been declared by Congress for reasons of defending the actual country of America*, it'd be one thing to say that you don't care how many enemy are killed, or even the more the better.
These wars are no such thing. The deaths of Americans are an order-of-magnitude lower than during the Vietnam War years averaged. Most Americans DON'T know anyone who's had anyone sent home in a bodybag. This is all just infotainment as people get into all these details about who's supporting who, what about ISIS, which regime needs to go next ... etc.
Most Americans still can't comprehend that the US has become the bully of the world since the end of the Cold War, squandering decades worth of good will built up during the successful fight against Communism, along with, yeah, multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. That "thank the troops" business is crap that I won't participate in.
Go back and remember, if you were a U2 fan, the album The Joshua Tree. It had some great music, but one that wasn't a great tune and pissed me off with its anti-American preaching was Bullet the Blue Sky. I've got to say that the song applies pretty well now - see Peak Stupidity's "Outside it's America".
.
* I think nobody believes that "fighting 'em over there, so we won't have to fight them over there" crap anymore, after the millions of people from over there have been allowed to come here.Replies: @Hail, @dfordoom
There’s a lot of truth in that. For Americans these days war is a branch of professional sports.
But it’s not just entertainment. The appeal for many people is that it’s a blood sport. People get killed. That makes it more exciting than football or professional wrestling. As long as the people getting killed are just dirty foreigners who don’t count because they aren’t even Americans.
So there’s an edge of sadism to it.
Yes. And being a bully is only fun when you get to pick on people who are weak and powerless. In the current geopolitical situation the weak and powerless means pretty much every country outside the US.
What’s worrying is that a lot of Americans are increasingly inclined to put Russia into the weak and powerless category. And many are inclined to see China as a weak dorky kid who could easily be beaten up now but might in a few years grow up to be too big to be bullied. So they’d like to beat China up now.
Talibans can't be that stupid. This deal will be over by the time the beautiful Pompeo get back to his equally Rubensian wife.Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom
Zero.
I meant this wasn’t Osama’s plan.
According to what I’ve read about OBL, his primary goal was to drive foreign troops, neocolonial multinational corporations, and anti-Muslim cultural influences out of the Islamic world. Exactly how this was supposed to be accomplished is unknown to me.
That's the key point here: Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the dead Turks weren't.
A sovereign government and its allies have the legal and moral right to defend against invading military. So Turkey can't run to Teacher (the UN or NATO) and bleat.
Anyway... as I was sayin': Russia knows that the US has no stomach for land war in Europe - the US is finished as a 'power' that near-peers need to worry about (the US hasn't taken on a near-peer by itself since 1812).
They also know that if the US balks then NATO will sit on its hands.
Turkey's fucktard-in-chief decided he wanted to flex on Syria, and it's backfiring horribly. If you're LARPing as a potentate, you best not be shown the be impotent if some of your Janissaries get splashed.
If the Turkish people have any sense they will give Erdogan the same treatment that Italy and Romania gave their respective preening fuckwits (Mussolini and Ceaușescu, respectively).Replies: @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Dacian Julien Soros
Ceausescu was sentenced and killed in a secret location, in a conspiracy that involved tens of Party leaders, who were at the top of the coup. Even the Gen Xers manning the military base where he was held were not told, except for the 12 conscripts that actually shot him. I don’t think the nation as a whole had anything to do with the equivalent of regicide.
We are somewhat chaotic, but in a laissez-faire, live-and-let-live way. We don’t do lynching, despite what (((they))) say.
https://nationalfile.com/bbc-drama-to-depict-whites-as-slaves-blacks-as-masters/Replies: @Rob, @Change that Matters, @Pop Warner, @Skyler_the_Weird, @Blubb
I’ve seen this before, but I just don’t understand: why would the denizens of the most resource rich continent in the world go to live in dingy little England?
I could understand abducting slaves, as the Muslims have done, though I find it hard to imagine they’d have been much use in the mines of Africa.
But go to England, why? Fog shortage?
What was his plan then?
According to what I’ve read about OBL, his primary goal was to drive foreign troops, neocolonial multinational corporations, and anti-Muslim cultural influences out of the Islamic world. Exactly how this was supposed to be accomplished is unknown to me.