US intervention in foreign lands

[Rob Dekker]

Guys, you are getting distracted.
I remember the Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan very well, and besides that, age cannot change what happened there.
And we have documents to prove it (Wikipedia gives a decent overview) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

But considering the subject of this thread and the allegation that Bin Laden was an "oldy but goody" example of US intervention in foreign lands :

There is no evidence of any US funding of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Ever.

The US preferred guys like Massoud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

[Rob Dekker]

I think that the USA missed a huge opportunity in Afghanistan. If they had bent their powers on Osama, encircled Tora Bora in a ring of steel, they might have had him early in the game, declared victory and withdrawn. Instead they relied on corrupt locals...

All of that describes a time far after the Soviet invasion.
I think you are right that the US missed an opportunity, but it dates back to the late 80's when Russia left Afghanistan. At that time the US had some humanitarian assistance, but not nearly enough to stabilize the country. I think the US could have done much better rebuilding the country, which would have prevented the rise of the Taliban, and prevent subsequent 9/11. It also would have greatly improved the lives of Afghans after a decade of devastating Soviet bombings.

But that would have meant significant US humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan at the time, something that many of you would have seen as US "intervention", and thus many of you probably would not have approved of.

[Neven]

Washington's record of meddling across the globe:

[zizek]

Dekker.....

For some reason you complete avoid my post quoting Brzezinski.....

We have a literal quote, like, words literally said by a person, on the record, saying real words, by the man responsible for igniting the Afghanistan war, and he literally says, like, there is absolutely no room for interpretation, that he armed and supported the Mujaheddin in order to goad the soviets into an ugly war in the hopes of destabilization.
Not only that, He provides no regrets for the rise of fundamentalism. Like, my god, you suggest it was the soviets were responsible for the rise of fundamentalism, not the US. But we have Brzezinski literally addressing his responsibility for the rise of fundamentalism.  But for some reason the blame falls squarely on the Soviets? Even though the soviets entered the war to support the group that was diametrically opposed to fundamentalism?

You do realize we're in the "Re: US intervention in foreign lands". Not the "lets blame Russia on everything thread".

[zizek]

Guys, you are getting distracted.
I remember the Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan very well, and besides that, age cannot change what happened there.
And we have documents to prove it (Wikipedia gives a decent overview) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

But considering the subject of this thread and the allegation that Bin Laden was an "oldy but goody" example of US intervention in foreign lands :

There is no evidence of any US funding of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Ever.

The US preferred guys like Massoud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

1980-1993: *U.S. funds, trains, and arms Afghanistan resistance groups, specifically the Mujaheddin, with a total of more than $20 billion dollars*.
1988: *Osama Bin Laden and other key leaders of mujaheddin start Al-Qaeda*

2018:*Rob Dekker claims that US had no involvement with funding Al Qaeda*

[zizek]

But that would have meant significant US humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan at the time, something that many of you would have seen as US "intervention", and thus many of you probably would not have approved of.

lol. 

[sidd]

If you don't tell anyone about the war, they can't oppose it.

https://news.antiwar.com/2018/03/18/pentagon-defends-keeping-niger-attacks-secret/

sidd

[sidd]

Kaine(D-Sen, OH)  supports declaring the war in Yemen illegal.

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/03/19/sen-tim-kaine-issues-statement-in-favor-of-sanders-lee-murphy-yemen-war-powers-challenge/

sidd

[zizek]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-election-analysis/maduro-challenger-shakes-up-venezuelas-presidential-vote-idUSKCN1GU04N

Its top diplomat in Venezuela, Todd Robinson, met with Falcon recently, sources close to the candidate said, trying to persuade him to withdraw as his challenge was undermining U.S. efforts to isolate Maduro.

Washington seems to be calculating that if Maduro scores a Pyrrhic victory, and is left governing a ravaged economy, military and social pressure will become unbearable.

“If Maduro wins, as looks likely, it will be a very unstable government,” said Caracas-based consultant Dimitris Pantoulas. “At home, he is flirting with a coup d’etat and abroad he will be a pariah.”

United States: "I love democracy. But, maybe you shouldn't run because we prefer chaos"

[Rob Dekker]

Guys, you are getting distracted.
I remember the Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan very well, and besides that, age cannot change what happened there.
And we have documents to prove it (Wikipedia gives a decent overview) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

But considering the subject of this thread and the allegation that Bin Laden was an "oldy but goody" example of US intervention in foreign lands :

There is no evidence of any US funding of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Ever.

The US preferred guys like Massoud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

1980-1993: *U.S. funds, trains, and arms Afghanistan resistance groups, specifically the Mujaheddin, with a total of more than $20 billion dollars*.
1988: *Osama Bin Laden and other key leaders of mujaheddin start Al-Qaeda*

2018:*Rob Dekker claims that US had no involvement with funding Al Qaeda*

You are hand-waving and avoiding the issue.

If there is any evidence that the US funded Bin Laden's Al Qaeda at ANY point in time, all you have to do is provide that evidence.

You didn't, since you can't, since it never happened.

This is now the second time that you are promoting a falsehood (first one was regarding the coup in Honduras).

Look, US interference in foreign lands is bad enough as it is.
There is no need to start inventing false statements, without evidence, out of thin air.

[Rob Dekker]

You do realize we're in the "Re: US intervention in foreign lands". Not the "lets blame Russia on everything thread".

My response was to your statement regarding the Soviet-Afghan war :

Yes, you keep on striking a nerve. Because you support the needless death and suffering of foreigners. You are a bad person. And you make no effort to rehabilitate by educating yourself on the realities of imperialism.

I did fact checks on that, and I found that in the Afghan war, the Soviets were causing the death and suffering of Afghans, NOT the Mujahedeen :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

R.J. Rummel, an analyst of political killings, estimated that Soviet forces were responsible for 250,000 democidal killings during the war and that the government of Afghanistan was responsible for 178,000 democidal killings.[237] There were also a number of reports of large scale executions of hundreds of civilians by Soviet and DRA soldiers.[238][239][240] Noor Ahmed Khalidi calculated that 876,825 Afghans were killed during the Soviet invasion.[241] Martin Ewan and Marek Sliwinski estimated the number of war deaths to be much higher, at 1.25 million.[242] However, Siddieq Noorzoy presents an even higher figure of 1.71 million deaths during the Soviet-Afghan war.[243][244]

The Russians made a HUGE mess in Afghanistan, and they just left.
They didn't even provide ANY humanitarian assistance afterwards.
Nothing.

They left that up to the US, who provided a couple of billion dollars worth of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, but not nearly enough to stabilize the country after a decade of Russian atrocities. Hence the rise of the Taliban afterwards.

[Rob Dekker]

There is no need to start inventing false statements, without evidence, out of thin air.

It's a popular activity across blogs, newspapers, tv news media, talk back radio, journalist's articles, think tanks, social media and the like, so many people do have the need to do it.

Besides, it's all relative, contextual and subjective what's really true and what's false.

Can we do a fact-check on that ?
Some references would be nice.

[Rob Dekker]

Besides, it's all relative, contextual and subjective what's really true and what's false.

That's a LOT different than your original claims that :

"I am biased to Truth. The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. The good, the bad and the ugly. :-) "

Looks like when the TRUTH turns out to be ugly (like with the Soviets killing a million people in Afghanistan) that you resort to "it's all relative, contextual and subjective what's really true and what's false.".

Your pro-Russian bias is duly noted.

[Neven]

Can't we just agree that forces within the US, Russia and Afghanistan effed up the people of Afghanistan bad? That would be a good basis for further discussion, as those forces are still there.

[Rob Dekker]

Can't we just agree that forces within the US, Russia and Afghanistan effed up the people of Afghanistan bad? That would be a good basis for further discussion, as those forces are still there.

Why would you say anything like that, after I showed the impact on the Afghan people as a result of  the Russian intervention in Afghanistan (a million dead, for starters) ?

If you have any evidence that the US caused similar (or even any) civilian casualties in Afghanistan, then please present that.

If not, then your argument is one of false equivalence, very similar to the argument between climate scientists and climate science deniers.

[Neven]

There can never be any false equivalence between people who want war and people who don't. You're drawing the wrong lines.

[Rob Dekker]

There can never be any false equivalence between people who want war and people who don't. You're drawing the wrong lines.

I'm drawing the wrong lines ? Are you kidding ?
A million people died in Afganistan due to Russian intervention.
Are you denying that now ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

R.J. Rummel, an analyst of political killings, estimated that Soviet forces were responsible for 250,000 democidal killings during the war and that the government of Afghanistan was responsible for 178,000 democidal killings.[237] There were also a number of reports of large scale executions of hundreds of civilians by Soviet and DRA soldiers.[238][239][240] Noor Ahmed Khalidi calculated that 876,825 Afghans were killed during the Soviet invasion.[241] Martin Ewan and Marek Sliwinski estimated the number of war deaths to be much higher, at 1.25 million.[242] However, Siddieq Noorzoy presents an even higher figure of 1.71 million deaths during the Soviet-Afghan war.[243][244]

If you have any evidence that the US caused similar (or even any) civilian casualties in Afghanistan, then please present that.

[Neven]

Yes, X people died to Russian forces pushing for war, Y people died due to American intervention pushed by American forces pushing for war, Z people died because of forces within Afghanistan pushing for war. All of these forces are on the same side, all vying for more money and power. If they deem it advantageous to overlap and work together, they'll do it, without thinking for one minute about borders, or national identity or religion.

The ratio between X, Y and Z doesn't matter all that much, because in the end they're all part of the same number. The false equivalency argument is based on a false premise.

On the other side are you and me and all the people around the world who don't want to push for war. We are bombarded with propaganda so that we think in terms of borders, national identity, religion and so on. This then enables the other side, the forces pushing for war, to do its thing.

So, the more interesting question is: How do we 'fight' those forces non-violently?

[SteveMDFP]

Hi Rob. So I am gauging that you might be the resident over-reactive literal agro-bot here. It's not a Home Depot car park but is already beginning to feel like one already.

Ad hominem attacks are inappropriate.  If you think an *assertion* is stupid or offensive, that's fine to say.  But saying that about a *person* is off-limits in civilized discourse.

Chill, please. 

[Neven]

Yes, at the very least word it differently. You can assert that someone is too literal-minded, but leave the adjectives out.

You also distract from the crucial point I'm trying to make.

[Neven]

That's better, thanks. 

These are difficult conversations, eh?

[TerryM]

Source:
The Reagan Library


Topic:
Full Title:President Reagan’s Photo Opportunities in the Oval Office on June 16, 1986. President Reagan Meeting with Freedom Fighters from Afghanistan (Mujahedin) in the Oval Office.





Terry

[TerryM]

Ronny again pledges ongoing support for the Mujaheddin. - 45 seconds in -




Terry

[TerryM]

Sometimes I'm reminded of Monte Python's brave knight who, after loosing an arm and legs in a conflict, insists that he's never been hurt, and that he's quite capable of continuing the battle that he's obviously lost.


Terry

[TerryM]

Washington's record of meddling across the globe:

One that the world has forgotten, or at least the world outside of Samoa, was the shelling of Apia by the USS Philadelphia. This resulted in the division of the island.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Samoan_Civil_War

The only reason I am familiar with it was because at least one of the Philadelphia's sailors was enraged at his ship's shelling of such an idyllic place. He was so enraged he wrote a letter to his State's new Magazine, which it printed in it's entirety.

A friend's father was an antiquarian and had collected what if I recall correctly was the first issue of 'Nevada", with a long, description of the damage inflicted and and a plea for the US to stop these campaigns.

Terry

[Rob Dekker]

Yes, X people died to Russian forces pushing for war, Y people died due to American intervention pushed by American forces pushing for war, Z people died because of forces within Afghanistan pushing for war. All of these forces are on the same side, all vying for more money and power.

Seems like you are blaming the victims here.
The mujaheddin were not "vying for more money and power". They were defending themselves against the Soviet army, who were carpet bombing their cities, and killing a million of their citizens.
Were they supposed to just let them come in and let take over their country ?
Is that what you suggest, Neven ?

And you did not respond to my question for evidence of your number Y being anything other than zero :

If you have any evidence that the US assistance to the mujaheddin caused any civilian casualties  during the Soviet - Afghan war, then please present that.

[sidd]

watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf

[Rob Dekker]

That report is about the time period starting 2001.
We were talking about the Soviet - Afghan war.
Still looking for evidence that Neven's Y number is anything else but zero.

Now, we could take this discussion to civilian casualties in the US - led intervention in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. If we do that, let's start with the reason for that intervention :

What if the US would NOT have interfered ? The Taliban would still be there today, still harboring Al Qaeda, and who knows how many terrorist attacks would have been executed around the world.

Let's take it from there.

[Red]

Not too far OT I think?

When Russia moved into the Ukraine and seized Crimea in 2014, it got more than its share of (bad) media coverage in the United States, as it did when it intervened in Syria the next year.  So just imagine what kind of coverage Vladimir Putin’s favorite nation would be getting if, almost 17 years after it had launched a “Global War on Terrorism,” Russian troops, special operations forces, airplanes, and drones were still in action in at least eight countries across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Niger, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen (and, if you felt in the mood, you could even throw in the Philippines in Asia for good measure).

Imagine the outraged front-page and top-of-the-news overviews we would be getting more than a decade and a half later when it came to that never-ending Russian global war and the rubble, the chaos, the dead and displaced it continued to create.  There would be critical discussions aplenty of what it meant for one of the planet’s great powers to pursue such wars without end.  In official Washington, the protests would be savage, the language harsh beyond imagining, the critiques unyielding and fierce.  There would be blistering assessments of that nation as it continued to pursue such disintegrative wars across vast stretches of the planet without the slightest indication that their end was anywhere in sight.

What’s strange, as TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich, author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, suggests today, is that in the press, the rest of the media, and official Washington, such overviews, such critiques, such assessments are almost completely absent, even though everything about the above description remains on target -- except, of course, for the name of the country pursuing that global war so relentlessly and disastrously. Tom



http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176400/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_a_memo_to_the_publisher_of_the_new_york_times/#more

[Hefaistos]

What if the US would NOT have interfered ? The Taliban would still be there today, still harboring Al Qaeda, and who knows how many terrorist attacks would have been executed around the world.

Let's take it from there.

No. Let's not take it from there, let's simply stop and recognize the simplistic black and white options being presented, in a world that is in reality full of colourful options that involves more than one way to skin a cat. Someone is responsible for always presenting the most complex issues in the world as basic black and white thinking, with only ever two options, where only ever 'you are either with us or you're agin us'. That's the road to failure and the results prove it's a failure.

Too easy to 'cherry pick' a narrow range of time periods and ignore everything else surrounding a crisis situation that erupted in Afghanistan in the 70s and blame everything upon the soviets while assuming everyone else is the world and inside Afghanistan were poor innocents who never did a bad sick thing or lied through their teeth ever in their entire lives - in what had been created there over decades beforehand and what then unfolded later in the 80s the 90s and to this day.

Cherry picking is easy, because then one can easily ignore and dismiss out of hand that the GW Bush administration was the only one's responsible for the defense of the USA from January 2001, while proceeding to forget that in July 2001 that same US govt handed over $200 million in Aid to the Taliban Govt with nair a thought despite what that Administration knew already, that Al Queda was there and already targeting the US, and they had been told directly by the experts from all over the world but which that Administration and their Allies all happily ignored until it was too late. 

Too easy to ignore the responsibility that Malaysian Airlines neglected in sending MH17 through an active war zone with active military aircraft using that airspace because it would save them a few thousands dollars in fuel when it was already known that other airlines had already instigated flight routes around the dangerous battle field. But no black and white simplistic thinkers, be they politicians the media or pundits of no importance claim it must be 100% all Russia's fault, not not just Russia, 100% Putin's fault ... he must have known right?

Well then why didn't GW Bush know that something wasn't right with the Taliban and Al Queda and all the noise going on about hijackings, and why was he never blamed for not defending the nation?  How utterly incompetent does a US President or any Politician have to be to resign in shame or at least be fired at the next election if 9/11 wasn't enough to do it?

Oh gosh if only there was only one driver of ghg in the atmosphere and it was a simple black and white issue. Well tough luck, nothing is that black and white and simplistic. Nothing.

Thomas, you make things very difficult for those who have no colour vision

[sidd]

Senate votes, with the aid of democrats to keep killing Yemenis:

https://shadowproof.com/2018/03/20/with-help-of-ten-senate-democrats-pentagon-can-still-make-war-in-yemen/

sidd

[sidd]

Let us say the USA had stayed out of Afghanistan. Lets say the Taliban had prevailed, and killed as many as the USA. The USA would bear no responsibility for the carnage.

But the USA invaded. Even Colin Powell of My Lai coverup and Iraqi WMD fame laid it out: You broke it, you bought it. Man up and own up.

But no, that's not the way of the chickenhawk. What we see now is desperate squirming by the warmongers to lay the blame anywhere but themselves.

Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

sidd

[sidd]

Another insightful piece by Cockburn on the hopeless war in Afghanistan. Reminds me of other forgotten wars in SE Asia and S. America where drugs played a part:

" ... there was a period when British troops in Helmand, influenced by Mir Wali, were assaulting Akhundzada’s territory, while the Americans, under Akhundzada’s spell, were doing precisely the opposite. "

"You’re overthinking this. These people just need to be killed."

https://harpers.org/archive/2018/04/mobbed-up/?single=1


sidd

[sidd]

Sjursen on unmitigated failure in Iraq:

" ... poor intelligence and dubious evidence was used by gang of neocon ideologues to sell Americans on the need for regime change in Iraq (a country that had not been involved in the 9/11 attacks). Frightened, naïve, and ill-informed, the American people – and esteemed outlets like the New York Times – went along for the ride."

"If bin Laden himself had authored it, he could hardly have written a more dreadful quagmire for the US military. "

"If the goal of the neocons and military-industrial complex was – and I don’t personally subscribe to this – to engulf the US in self-perpetuating forever wars in the Mideast, they sure scripted it perfectly. "

"My boys were sacrificed on the altar of American hubris."

Read the whole thing:

https://original.antiwar.com/Danny_Sjursen/2018/03/19/unmitigated-failure-operation-iraqi-freedom-15-years-later/

sidd

[sidd]

Selling Iraq: A Retrospective

"''From a marketing point of view,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ''you don't introduce new products in August.'' "

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/us/traces-of-terror-the-strategy-bush-aides-set-strategy-to-sell-policy-on-iraq.html

St. Clair looks back:

"It’s war that sells.

There’s a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no returns."

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/20/how-they-sold-the-iraq-war/

And all this for a war conceived by the Wednesday  after the 2001 attacks because Afghanistan didnt have enuf targets.

"Powell shook his head. “It’s not over yet.“ Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious ..."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Against_All_Enemies_War_%2B_Peace.htm

Fuckin' pathetic.

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Let us say the USA had stayed out of Afghanistan. Lets say the Taliban had prevailed, and killed as many as the USA. The USA would bear no responsibility for the carnage.

Let me get this straight.

What you are suggesting is that after 9/11, the US should just let Al Qaeda and Bin Laden be in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, just swallow the 3,000 Americans lost at US soil, brace for the terrorist attacks all over the world that are sure to follow, and do nothing ?
Are you kidding ?

No, sir. No can do.

Al Qaeda had to be destroyed, and the Taliban that harbored them had to go.
And we did that, although technically speaking the US never invaded Afghanistan. The late Massoud's Northern Alliance (mujahideen) , who had been fighting the Taliban for a decade, did the real ground work.

And they did it with an absolute minimum number of civilian casualties. Even the report you linked to shows that the vast majority of civilian casualties after 2001 was caused by the remainder of the Taliban (by suicide bombers on market places, into hospitals and mosques and stuff like that).

In fact, I still have not seen evidence of even ONE example of where civilians died in Afghanistan due to US operations there. You have one ?

Compare that to the carnage of million+ civilian deaths the Soviets caused during their nine year war against the people of Afghanistan.

And as a result of the brave work by the mujahideen of the Northern Alliance and Allied forces resolve in Afghanistan in 2001/2002, the world is a safer place.
And the women in Afghanistan no longer have to wear a burka. Terry will like that .

[Rob Dekker]

I have a LOT of comments on Thomas' post, but let me just respond to one of the more egregious ones :

Too easy to ignore the responsibility that Malaysian Airlines neglected in sending MH17 through an active war zone...

You are blaming the victims.

[sidd]

"What you are suggesting is that after 9/11, the US should just let Al Qaeda and Bin Laden be in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, just swallow the 3,000 Americans lost at US soil, brace for the terrorist attacks all over the world that are sure to follow, and do nothing ?"

Not at all. In that post I took no position on what the USA should or should not have done. But having invaded, she bears responsibility.

sidd

[Neven]

Good piece in Rolling Stone: The Legacy of the Iraq War

Final paragraphs:

This is the legacy of the Iraq war. It began with a crude congressional dog-and-pony show giving Bush approval for the invasion, and was followed by an equally thin presentation to the U.N. by sad-sack Colin Powell. These two transparently stupid pre-war petitions secured for the war the tiniest of fig-leafs of domestic and international legal legitimacy.

A decade and a half later, authorities no longer need to ask anyone permission to do anything. They've created in the interim an entirely separate, secret set of rules giving them the right to kill, imprison, torture, or spy on anyone.

A permanent war bureaucracy, invisible beyond the executive branch. It's the ultimate fantasy of all those Washington security think-tank types who spent their teen years playing Risk and jerking off to Bismarck biographies and then simmered with resentment throughout the seventies, eighties and nineties, sure they'd never have lost Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, China, Iran, and a dozen other places, if they'd only been given the proper tools and not subjected to idiocies like the Church hearings and the Iran-Contra prosecutions.

Now they have those tools. They got the world they wanted.

The chaos this has caused in the Middle East is well-documented. But the damage all this has done to our national psyche at home has been awesome, far-reaching, and poorly understood.

It was for sure a contributing factor in the election of Donald Trump, whose total ignorance and disrespect for both the law and the rights of people deviates not one iota from our official policies as they've evolved in the last fifteen years.

Trump is just too stupid to use the antiseptic terminology we once thought we had to cook up to cloak our barbarism. He says "torture" instead of "enhanced interrogation" because he can't remember what the difference is supposed to be. Which is understandable. Fifteen years is a long time for a rotting brain to keep up a pretense.

We flatter ourselves that Trump is an aberration. He isn't. He's a depraved, cowardly, above-the-law bully, just like the country we've allowed ourselves to become in the last fifteen years.

That we now deserve him as president is a consequence of the final lesson of the Iraq debacle: We lost that war. Not militarily maybe, but in the sense that we so completely dismantled what was left of our civil society in prosecution of it that, looking back, a battlefield loss would surely have been preferable.

Wherever he is now, as eels perhaps slither through his eye-holes, Osama bin Laden has to be laughing. He had to know all along that only Americans were capable of destroying America. But he couldn't have dreamed we'd do it so fast.

The article also brought me to this video I had seen many moons ago, leaving me in tears at the time. It's one of the reasons behind my refusal to get trapped in the tribal polarization game. Highly recommended to those who have never seen it, but not easy to watch:

[zizek]

And as a result of the brave work by the mujahideen of the Northern Alliance and Allied forces resolve in Afghanistan in 2001/2002, the world is a safer place.
And the women in Afghanistan no longer have to wear a burka. Terry will like that .

This is the definition of Poe's law

[sidd]

Taibbi really nails it:

" It was proof that the lesson we learned from places like Vietnam was that the real enemy did not live in bushes and hamlets, but in front of TVs in places like Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

If we could successfully prevent our own voters from seeing or thinking about the moral costs of our policies, then we could continue down the pure-force path indefinitely, without protest, without debate even."

"Our wars have begun to vanish from our democratic process, the same way our "enemy combatants" just magically disappear from the earth once captured, to a secret arbitrary world we show or don't show as we please.

The legal disappearing trick evolved over several presidencies, and particularly advanced under Barack Obama ..."

sidd

[sidd]

Remains of Libya: Thanks Obama. Thanks, Hilary.

" ... shooting 10 blindfolded men kneeling with their hands tied behind their back ..."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUKKBN1GX1JI

sidd

[sidd]

Deny it first. "The United States has ruled out any plan to cross the international border  ..."

https://dailytimes.com.pk/218111/no-plan-for-boots-on-the-ground-in-pakistan-pentagon/

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Yes, what if Putin has been telling the truth about that matter?

Interesting is that so many of pro-Russia posters here seem to be so un-educated when it comes to MH17.

No. Putin has not been telling the truth about MH17.
We know that because for example he has been caught verifiably lying about MH17 (including fabricating evidence) :
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/russias-colin-powell-moment-how-the-russian-governments-mh17-lies-were-exposed/

When the US and others *accidentally* shot down passenger aircraft no one demanded the nation's president be tried for war crimes nor claimed that they personally ordered it or was responsible for what the naval vessel or the fighter aircraft did.

If you look at ALL the data we have objectively, this whole "accident" theory about MH17 falls apart. The data is much more consistent with a deliberate, pre-planned attack.
I'd be happy to elaborate, but this is not the right thread for that.

[sidd]

Please take discussion abut russian misdeed to other threads ?

sidd

[sidd]

Iraq is indeed a gift that keeps on giving:

--

" ... she carried her baby into the courtroom where they were dwarfed by the wooden cage where defendants stand trial ..."

“Are you guilty or innocent?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” she whispered in Turkish.

“hanged by the neck until dead.”

--

https://www.voanews.com/a/foreign-wives-islamic-state-death-in-iraq/4308150.html

sidd

[TerryM]

If that Damn Saddam had just surrendered his WMD's none of this barbarity would be necessary.



Bush Jr. knew he was guilty. All of the NSA agencies new he was guilty. The MSM knew he was guilty. The UK government knew he was guilty, even General Powell and Hillary knew he was guilty. They swore that it was true.


When will these "Evil Doers" realize that they must admit to holding WMD's, colluding with presidential candidates, or murdering former turncoats?


How can anyone doubt the testimony when it emanates from such reliable sources?
Terry

[Rob Dekker]

Please do not miss @16:00 mins and what McNamara says at that point about the little-known historical facts.

Why? Because that is the point where the US is again right now today. Albeit the shoe is on the other foot this time. 

Since WWII, we have always been one decision away from total destruction of civilization by nuclear war. The only reason it has not happened yet is that so far our leaders (both east and west) have been rational enough not to press the button.
 
It gets really scary only when one (of our world leaders) think they can 'win' a 'limited' nuclear war. At that point there is a sliding scale that may actually be used.
Like the 'fire-and-fury' remark by Trump.
Or the nuclear threats against Denmark and Poland by the Putin regime.

[Alexander555]

Or the nuclear threats against Denmark and Poland by the Putin regime.


You can say whatever you want. The only thing we know for sure is that you white americans stole that afro-american population in africa, and sold them at the market like animals. And you held them on a chain until the day they died. You placed the indians in a reservate like animals. You invaded country after country, war after war. You corrupted this entire planet. I think you white americans will all be exterminated in the future. There are politicians demanding for compensation for slavery, so nobody will forget. You can maybe try to burn all history books, like IS. But it want help. You are already a minority, and when the bad times come. There will be people that remind others about it. And than you are finished, and nobody on this planet will care about it, because you are white human trash. White human trash with a history of war and power abuse.

[Rob Dekker]

Or the nuclear threats against Denmark and Poland by the Putin regime.

I think those words don't present what was said at the time accurately. Maybe 'pleadings and warnings made by the Russian government' might capture the truth more accurately. Of course that's a subjective matter open to disagreement. So be it.

If the nuclear threats by Russia against Denmark and Poland did not convince you, then maybe the threats against the US would. Like this one :
https://www.smh.com.au/world/russian-analyst-urges-nuclear-attack-on-yellowstone-national-park-and-san-andreas-fault-line-20150331-1mbl14.html
or this one threatening the entire planet :
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/opinions/russia-us-arms-race-robertson-opinion/index.html

But ignoring Putin's threats of nuclear disaster, to stay within the subject of this thread, Trump has made some pretty bad threats himself.
Who can forget the "My nuclear button is bigger than Kim's" claim. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/01/03/trump-north-korea-nuclear-button-tweet-himes-reax-bts-ac.cnn

In the face of all the 'alpha-male' posturing, I wish we had Hillary Clinton for president.