ijwthstd wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 11:53am:



Yeah, it does.

Seems to some here that Obama supporters are drones, and the 20% of nonsupporters are actually correct of the issues.

Joe Plumber has called it quits and pretty soon the RNC will be down to 3:

Riffhard
Nankerphelge
Cheney


Speaking of Cheney, there have been some recent statements about him looking out for the little guy with respect to the torture debate. The MSM seems to have missed Cheney's point here. You see, "the little guy" is what Cheney's wife calls Cheney's penis.

See, now his statement makes sense.

Yeah...speaking of Cheney I wonder if he'll be attending the big Bilderberg meeting in Greece this month.

Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity

Witnesses say deaths of 147 people in three villages came after a sustained bombardment by American aircraft. Patrick Cockburn, in Herat, reports


Friday, 8 May 2009
Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians.


The riot started when people from three villages struck by US bombers in the early hours of Tuesday, brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a truck to the house of the provincial governor. As the crowd pressed forward in Farah, police opened fire, wounding four protesters. Traders in the rest of Farah city, the capital of the province of the same name where the bombing took place, closed their shops, vowing they would not reopen them until there is an investigation.

A local official Abdul Basir Khan said yesterday that he had collected the names of 147 people who had died, making it the worst such incident since the US intervened in Afghanistan started in 2001. A phone call from the governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, in which he said that 130 people had died, was played over the loudspeaker in the Afghan parliament in Kabul, sparking demands for more control over US operations.

The protest in Farah City is the latest sign of a strong Afghan reaction against US air attacks in which explosions inflict massive damage on mud-brick houses that provide little protection against bomb blasts. A claim by American officials, which was repeated by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday in Kabul, that the Taliban might have killed people with grenades because they did not pay an opium tax is not supported by any eyewitnesses and is disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters, one of which is filled with water. Mr Gates expressed regret for the incident but did not go so far as to accept blame.

The US admits that it did conduct an air strike at the time and place, but it is becoming clear, going by the account of survivors, that the air raid was not a brief attack by several aircraft acting on mistaken intelligence, but a sustained bombardment in which three villages were pounded to pieces. Farouq Faizy, an Afghan radio reporter who was one of the first to reach the district of Bala Baluk, says villagers told him that bombs suddenly, "began to fall at 8pm on Monday and went on until 10pm though some believe there were still bombs falling later". A prolonged bombing attack would explain why there are so many dead, but only 14 wounded received at Farah City hospital.

The attack was on three villages – Gerani, Gangabad and Koujaha – just off the main road. It is a poppy growing area of poor farmers and there were several fields of poppies near the villages. The Taliban are traditionally strong here and the police and soldiers waiting around the villages were said by eyewitnesses to be frightened. This would explain why Afghan army commanders might have been eager to call for US airstrikes, though they would have needed the agreement of American special operations officers.

Provincial officials, including the governor Rohul Amin, say that in the lead-up to the bombing there was heavy fighting between hundreds of Taliban and the Afghan Army and police. Going by Mr Faizy's account there had been, "a fight some seven or eight kilometres from the three villages in which two Afghan Army and a US Humvee were destroyed. A third Afghan Army vehicle was captured." Three police were killed and four wounded, as was one American and one Afghan army soldier. This was hardly a major military engagement, but the pro-government forces seem to have got the worst of it and their burned out vehicles still stand in the road.

The loss of life in Afghanistan from air strikes is often worse than in Iraq where houses are more modern and usually have basements. In the villages in Farah, people were living in compounds with mud brick walls which crumbled easily. Pictures of the aftermath of the attack show people standing beside the remains of a relative which often only looks like a muddy pile of torn meat. One elderly white bearded man, said by neighbours to have lost 30 members of his family, squats despairingly beside a body that has been torn into shreds. Among the few wounded to stay alive is a child with a badly burned face.

One reason why US bombing inflicts such heavy civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq is that both are very poor countries in which houses are very crowded. When the US used air strikes and heavy artillery with little restraint in the siege of Fallujah in 2004 it caused serious loss of life. Wedding parties in both countries have often been mistaken for "terrorist" gatherings and bombed.

In Afghanistan opinion polls show that support for the Taliban and for armed attacks on foreign forces rises sharply after events like the bombing in Farah. President Hamid Karzai frequently criticises the US military for wantonly inflicting civilian casualties, attacks which his opponents say is an opportunistic effort to burnish his nationalist credentials.

The Taliban increasingly use tactics developed by insurgents in Iraq, notably suicide bombing on a mass scale and IEDs, or mines in the road detonated by a control wires or electronically. In Helmand province yesterday a suicide bomber killed 12 civilians in an attack on a foreign military convoy near the bazaar of the town of Gereshk. No foreign troops were killed by the explosion, though two were wounded.

May 7, 12:01 AM 9
Eaminer.com
Christopher Dowd

So after brow beating Pakistan's civilian government for weeks to scuttle their peace plans with the "Taliban" in the Buner border region, the Pakistan military has lurched into the area flattening villages and displacing hundreds of thousands.  Just more horror affecting a few million people that you and I won't see or even hear much about (unless an American soldier gets killed).

This offensive against the "Taliban" (what our government and media call anyone who takes up arms against the US military or their regional proxies) comes just as President Obama meets with the "leaders" of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and announces a brand new strategy to fight the Af-Pak war.

It also comes just a few weeks after the Pakistani government questioned the existence of "Al Qaeda" itself and denied it was in their country.

Here we are, 8 years on in Afghanistan, and President Obama is giving speeches in which he feels it necessary to actually tell us why "we" are in central Asia.  Eight years of war and occupation and we still have to be told why the US is in Afghanistan?  Could there be any better proof of the total moral bankruptcy of this war?

And why is DC in Afghanistan?  Obama couldn't even keep it straight in his speech.  At first he tells us that "we" are not there to dictate to the tribal peoples of these areas but in the next breath he tells us how he wants to protect the human rights of all in the region, especially women and girls.  Noooo, that wouldn't involve dictating to the people of the region at all.

But mostly Obama justified the Afghan war, ludicrously, as a defensive war and he invoked, repeatedly- the "threat" from "Al Qaeda" that would exist if the "Taliban" took over.  Now, "Al Qaeda" is whatever our government says it is.  "Al Qaeda" is anyone who doesn't want the US in the region.  Somalis who fight US backed warlords or their Ethiopian allies are not justified in doing so- nope- they are "Al Qaeda".  Iraqis who fight the US are "Al Qaeda in Iraq".  Afghanis who fight the US are "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda".  No one is fighting the US because it has invaded their countries and installed puppet governments.  No- all armed resistance to the US is from "terrorists" and "extremists" and "Al Qaeda" because our intentions in the region are just oh so darned good and without any self interested content whatsoever.

Side track question here.  Just what would a legitimate resistance to the US military in the Middle East look like- one that our government would not call "terrorists" or extremists?  Can our DC denizens even envision such?  

So we are in Afghanistan to fight "Al Qaeda"- the guys who attacked us on 9/11.  Now that reason is patently absurd.  First of all- we have been told, in the past, how "al Qaeda" was all but defeated and how Osama didn't matter.  But once again- just when DC needs to justify an escalation of war "Al Qaeda" (about which we are never told specifics or given hard facts) is a mortal threat to the entire planet again. Second, the notion that a "safe haven" was needed to carry out 9/11 is absurd.  The plans laid for that attack could have been formulated and planned anywhere- and they mostly were!  Terrorists don't need a base of operations.  And they generally don't invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fixed fortifications or bunkers as we were spectacularly lied to about.  

By the way?  What does this "Al Qaeda" want?  Well basically to establish a living hell on earth and torture puppies.  That is, almost without exaggeration, what DC presents as the motives of their "enemies" in the region.

What about the "human rights" reason?  That is a lie as well.  The United States isn't concerned about the "human rights" of Saudis as it gladly supports one of the most repressive regimes on Earth.  It does not care that the Maliki government in Iraq is filled with Shia extremists who are enforcing Sharia law on a country formerly the most secular in the Arab world.  Doesn't care much that the current government in Afghanistan is also ruling by the dictates of the harshest interpretations of Islamic Law.  But we are supposed to believe that the US is fighting for "human rights" in these regions?

The truly insulting thing about all these bogus reasons for the Af-Pak war are that they are so easily seen through by anyone who takes two minutes to examine them or who has even a minimal capacity for empathy.  Say what you will about the necessity of the Cold War- but at least that had some coherent and plausible rationales behind it.  The justifications for the "War on Terror" are laughably incoherent and false, and obviously so.

So if it isn't the idiotic excuse that the almost completely fictional "Al Qaeda" is going to attack and kill Americans, for no other reason than because we are innocent Americans who love freedom and they are evil ghouls who hate freedom, and if it isn't the "Human rights" and "Democracy" angle then what is the reason for why DC is in Afghanistan or for that matter- Iraq?

What about the oil and natural gas reason?  In a twisted way I would actually be comforted if that were the case.  Make no mistake, the US is going to exploit those resources for itself but I don't think even that self serving reason is the justification for these wars.  After all- US oil companies would sign deals with the most unsavory of regimes on Earth and would do so gladly if it got them access to oil.  War is not the most efficient route to secure resources.

The horrifying truth of the matter- the sickening reality of why the US is fighting the Af-Pak war is that it is war for war's sake.  War is the reason.  War is a government program that needs to be kept going.  There is no definition of victory because victory is not wanted.  The wars in the Middle East and Central Asia are being fought for the sake of war itself!  War is a big part of the US economy and has been for decades and it is an end unto itself.  The means isn't war- war is the end- perpetual never ending war.

When will this war end?  I think this political discussion board poster sums it up best.  He is talking about Iraq but it is true for the Af-Pak war as well:

The poster of that comment you cited seems to be operating under the premise that the Iraq War is a means to an end. The end being a free and secular Iraq favorable to US interests. That simply isn't the case.

The Iraq War is an end unto itself - a long simmering war with tolerably low casualties and extremely high overhead to enrich the Beltway players and MIC.

The war will go on for as long as Washington thinks they can get away with looting the American taxpayer and using their children for cannon fodder.

When they feel that the American people have been pushed to the precipice of the end of their tolerance (the one-party rule is genuinely in jeopardy) they will begin an overly extended troop draw down milking it for every last nickel.

Then with an Iraqi puppet ensconced, the remaining US forces will retreat to their permanent bases and "embassy" from where they can continue pillaging Iraqi resources.

The Empire will then be extended permanently that much further. After which the propaganda machine will go to work whipping up the next enemy (your guess is as good as mine) to do it all over again when the ever reliable short memories of Americans make it possible.

And if they fail in keeping their permanent bases - so what? They have already been built and paid for and trillions of dollars have been transferred from the citizenry to the MIC parasites. The war is without concrete goals because the war itself was the handsomely profitable goal.

"Fox isn't news, it's entertainment and opinion,.........."

A.K.A.  Propaganda. Don't believe a word of it. MSNBC, CNN etc...don't believe a fucking word they say until you have independent verification....lying and dishonesty is like breathing to those boot licking fucks.

[quote author=fuman link=1223104028/4750#4759 date=1241808779
Fair and Balanced is far from reality of Fox's content. [/quote]

Give 'em credit...it is a great marketing jingle. Right up there with "things go better with coke" , "with Alka Seltlzer you'll surely say Relief is just a swallow away" or "Winston Tastes Good Like  a Cigarette Should." 

fuman wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 2:25pm:


Yeah, but for me it's an absurd association. I'll decide what is fair and balanced, not when they say it. Right?

Hey, speaking of Alka Seltzer, I have found the absolute best upset stomach remedy. Ginger Tea. It really works.

Alka Seltzer provides a base to neutralize too much acid in one's stomach, which inhibits the digestive process.
Not sure what the active ingredient in ginger is, but it doesn't abort the digestive process.
If you're having stomach trouble after eating, try a cup of ginger tea immediately following a meal. It really works. [/quote]

Of course it's absurd, the whole goddanm planet's absurd. But's its fun to watch sometimes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVrKY1osvU0

Oh my! Recent polls have shown 80% of Americans would rather wait for the next elevator rather than share one with known Republicans while the other tiny percentage of sore losers console themselves with flagging media empire lord Rupert Murdcoch's verbal wrestling channel and contemplate a move to Texas where succession is in the air and thousands of like minded assholes consider a more perfect union!

Who is this Maxlugar you speak of?

"Sure is too bad someone made the policy decision to leave Afganistan without finishing the job."

Uh oh -- a Bush hiccup!
Had to happen.

Actually, we never left Afghanistan -- we helped set up elections and Hamid Kharzi is now the President and over the past couple of years we increased our troop presence there to about 32K in late 2008.

We also drove what was left of the Taliban into the Pakistan tribal region where they have regrouped in the Swat valley after Pakistan allowed them to -- which occurred during this Administration, incidently.

If you had bothered to read the story that Starbuck doesn't, the problem has arisen this year with Obama sending over more troops without proper equipment.  

Shares of News Corp. (NWSA) rose sharply Thursday after the company's chairman said the advertising downturn has reached a bottom, and advertisers are starting to return to the marketplace.

The company's Class A shares were up 1.9% at $9.63 in late morning trading. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, commenting Wednesday on the most severe worldwide economic downturn in decades, said "it is increasingly clear that the worst is over."

Speaking to analysts on a conference call, Murdoch said: "There are emerging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done and that revenues are beginning to look healthier."

---------

The rumors of Fox's death are exaggerated...

Riffhard wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 4:24pm:


have you heard the electric version? with mandolin? we did it all in one take.

PM your email if interested...

nankerphelge wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 4:33pm:



FYI - Bush also tried to cut the same program