|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. |
I think its a bit naive to say its hypocrisy. Just business as usual. The US does this sort of thing every week in various places. Of course the US citizens dont have clue what their government is up to.
The United States has plenty of hypocrisy but this instance ain't one.
Russian air strikes are in support of Assad and priority target Assad's political enemies. Russian fighters would skip six ISIS camps to bomb a rebel base. And it's all for a very cynical reason, to buoy international support for Russia in light of Putin's Ukraine mania.
Collateral damage is a terrible, inevitable byproduct of war but at least the US was aiming at the right bad guys...which they indirectly contributed to creating, of course.
A) you really believe that state department drivel? Russia would skip advancing ISIS positions that are closer to Assads territory just to attack terrorists farther away? On what planet does that make any sense other than as some moronic propaganda?
B) this wasn't an accidental hit, it was a prolonged assault. This is a great example of using precision munitions to kill whatever is moving without giving a shit because someone in the afghan government said "Bad guys! There! Kill! Kill!". (Do you check to make sure the hospital is actually full of terrorists before bombing it for 30 minutes or is having any excuse enough?)
To SolRo: I think you're trying to use this incident as a reason to justify Russia's rather shitty policy in Syria.
About the video: from my experiences in the military there is generally a lot of checks that are made before an air strike is called in by BLUFOR. The afghan army, or any local forces we work with are not considered part of BLUFOR--I forget the term we used, and I am not certain if it was them or any NATO forward observers that called that strike. Which is the problem, a smart bomb is only as smart as the person who calls the strike, to the person who authorizes the strike, to pilot who makes the strike, it's a complicated system with many parts that can go fubar.
It's why I get upset when Brits make jokes about Americans who seem to love friendly fire: it's a bit more complicated than just "Americans are gun crazy idiots lol bring the boys back home", it's more like "we have the most aircraft, the most support; we make the most strikes, and we have the most opportunities to fuck up." It becomes pure cynical politicizing of the awful aspects of modern war.
That being said, either someone fucked up or someone had a somewhat awful ulterior motive. I won't try to justify this, the NATO forces fucked it up by making that strike, and I feel ashamed as a former service member.
I'm not justifying it, just saying the US government is on no moral high ground from which to criticize it.
And that's not even taking into account it's support and arming of Saudi Arabia and Israel during their respective high body count bombing campaigns of cities.
so it was probably a C-130.
Wonder how quickly that IR video of doctors and nurses running around, being fired on, will get buried or deleted.
Way to turn a tragedy into yet another opportunity to suck Putin's dick. You're so fucking retarded.
yeah, yeah, I know...when americans target and kill civilians with glee, it's a "tragedy", an "unfortunate mistake", "necessary sacrifice to the Old Ones".
Only when Russians accidentally kill civilians is it the deliberate order of a horrible despot etc, etc.
You idiots are getting so repetitive that it's boring.
You bore me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-us-and-russ ia-syria-and-ukraine-neo-cons-vs-liberal-interventionists_b_824312 4.html
SolRo clearly typed the description to this video with one hand.
Tell us about the "hypocracy" when it's proven that Russia is doing something different than this in Syria.
I don't think anyone here is a one-dimensional apologist for American foreign policy, Mr SolRo. Most people condemn the killing of civilians across the board, and if your fellow Poester's heartfelt objections seem insufficient to you, that's probably because, as unarmed serfs living within a system of (so far relatively benign) oligarchical collectivism, we are powerless to effect any meaningful change.
I think what people have a problem with, what my fellow Poesters are trying to tell you, is that YOU are acting like a one-dimensional apologist for Russian foreign policy. You are able to correctly identify problems with centralized authority here in the United States, but as soon as Russia, your beloved ancestral homeland, enters into the discussion, your ideological blinders come up and you become just as bad - if not worse than - the hypothetical American jingoists you love to rage against.
You are an intelligent person, SolRo, but you watch too much Infowars and RussiaToday. While it is right and good to listen to a wide variety of alternative viewpoints, you also need to balance it out with a wide variety of less-than-alternative viewpoints, and more importantly, you need to periodically take a break from your crusade and examine your own beliefs, as critically and as harshly as possible. You don't have to stop believing in the narrative sold to you by Alex Jones and his fellow gang of paid Russian shills, but you DO need some perspective, and I believe the best way to do that would be for you to play the Devil's Evilhomer for a few days. Perhaps this weekend? Spend the whole weekend looking at things from the perspective of a Ukrainian, or a pro-ISIS Syrian rebel.
Just a thought. Have a good and safe day!
You're bored? It sounds more like you're upset that we're not agreeing with your opinions or overly accepting of your perspective.
In reference to civilian casualties: there's a more plausible explanation with accidental death involving an AC130 than dropping barrel bombs from a MI-8 over a civilian center.
Once again I have to resort to my own experiences in Iraq and say that we have rather strict rules about interacting with civilians. But, as I said, the fog of war and its inherent complexity are compounded when dealing with a low-intensity unconventional war. In essence: there is a lot of shit that can get fucked up, and sadly it does sometimes, even us and our techno-marvel weapons.
Still it's no excuse, if NATO wants to maintain its credibility it has to take full blame and investigate those involved. I doubt it will, though.
That being said: if Putin wants to support a regime that kills it civilians and labels any resistor a terrorist and fails to make any distinction between a civilian population that had peacefully protested and demonstrated for democratic reforms and has ruined the nation for the sake of staying in power, then that's his problem, and I find it unfortunate that you are so one-dimensional, SolRo.
If anything I'm getting bored of people like you, I hate dragging myself into these conversations with people who cannot seem to see the forest or the trees. I'm bored having to explain the same thing, again and again; explaining that there are many nuances in life, and may complexities and reasons why people do the things they do, and sometimes there really isn't true evil, it's just us being, well, us.
NATO will investigate but political considerations will overcome the truth
"That being said: if Putin wants to support a regime that kills it civilians and labels any resistor a terrorist and fails to make any distinction between a civilian population that had peacefully protested and demonstrated for democratic reforms and has ruined the nation for the sake of staying in power, then that's his problem, and I find it unfortunate that you are so one-dimensional, SolRo."
Ironic that you just described exactly what your holy of holiest NATO powers allowed to happen in Ukraine. I mean, fuck, exactly what you described except switch in Poroshenko for Assad. Did you do it intentionally?
"Tell us about the "hypocrisy" when it's proven that Russia is doing something different than this in Syria."
So Russia is guilty by default in your cold-war propaganda damaged mind, and should prove it's innocent?
Christ, all ya'll motherfuckers are so dumb.
I'm surprised people on this site could still be so monumentally stupid with that "Our freedom bombs only target terrorists, their commie bombs only target innocent people" jingoistic horseshit.
"I'm surprised people on this site could still be so monumentally stupid with that "Our freedom bombs only target terrorists, their commie bombs only target innocent people" jingoistic horseshit."
I'm sure you think it's naive of me, but I trust the Obama administration's intentions, and we are genuinely trying to target people who try to target innocent people. That's not because we are defined as the good guys; it's because the pattern I've seen is that this administration is trying to achieve the most peaceful and fair outcomes possible. Consider the following:
- Syria and chemical weapons the other year: got Assad to stop using chemical weapons on Syrians, without firing a shot.
- Nuclear treaty with Iran.
- Improved relations with Cuba.
- Settling disputes with Native American tribes, some of which have been going on for over 100 years. Bet you didn't know anything about that; it's not making the news at all. But holy crap, this is the sort of thing Obama has been up to, and there sure isn't any benefit to him other than doing the right thing:
It would be inconsistent of Obama, to the point of actual literal insanity, to try to foster peace and good relations in so many places, and then delight in wanton bloodshed in the Middle East.
By the way, we still don't know the substance of the TPP, though everyone's already made up their minds on what it contains. But there's a good chance that the TPP is one of those few places where Obama as chessmaster might be a valid analogy: a key point of increasing eocnomic interconnectedness might well be to make war an even less attractive option between treaty countries. We will see, but keep an eye on that possibility, because it sounds like an Obama sort of thing.
Obama also approved re-arming the "moderate" terrorists last week. Many of them being only slightly less radical Islamic jihadists than ISIS.
He's fueling a war with no end game...he's trying to get a do-over on Libya...just topple the government therefore freedom wins...IT WILL WORK THIS TIME I PROMISE!
You can sugar coat it with good intentions until it's glazed a mile thick, but once again American geo-political engineering (with weapons) is killing hundreds of thousands of people because FREEDOM IS WORTH IT, YOU DIRTY FREEDOM HATER. (and there are likely oil/money reasons behind it too)
Lets look at two different examples of Obama just loving freedom and hating government oppression/killing of protestors and plucky rebels;
Syria 4 years ago...violently suppresses political protests.
America/Obama funds and eventually arms violent opposition groups to bring down the government, because freedom is so important (wink, wink)
Saudi Arabia, almost at the same time, violently suppresses political protests.
America/Obama makes a slight whimper and nothing else.
Recently, Saudi Arabia decided it must prop up the terribly unpopular Yemen government which was overthrown by a populist rebel group. Saudi Arabia does this propping by bombing the everloving shit out the country (which it hates on an ethnic basis anyhow).
America not only supplied those jets and bombs, supports the Saudi campaign, but even signed further weapons supply contracts recently.
Also east Ukraine, whose populist rebels didn't get the freedom sticker of approval so they must die.
ETC ETC ETC
"He's fueling a war with no end game...he's trying to get a do-over on Libya...just topple the government therefore freedom wins...IT WILL WORK THIS TIME I PROMISE!"
Uh, we got involved in Libya because the UN Security Council voted 11-0 that it needs to be done to prevent a civilian massacre. No, the resulting chaos in Libya has not been a treat, but please tell me why you would have been fine with the civilian massacre.
>>Ironic that you just described exactly what your holy of holiest NATO powers allowed to happen in Ukraine. I mean, fuck, exactly what you described except switch in Poroshenko for Assad. Did you do it intentionally?
That would be an accurate statement if NATO supported Viktor Yanukovych, who actually had the police and military shoot protesters, which was when things got real bad. But we didn't.
Wait there's a pattern here: peaceful protesters against a corrupt/oppressive regime; protesters get shot by said regime, and then things go bad.
Criticize NATO sure, we have done some fucked up shit, but at least we don't dump bodies of our honorable dead at their family's front yard, describing the circumstances of their death as a training accident in locations unknown because the government is too cowardly to tell the truth.
"Yanukovych, who actually had the police and military shoot protesters"
That's such a bold-faced fucking lie that it's not even funny.
Over 100 police died to those neo-Nazi shitheels, shot and burned and beaten to death.
Even the Neo-nazis have admitted to shooting at police lines.
You're so fucking clueless and drenched in propaganda you should just go back to watching whatever primetime garbage TV your simple little mind can tolerate.
And also Yanukovych was actually democratically elected so fuck you and fuck NATO, no one needs the approval of you simple retards.
|Binro the Heretic |
I'm starting to think bombs and missiles aren't an effective weapon against ideology.
See, when the US makes a mistake, it's exactly the same thing as when a despotic, corrupt nation like Russia *intentionally* targets civilians or anyone else that gets in their way of imposing their will on independent nations. There's no difference at all!
Your evidence of Russia intentionally targeting civilians is how far up your stupid ass?
Go ahead, pull it out for us.
so suck on my sweaty balls and cock.
PROOFS??? RASHKA WOULD NEVER TARGET CIVILIANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny_ballistic_missile_attack< br />
Try not to get tears on your abibas.
What tears? You're too boring to even get a serious reaction out of me
This can't possibly have happened. The United States is not fighting in Afghanistan. It is not fighting in Syria, either. Obama is a Peace Prize winner, I have not heard Jon Stewart condemning US military actions for years, and at any rate, we need Congressional approval for war, which hasn't happened since, what? Iraq? So it therefore stands to reason that no war is occurring.
I don't know why those fucking Russians are attacking Syrian Muslim freedom fighters, but clearly Russia is up to no good. In any highly-publicized, two-party political situation, one side must be good, while the other side must be evil; given this Law of Political Behavior, if SolRo is siding with the Russians, Russia must be evil, and America, good.
SolRo, you are a foolish man, and I can only pray that when freedom finally comes to Russia's doorstep, you do not choke on it's sweet, pure taste.
Incidentally, I've been commissioned to do a painting for a veteran's break room at a nearby university. I'm not sure what kind of scene to paint, though - do you guys have any ideas?
I was thinking maybe a Frank Frazetta style painting, only that buff viking hero who always appears in Frazetta paintings, he will be an M-16 armed anthropomorphic eagle, and instead of fighting orcs, he'll be ripping out Assad's entrails with his beak.
good idea, but different entrails...Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jane Fonda...
>> Ask the veterans what they would like to see. Or explore their experiences.
I've asked a few, but as I'm sure you know, we vets are a diverse bunch, and everyone's got a different set of priorities. The eagleman eating Assad was actually requested by a Navy veteran friend of mine, a long haired, pot-smoking hippie, who spends his days doing Van Gogh reproductions. Another fellow, an active duty Green Beret whose wife works with me, mentioned his love for James Dietz, an extremely talented, hyper-patriotic military painter who specializes in serious combat scenes. My best battle told me he'd enjoy anything, just so long as it had some half-naked girls in it! And as for me, I'm not very patriotic and I'm one of the worst vets ever, so I'm at a total fucking loss - left to my own devices, I'd want to see something like a portrait of Sonichu and Boxxy, dressed like Yakuza, battling each other in the back alleys of Akihabara.
You're a vet, right, Baron von Beaver? What would you like to see?
In all honesty, my current Top Idea was partially inspired by my Coastie gal pal and by my cowker, the Jame Dietz fan: "Dogs Playing Poker", only the dogs are dressed in staff officer's uniforms from each branch of service, and instead of playing poker, they are playing Risk.
I think that might be the optimal mixture between fun and serious, sarcastic and solemn, but I'd love to hear any other ideas you might have, BvBB!
I'm thinking of something slice of life, like a marine sitting on an ammo crate of 40mm, forlornly looking at his tin of dip that has spilled into the sand, in the background the Iraqi Police on the back of a Chevy silverado are displaying the body parts of a dead suicide bomber who self detonated on accident before he could do any harm. In the sky the vague apparition of the Green Weenie floats in a clear blue sky.
That's a cool idea! My only worry is that the spilled tin of dip might be too triggering for people.
Incidentally, did you hear about the female Rangers? I put a video about them in the hopper; they have been generating a lot of controversy. Assuming the video doesn't get enough votes, I'd still love to hear your take on the story.
I haven't heard of it, really. But I haven't been following too much on these subjects. What I'll say is if they can make the grade, meet the standard then what's the big deal?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|