Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
8bitagent wrote:
HOW DARE Rachel Maddow on MSNBC mock President Karzai for asking the US to stop the bombing of civilians. Fuck you Maddow, you fake fucking "liberal" who just yesterday said "Osama is out for world domination".
God the liberals make me sick sometimes, myself being a progressive liberal.
The Association for the Protection of Women's Rights (Anjoman-i-Himayat-i-Niswan) was founded in 1927 in Kabul, Afghanistan, under the direction of King Amanullah's (1919 - 1929) sister, Princess Kobra, its president, and Queen Soraya, Amanullah's wife, its main leader. Its main objectives were to help women become self-reliant and take part in the development of Afghanistan; to ensure women's right to education and to work outside the home; and to protect women against domestic abuse, including threats by male family members to prevent women from working outside the home. Cases of domestic abuse were heard and dealt with in special family tribunals presided over by the queen. The association offered courses in sewing, weaving, and other hand-icrafts, and it recruited women from low-income families to work in factories. In September 1928 several women participated in the Loya-Jirga (Grand Assembly) as representatives of the association to promote reforms to improve the status of women. The association had drafted a political platform and was ready to participate in upcoming parliamentary elections when its activities were interrupted by widespread opposition to Queen Soraya's campaign, begun in 1928, to unveil and emancipate women. The association was closed down shortly thereafter.
IanEye wrote:8bitagent wrote:
HOW DARE Rachel Maddow on MSNBC mock President Karzai for asking the US to stop the bombing of civilians. Fuck you Maddow, you fake fucking "liberal" who just yesterday said "Osama is out for world domination".
God the liberals make me sick sometimes, myself being a progressive liberal.
8bit, do you have a transcript of this 'mocking'?
IanEye wrote:I think the planet should take a NeoLabial approach to Afghanistan.
I think the women of the world should flood Afghanistan with vaginas.
Just vagina vagina vagina everywhere you go in Afghanistan.
chlamor wrote:The Beat Goes On: More Atrocity as Afghanistan Braces for Obama Surge
Written by Chris Floyd
While America continues its giddy, self-congratulatory celebration of "change," Afghans find themselves mired in the tragically familiar: yet another round of mourning for yet another massacre of innocent civilians in yet another blind, bludgeoning air strike by American forces.
This time almost 40 people, including 10 women and 23 children, were ripped to shreds of bone and viscera when an American missile struck a wedding party in the remote village of Wech Bakhtu, according to Washington's own hand-picked native satrap, President Hamid Karzai. As the Guardian and National Post report:
The bombing on Monday of Wech Baghtu in the southern province of Kandahar destroyed an Afghan housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate. Body parts littered the wreckage and farm animals lay dead.
Abdul Jalil, a 37-year-old grape farmer whose niece was getting married, said at the scene of the bombing that US troops and Taliban fighters had been fighting about half a mile from his home.
A short while later fighter planes bombed the complex, killing 23 children, 10 women and four men, he claimed.
"In the bombing, mostly women and children were killed," said villager Hyat Ullah. "Some lost their head. Some lost their hand. They were in very bad condition."
Such mass slaughters of civilians are now a regular occurrence in the occupied land. At last 18 people -- three women and 15 children -- were killed by an allied air strike in Helmand in mid-October. Some 90 civilians, mostly women and children, were killed in a night raid on the village of Azizabad in September -- an atrocity that the Pentagon at first tried, My Lai-like, to cover up completely, but was eventually forced to partially acknowledge, admitting "only" 33 civilian deaths in a report that contradicted the eyewitness evidence gathered by the Afghan government, NGOs and UN investigators who detailed the much larger true death toll. In July, Americans bombed yet another wedding party in Nangahar, killing 47 civilians -- including the bride, as the NY Times notes.
In deploring the new slaughter at Wech Bakhtu, Karzai pleaded with the incoming U.S. president, Barack Obama, to "end civilian casualties in Afghanistan" after he takes over the American war machine in January. But there is little chance of that happening. Obama has pledged to send even more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Obama took a great deal of heat during the campaign for brief remarks last year that actually acknowledged the carnage being wrought by U.S. strikes:
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
His opponents, including that great "progressive," Hillary Clinton, somehow turned this into an indication of Obama's "weakness" on "defense" -- although it was in fact a forthright commitment to more war. But far more noteworthy than Obama's acknowledgment of the obvious, however, was his idea that increasing the number of American troops in Afghanistan will somehow reduce the number of bombing runs and missile strikes that are taking such a horrific toll on civilians. Because of course the opposite is true. More U.S. troops on the ground will mean more "close air support" to back them up, and bail them out, when they are under fire.
This is precisely what happened Monday at Wech Bakhtu, as the NY Times reports:
Zalmay Ayoby, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar, said the strike on Monday took place when Taliban and American-led forces were engaged in a firefight near the village of Wech Bakhtu. He said that an air strike was called in after the Taliban opened fire on a coalition unit, and that a missile struck a compound where a wedding party was being held.
Most of the civilian slaughters by American and allied air power have occurred while in support of ground forces. It is inevitable that more ground troops will draw more fire, necessitating more air support. This in turn guarantees an increase in civilian casualties; for despite the modern myths about "precision bombing" and "smart weapons," bombs and missiles are indiscriminate killers, targeting is an inexact science -- and the lives of an occupied people are always cheap.
This is not hard to figure out. And Obama, who is, as we are constantly told -- correctly, I think -- one of the most intelligent men ever elected president, must know it. He must know that putting more troops into Afghanistan will mean "more air-raiding [of] villages and killing civilians." Perhaps he is counting on the bipartisan backing of this "good war" in the American political and media establishments (including most of the "progressosphere") to circumvent the "enormous pressures" that will inevitably be caused by his planned "surge."
Meanwhile, innocent Afghans will continue to die at the hands of their "liberators" -- even as these "liberators" blame the survivors for the attacks on their families. As the Guardian notes:
Jalil said US forces came into his village after the bombing run. "The Americans came and told us 'you are sheltering the Taliban', and I told the Americans 'come inside and see for yourself, you are killing women and children'," Jalil said.
And the National Post reports:
This latest reported attack, after a series of incidents which have killed innocent Afghans, drew anger from villagers.
"Now you can see how the Americans are coming and bombing women, children, everyone ... all innocent people," said Mohamed Asim. "I want to ask the Americans, did you come to stabilize and bring peace to our country, or have you come to destabilize and destroy our country?"
Come January, how will Barack Obama answer that question? We can only look to his own words on the campaign trail. As we noted here last month:
The Democratic candidate's stated polices on the conflict dovetail exactly with those of Rove, Bush and McCain: Thousands of more troops. More military hardware. More drone missile strikes, not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan as well. Obama has also pledged to pressure the Europeans to send more troops and hardware of their own to Afghanistan, with "fewer restrictions" on their combat operations.
In other words, he will answer it with steel, fire and blood.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/co ... surge.html
8bitagent wrote:I beg of you President Obama, please stop this fucking war in Afghanistan.
Don't listen to all the idiot liberal hypocrites who are saying its the "right war" but Iraq was the "wrong war". Its all bullshit. The liberals in America dont seem to realize how many tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan have been killed or maimed. And now the war is expanding into Pakistan? FUCK THAT.
Real anti war people are against both wars, and the only reason the spineless left supports Afghanistan is because they believe the sad sack of shit for a racist hoax fable that is the 9/11 fairy tale...oh and because the left(and right) thinks Afghanistan is about "democracy".
Pipelines, permanent bases and opium is more like it
HOW DARE Rachel Maddow on MSNBC mock President Karzai for asking the US to stop the bombing of civilians. Fuck you Maddow, you fake fucking "liberal" who just yesterday said "Osama is out for world domination".
God the liberals make me sick sometimes, myself being a progressive liberal.
The left NEEDS to start getting angry about Afghanistan, and say no to ALL wars.
ninakat wrote:If nobody responds to IanEye's posting, it'll simply be a.... wait for it.... vagina monologue. (this posting doesn't count as a response)
8bitagent wrote:It was on the Rachel Maddow show yesterday(available to watch on msnbc's streaming videos) She was talking about how world leaders responded to the Obama win.
And yes, I know Karzai is a Unocal/globalist stooge put it, but he's been loudly calling for an end to airstrikes killing so many Afghan civilians.
Rachel Maddow: And what was Afghan President Hamid Karzai's heartwarming message? Congrats, looking forward to working with you? Well yeah, but also, he said this.
Quote: "Our demand is that there will be no civilian casualties in Afghanistan. We cannot win the fight against terrorism with airstrikes. This is my first demand of the new President of the United States - to put an end to civilian casualties."
This a demand that Hamid Karzai has made of the Bush Administration before; as soon as the race was called here in America, it seems Karzai has decided to redirect his demands to the new Administration.
Now for his part, President-elect Obama has touted plans for a bitartisan foreign policy approach.
Barack Obama: "It is important for us, particularly when it comes to National Security to return to a tradition of non-partisan National Security. We have politicied our foreign policy in a way that has done us great damage and I want to return to a tradition that says, you know, our differences end at the water's edge."
freemason9 wrote:And please don't pick on Rachel. She's incredibly hot.
crikkett wrote:
Rachel may be getting her info wrong, and she may be getting a little overconfident. I hate to say that. She's played a big part in winning this election for Obama. It's a shame to see her act so "Ugly American". Please accept my apologies on her behalf.
freemason9 wrote:
And please don't pick on Rachel. She's incredibly hot.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests