For any bozo still shedding tears about the US leaving Afghanistan, for any warmongering fool in Washington or in the woke-loving CIA, contemplating how to bring troops back to Afghanistan, I sincerely hope for the sake of civilians around the world that Sunday’s drone strike will finally bring you to your senses.
I hope that for the female civilians—the ones that you’re apparently so worried about—and also the male ones—the ones maimed in drone strikes, the young ones used as sex slaves by older men while you turned the other way (is this considered woke now?).
The BBC is reporting that ten civilians were killed in the US’s Sunday drone strike, which was reportedly targeting a car that the US says was filled with explosives.
CNN does report CENTCOM as saying this:
“We know that there were substantial and powerful subsequent explosions resulting from the destruction of the vehicle, indicating a large amount of explosive material inside that may have caused additional casualties. It is unclear what may have happened, and we are investigating further.”
There’s still confusion as to exactly what happened. But one thing still stands. The US has wreaked utter havoc on Afghanistan. We already have plenty of evidence of it through drone strikes and landmines and propping up corrupt governments. It helped to allow boys to be used as child sex slaves (outlawed under the Taliban). It also helped to make Afghanistan—however unintentional—a leading exporter of opium (this was far from the case under the Taliban, who banned growing opium poppies).
And yet. The mainstream media—pretty much the whole lot—bring their noble experts to lament the withdrawal, to tell you that we needed more time, all the while not disclosing that many of these people are on the boards of defense contractors. Disgusting.
Some examples, as pointed out by the Intercept:
Condaleeza Rice in the Washington Post: She tells us in her latest op-ed piece that we needed more time in Afghanistan. She currently sits on the board of a defense contractor, but this is how the Washington Post describes her: “Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009 and national security adviser from 2001 to 2005. She is director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University”
Jack Keane on Fox News: They describe him as a “retired four-star U.S. Army general, Fox News senior strategic analyst, and chair of the Institute of the Study of War.” Keane tells us he thinks “the administration made a terrible mistake in pulling our troops out and giving the Taliban the opportunity to take control of the country.”
What was not disclosed was his former position at a weapons maker company (General Dynamics), his being the chair of the company that produces Humvees (AM General), his board membership on Cyalume Technologies Inc., which “which manufactures military chemical lights and other technology deployed on the battlefield in Afghanistan,” and that the Institute for the Study of War is backed by defense contractors.
Richard Haas on MSNBC: They introduce him as “veteran diplomat under multiple presidents, longtime president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and an author of several books—his most recent work, “The World: A Brief Introduction” [WOW]. “I think an incorrect policy was selected here by the president…by time Joe Biden became president, I think he inherited a situation …which he could have lived with.”
Haas could have lived with it too, and likely very comfortably. He’s on the board of Lazard, s financial advisory firm whose work includes serving aerospace and defense companies.
Connect the dots. This control that these sickening individuals and their friends in the media have directly relates to the amount of havoc wreaked on the world. ‘Authu billah. May we never love duniya as they do.
They are willing to put the lives of countless civilians in faraway lands on the line so that they can fill their pockets.
Terror, plunged onto the world again and again. It’s barely comprehensible.
And yet. We are stuck in this narrative. The New York Times, in the same article where they explain that nine civilians may have died in the US’s Sunday drone strike:
“Afghans have lived for nearly 20 years under an American security umbrella that held out the promise of a better future and allowed for a more modern society connected to the rest of the world. With the return of the Taliban, that dream has died and an uncertain future beckons, especially for women and girls, who were brutally oppressed under the Taliban a generation ago.”
What security umbrella? Could there be a way to balance your concerns with the fact that you just wrote that locals on the ground are saying TEN CIVILIANS died in the latest US drone strike?
Compare the drone strikes, the more than 71,000 civilian lives lost in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a result of this war with the video link in the quotation above (provided by the New York Times). Which one seems more dangerous to you?
- (Clip is in video embedded in the Intercept article, 0:47) ↑
- (Clip is in video embedded in the Intercept article, 1:57) ↑