Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Oh shit - look who the US have voted in now...

Where have I apologised for the murder of innocents? What have I apologised for? :confused: Are you mixing me up with George Bush, like you mixed Obama up with Zachor? Who's McCain - moomoo?

So you would rather McCain and Palin got in, then? I meant that as a genuine question before, btw.

Come on, you defended the BBC lies. Obama will widen the Afghan war with yet more wedding bombings no? You either support him or not surely. So which is it?

Asking me about Mcain is irrelevant now so leave it out please.
 
Come on, you defended the BBC lies. Obama will widen the Afghan war with yet more wedding bombings no? You either support him or not surely. So which is it?

Asking me about Mcain is irrelevant now so leave it out please.

I did defend the BBC's language, because they don't have much choice about it. The same law protecting the US bastards killing people is the law that protects ordinary people from being called murderers before trial. This does not mean that I have 'aplogised for the murder of innocents.' I even agreed with you that using 'responsible' would have been more honest - it's just they can't do that.

Obama isn't President yet. I'm not going to condemn him on what he hasn't done yet. He has pledged to pull out of Iraq, but I suppose that doesn't matter somehow.

It's not irrelevant to ask about McCain - no less relevant now than it was before the election, since we don't have votes in the US; I'm simply asking for your own personal preference. Why won't you just answer the question?

Are you just spoiling for a fight or something?
 
I did defend the BBC's language, because they don't have much choice about it. The same law protecting the US bastards killing people is the law that protects ordinary people from being called murderers before trial. This does not mean that I have 'aplogised for the murder of innocents.' I even agreed with you that using 'responsible' would have been more honest - it's just they can't do that.

Obama isn't President yet. I'm not going to condemn him on what he hasn't done yet. He has pledged to pull out of Iraq, but I suppose that doesn't matter somehow.

It's not irrelevant to ask about McCain - no less relevant now than it was before the election, since we don't have votes in the US; I'm simply asking for your own personal preference. Why won't you just answer the question?

Are you just spoiling for a fight or something?

He's been looking for a fight ever since everyone got all mushy and huggy on election night. I for one have just been ignoring his posts. I don't want to let him spoil my buzz.:D
 
I did defend the BBC's language, because they don't have much choice about it. The same law protecting the US bastards killing people is the law that protects ordinary people from being called murderers before trial. This does not mean that I have 'aplogised for the murder of innocents.' I even agreed with you that using 'responsible' would have been more honest - it's just they can't do that.

Obama isn't President yet. I'm not going to condemn him on what he hasn't done yet. He has pledged to pull out of Iraq, but I suppose that doesn't matter somehow.

It's not irrelevant to ask about McCain - no less relevant now than it was before the election, since we don't have votes in the US; I'm simply asking for your own personal preference. Why won't you just answer the question?

Are you just spoiling for a fight or something?

Defend whatever it is you are defending, yourself, saint Obama, I'm not interested. I've heard enough.
 
Defend whatever it is you are defending, yourself, saint Obama, I'm not interested. I've heard enough.

If you're that angry at me for my really quite mild opinions, then you're going to have a heart attack come the inauguration.

@Johnny: it's sad, though - lately there are too many people on urban that I want to ignore, people who aren't worth the letters on a screen. Messageboard fatigue, I guess.
 
"US air strikes have been blamed for many civilian deaths"

I can’t understand why you defend the BBC's wording here. The US has been responsible for many civilian deaths from airstrikes, it has nothing to do with not being able to say something that legalistically they aren’t supposed to, it is a simple fact that the US has caused many civilian deaths from airstrikes. There is no dispute to be had about that whatsoever. They are clearly in the wrong, it should have been:

"US airstrikes have caused many civilian deaths"

You disagree then?

They shouldn't have said 'been blamed', like there is any doubt about it. Ignore me then, you are still in the wrong because you can't change the facts.
 
FFS.

Every reader who's paying attention said:
Eddy Black makes conspiraloon rants.

FACT.

But not a fact acknowleged by Eddy Black.

Therefore:

News source with a statutory requirement to use impartial language said:
Eddy Black has been blamed for conspiraloon rants.
 
You may perceive it as a rant if you like, feel free also to disagree or argue with what I have actually said.

If we were discussing airstrikes in say, London or Birmingham, you probably wouldn't have such a flippant attitude.
 
US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/11/afghanistan.usa

US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7501538.stm

However, the US will in most instances blame the ‘Taliban’ for being in areas with civilians.

Still, the only accurate way to say it is , ‘US airstrikes have caused many civilian deaths’, or even ‘many civilians have died in US airstrikes’. Saying they have merely ‘been blamed’ is taking the whole impartiality issue too far I think. They do after all admit to this:

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-04-voa30.cfm
http://current.com/items/89389394_1...n_civilian_dead_that_us_will_admit_to_killing

And even if the US quibbles over some of them, the Afghan government and independent bodies such as the UN have shown them to be untrustworthy, like saying 7 civilians died in one incident when the UN proved it was in fact 90:
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/08/afghanistan-un-has-video-of-us-airstrike-aftermath/

So how would the BBC’s impartiality prevent them from saying ‘many civilians have died in US airstrikes’? If anything it would be the impartial thing to say.
 
Well it looks like Obama cant wait to get himself the Butcher Barack tag, he's not even in the job yet, and poodle Brown is having to send in troops to do Zbigniews bidding:

no link yet - main story on news at ten right now

this on the day that another poll shows that more than two-thirds (68%) of brits think all troops should be withdrawn immediately - the polls have been like that for years now
poll: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7714828.stm

nothing else to say but bollocks

edited to add: Im pretty sure i heard brown saying last week taht there was no chance of britain sendign in more troops, as we had our 'fair share of the burden' already.
 
I'm surprised the poll numbers showed such an overwhelming number in favour of bringing the troops home. The BBC report was also encouraging, in that it was prepared to report this and relate it to the fact that we are likely to see Britain sending even more troops to go along with soon to be president Obama.
 
Would you have preferred the US to vote in McCain and Palin, though? Obviously you can be critical of Obama even if you think he was the best choice (best of a bad lot if nothing else), but this thread, with its title, seems to be criticising the US for voting in Obama.
On the first point, I certainly wouldn't. It would have been a nightmare writ large.

E2A here are a seven-year old boy's thoughts on the subject
Here is why I'm asking grown-ups to vote for Barack Obama. I am 7 years old so I can't vote......

My mom told me that I shouldn't base my election analysis on "feelings" (I like him/her) or "beliefs" (I share his/her beliefs) but on logical arguments. She asked me to create my own rational explanations for my support of Obama. Here is one of my arguments:

McCain and Palin are not be qualified to be President / Vice President of the U.S. The President's job is to do good for the country and the world. To do good for the country, the President must make smart decisions on important situations.

Governor Palin believes the world is 6000 years old. This is absurd. This is not a rational belief. This is a mistake. Scientists, experiments and evidence have shown this to be completely false. Therefore, she is not rational. If she is not rational, she should not be allowed to be President or Vice President.

source

But on the second count best of a bad lot is pretty apt.

Unless I am hopefully mistaken.

Same shit different flavour.
 
Although I'm nervous slightly about this appointment it can't be denied that involvement in Iraq has meant that the Americans have taken their eyes off of the ball and neglected the place which is the biggest problem - Afghanistan. The Allies had the Taliban on the run but the Iraq distraction allowed them to reform. A big mistake. I'm in favour of making sure that the Taliban never reappear in Afghanistan to terrorise that unlucky people again.

Appointed like the queen mother?:p
 
Would you have preferred the US to vote in McCain and Palin, though? Obviously you can be critical of Obama even if you think he was the best choice (best of a bad lot if nothing else), but this thread, with its title, seems to be criticising the US for voting in Obama.

You missed the point completely then - the point was, lets look behind the window dressing and see who is behind the scenes of an Obama presidency. (read the OP if you have any doubt) - Lets look who else got voted in by the US electorate (so far I see Zbigniew).

With Bush jr it was obvious - he happily lined up with his puppet masters before the election (cheney, rumsfeld, powell, etc. all posed with bush during his campaing on the same stage)

Who is behind Obama? Well, Check the OP again - Zbigniew is the closet puppet master behind the foregin policy of Obama (or O'Bomber as his Afghan plan will no doubt end up dubbing him).

Zbigniew is dirt and has fucked the world up no end with his playing of imperial games - its only right we recognise that he's back behind the wheel in this forthcoming latest chapter in the seemingly never ending, murderous Afghan adventure.
 
An interesting tidbit on Obama's chief adviser on Latin America Dan Restrepo. His father was involved with setting up the counter-insuregency work (i.e funding, arming, supplying info Latin American states and their proxy armies armies to hunt down and kill leftists and peasants in order to 'contain' any potential expansion of leftward movement that might threaten US ruling class interests) of the Alliance for Progress.
 
Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, an Iraq war loyalist and a hawk on nuclear weapons, is being talked about as a possible Obama Defense Secretary. Unconfirmed, but watch this space....

news_second.jpg
 
Zbigniew is dirt and has fucked the world up no end with his playing of imperial games - its only right we recognise that he's back behind the wheel in this forthcoming latest chapter in the seemingly never ending, murderous Afghan adventure.
Zbig opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning. That gives him some points in my book.

The murderous Afghan adventure was begun mainly by the Taliban. More infantry is certainly needed & less reliance on air strikes that inevitably hit innocents. Afghan is the mess it is in because Zbig's advice wasn't followed. Now that the insane Iraq diversion is coming to a close, Afghan must be finished & that means finishing the Taliban. But the difficulty will be immense.
 
An interesting tidbit on Obama's chief adviser on Latin America Dan Restrepo. His father was involved with setting up the counter-insuregency work (i.e funding, arming, supplying info Latin American states and their proxy armies armies to hunt down and kill leftists and peasants in order to 'contain' any potential expansion of leftward movement that might threaten US ruling class interests) of the Alliance for Progress.

And how is this a "valid" observation?!? You titwit!!!:hmm: Trial by-proxy, eh?:rolleyes: Either give us what he thinks and does on these matters or go back to the cave times, or at least quasi-communist times, when sons were responsible for what their fathers did...:rolleyes:
 
Found this analysis of Obama's 'staff':
Here's the lowdown on Obama's team. Know his friends so you can know his master.

Meet Bob Rubin, the padrino of the economy team:
20070827rubin.jpg


Here's a family portrait for starters.

The year is 1999, the president is Bill "tech bubble" Clinton, his treasury secretary is soon-to-be-Citigroup-board-member Bob Rubin, and his Fed chairman is Alan "irrational exhuberance" Greenspan. Rubin helps Citigroup to usher the Gramm-Leach Act that revokes New Deal banking regulations through Congress, getting the dems on board and suppressing dissident voices. This allows Citigroup to merge with an insurance company and Rubin to get a juicy position on Citigroup's executive board, which he joins as soon as the bill is voted by both parties and signed by Bubba.
Here's what the NY Times wrote about Rubin's Citigroup capers:

When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the banks senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another.​


After cratering Wall Street, Obama's economy czar Bob Rubin craters Citigroup:

Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the banks current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits. Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin both declined to comment for this article.

NY Times, "Citigroup Saw No Red Flags Even as It Made Bolder Bets"​

Bob Rubin's protégé and Obama's Treasury man Tim Geithner lobbies for the Citigroup bailout:
geithner-tim-portrait-medium.jpg

Tim Geithner, president of the New York Fed, was in the thick of the drama, hours before he was expected to be unveiled as President-elect Barack Obamas pick for Treasury secretary.

Financial Times,"US agrees bail-out for Citigroup"​

So those are Obama's financial friends.

Who are his foreign policy friends?

Chuck Hagel and Rick Lugar, the Republican foreign policy heavies who mentored the junior senator from Illinois and propelled him on his meteoric rise to greatness are first in line. His current foreign policy friends, theones who are prepping him backstage, are Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
All of these good people are CFR alumni, IOW they are the representatives of the Rockefeller dynasty, as are all those nice folk from Citigroup. So now you know who owns Obama.
 
Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, an Iraq war loyalist and a hawk on nuclear weapons, is being talked about as a possible Obama Defense Secretary. Unconfirmed, but watch this space....

news_second.jpg

Yep, its confirmed - Gates will be heading O'bombers "defence" strategy. Combine Gates with Zbigniews bloodlust to redeem himself for 30 years of Afghan adventure with aerial bombardment and it's clear that the next five years means the death of thousands of Afghanis.

...or at least that is the fate for the Afghani's that survive the winter as the Afghan winter will be deadlier than ever this year, as famine looms - five million Afghans are facing starvation because of “donor fatigue”.:
Almost unnoticed, as RUSI recently warned, various factors including a drought this summer, have created the conditions for a famine in Afghanistan this winter.

“While the eyes of the world have focused on violence which is increasingly terrorist in character, an estimated 8.4 million Afghans, perhaps a third of the nation, are now suffering from ‘chronic... food insecurity’,” RUSI analyst Paul Smyth wrote at the end of October.

Matt Waldman, Oxfam’s head of policy for Afghanistan, said in November: “There is an impending humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan with millions of people already facing hunger, and the situation is compounded by higher levels of insecurity than at any point since 2001.”

A £270 million UN appeal to help the most vulnerable Afghans is not even half-funded, and snowfall has started in some areas. Soon it will be impossible to get stocks of aid, including food, into the more remote regions which get cut off in the winter.

http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2504/25040101.html
 
Susan Rice - Obama's choice for Ambassador to the United Nations:

If you believe that Barack Obama will pursue a policy in the Horn of Africa that is substantially different than that of George Bush, you are in for a deep disappointment. Only weeks after Ethiopia's U.S.-instigated invasion of Somalia almost two years ago, Susan Rice, Obama's choice for Ambassador to the United Nations, endorsed the aggression - an atrocity that has resulted in the displacement of 1.5 million Somalis and impending starvation of 3.5 million more.

Rice is a proponent of so-called "humanitarian military intervention" - but supports a U.S. Somalia policy that created "Africa's worst humanitarian crisis," according to the United Nations.

There is every reason to believe she will counsel the next president to continue George Bush's policies in the Horn of Africa.

Rice's behavior in Africa has always been morally inconsistent. She was a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council during the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi minority. Later, she "swore" she would go "down in flames" if necessary to prevent future genocides. But after her promotion to Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, she failed to publicly advocate action against U.S. allies Uganda and by then Tutsi-ruled Rwanda - the main perpetrators in an ongoing war that his killed millions
 
More on Gates:

When Ronald Reagan declared that Nicaragua, a country with the population of Philadelphia (minus the suburbs) and fewer than two functioning elevators constituted a military threat to the US, this was the work of Robert Gates. The US intervention in Central America cost at least 30,000 lives in Nicaragua alone. Gates was also at the center of US provision of arms and intelligence to both Iraq and Iran as they fought a seven year war that killed two million people. He orchestrated intelligence reports that deliberately exaggerated Soviet military expenditures and threat posture to justify Reagan's rant about meeting the menace of the “Evil Empire” and his unheard of increase in US War Department spending. After serving as CIA director under the first president Bush in 1991 where he remained well into the Clinton administration.

“Bill Casey and Bob Gates guided the first institutionalized ‘cooking of the books’ at the CIA in the 1980s, with a particular emphasis on tailoring intelligence dealing with the Soviet Union, Central America, and Southwest Asia,' Goodman wrote.

“Casey’s first NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] as CIA director, dealing with the Soviet Union and international terrorism, became an exercise in politicization. Casey and Gates pushed this line in order to justify more U.S. covert action in the Third World.

“In 1985, they ordered an intelligence assessment of a supposed Soviet plot against the Pope, hoping to produce a document that would undermine Secretary of State [George] Shultz’s efforts to improve relations with Moscow. The CIA also produced an NIE in 1985 that was designed to produce an intelligence rationale for arms sales to Iran.”

A National Security Administration staffer in the Carter administration, Gates appears to have been involved in the October Surprise, helping delay the release of US hostages by Iran in order to damage the re-election chances of Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The second Bush administration asked Gates to serve on its Iraq Study Commission, which advocated permanent bases, the privatization of Iraqi oil, and the maintenance of tens of thousands of US troops in-country for the foreseeable future
 
Back
Top Bottom