Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

An inquiry by the U.S. military has concluded that U.S. air strikes on an Afghan village in August killed more than 30 civilians, far more than U.S. commanders have acknowledged, The New York Times said on Tuesday.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

World Readable

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Who said close only counts in horseshoes?

AT LEAST 30 were killed the Pentagon can NOW admit.

Do I hear 60?

90??

And then blame it on bad intelligence? hmmm guess THAT bad excuse worked for Bush in Iraq so now that will be part of the standard Pentagon denials

If they run, they're Al Qaeda.

If they don't run, they're well disciplined Al Qaeda.

Gosh...what's all the stink over 30 or so civilians killed by an airstrike. I seem to recall an Afghan Taliban-supported airstrike in the U.S. which killed a hundred times that many civilians. They should have listened to Sherman..."War is hell."

Why do military investigators hate our troops? They better watchout out for Sarah's stilettos...

"Who said close only counts in horseshoes?"

Horseshoes and hand grenades...don't forget hand grenades.
You can probably include thousand-pounders in there too, although it's difficult to deliver them by hand.

Seems like Barack Obama was right again and Sarah 'The Secessionist' Palin wrong.....as usual.

War is hell? you GOTTA be kidding me?!?

They didn't have push button drones in Shermans time!

And the CORRECT quote is:

'War is all hell'

I strongly suspect that this it the tip of the iceberg. Many have been killed that we'll never hear about.

These victims will never get justice. Bush and Cheney need to be indicted on war crimes immediately. They are now directly responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden.

Perhaps they need to look into the mirror and call themselves terrorists for a change...


That's what they get for living in a country where we have an oil pipeline that we need to protect.

Oh, you guys didn't know we had a major oil pipeline running through afganistan?

Al Queerdo wants to blow it up.

Losing, losing, losing...lost.

The only thing left to do is come up with a PR spin that unequivocally demonstrates to all that we actually won...negotiations with the taliban are already taking place.


It's all about oil.

al queda wants to attack anything that invades their land. And we have invaded their land. Their land has a resource that the most powerful gov't in the world wants. They need to connect a pipeline from the gulf region over to asia, which goes through afganistan and pakistan.

India and china and asia are all growing and need oil. And they have new money.

Lipzoidal-
Al Qaeda doesn't have "land".

In reality there is no al Qaeda! This was just a myth (along with the 911 terrorist attacks) that the CIA and the Bush Regime created and "used" to deceive and manipulate the American public in their pursuit of establishing an elitist, fascist govt.,plus easy "Oil Loot" in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Turkmenistan.

So who cares about all these innnocent Iraqis and Afghanis being murdered in the name of America? It sure isn't the White House or the US Military!!!

Al Qaeda doesn't have "land".

#13 | Posted by BetelG

no what you mean is that they have no borders. their land is as they consider it to be.

they are on a holy mission. you think borders and terrotories mean anything to them. their every purpose is to kill infidels who invade islamic land, whether that's in saudi or indonesia.

somebody is organizing the fighters. the money and weapons and control structure didn't just materialize out of thin air.

the money and weapons and control structure didn't just materialize out of thin air.

Good point, Lipzoidial. Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist if it weren't for the money and weapons Ronnie Raygun gave them to fight off the Russians 25 years ago.

That sure turned out to be a wise investment, wouldn't you agree?

The military must use one template for stories like these because the move from "only evildoers killed" to "our bad" always seems to move through the same steps.

They don't wear uniforms so how do you tell?

"These victims will never get justice. Bush and Cheney need to be indicted on war crimes immediately."
Posted by KnowsNothing

Why not indict FDR first?

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.

Or how about Truman? rember that deal in Japan with those big bombs?

BYW, should Clinton be indicted for war crimes for ordering the bombing of an aspirin factory where civilians were killed?

where's Murtha on this one?

BYW, should Clinton be indicted for war crimes for ordering the bombing of an aspirin factory where civilians were killed?

#20 | Posted by FreddyK

According to the libs, YES!


The big issue is why does the Pentagon continue to deny deny and then admit when they fucked up. And why do they continually fuck up?
To use your allegory, it would be if the RAF firebombed Amsterdam by mistake.

Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2008 World Readable