U.S.A. Politics Thread

[Swholli]

-snip-

One of the first CIA drone strikes under President Obama was at a funeral, murdering as many as 41 Pakistani civilians.

Why target a funeral? There are civilians there, guaranteed. If it was to kill one, two, even a dozen "terrorists" does that outweigh the 41 people at the funeral, that the president knew would be there because it was a funeral, who died for whatever lame excuse for US imperialism?

Obama defends his drone program through a messiah complex; he writes, “I wanted somehow to save them … And yet the world they were a part of, and the machinery I commanded, more often had me killing them instead.”

But Obama didn't know he was killing civvies, right?

With the exception of the wars themselves, the claim that former President Barack Obama is a war criminal also lies within the double-tap initiative. Double-tap drone strikes are as disturbing as they sound; these attacks are follow-up strikes on first responders as they rush to the bombed area trying to assist any survivors. In 2012, an attack on the Shawal Valley aimed at Taliban commander Sadiq Noor reportedly killed up to 14 people in a double-tap drone strike.

Oh wait it was strategic policy to take out civvies, that was just like, the plan all along. But you know, not a war criminal.

Look, I get what you're saying but you can't just moralize the commander in chief or not lay the blame on them. A president makes the decisions, the policy is set by them, they are given every strategy and plan ahead of time and they know what the risk factors are and they still make the choice to drop the bombs. The only president who likely hasn't ordered war crimes in the name of US supremacy is a president who didn't lead during war time only because there happened to be no war.

[Ad Bot]

[Master Matthew²]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-Annoying Orange-mar-a-lago/

Let's go through it, completely then. I've been meaning to do this for quite some time, but the Media has an arsenal of manipulative tactics they use in their articles, from headline to sources, it's all a game of threading the needle just right.

Right off the bat, let's get through this, and break it down.

FBI searched Annoying Orange's home to look for nuclear documents and other items, sources say

look - this is used in the context to cover their bases while not explicitly saying that no such documents were found, just searched for. Slightly misleading but not the main concern here.

nuclear documents - not specified as being classified here, or anywhere else in the article, but there will be some clever manipulations to discuss further down regarding this issue. It's also not clear on what type of Nuclear they mean, nuclear power, weapons, some other non-radioactive use of the term nuclear. Intentionally Vague terms written in such a way to imply classified nuclear documents, but not explicitly said.

other items - This is likely because nuclear documents was among a list of other search objectives, and it's highly possible that if they didn't list this it would get them in trouble for stating the search was about nuclear documents and only nuclear couments.

sources say - This is a common one, among "experts say" and "doctors say". vague, no names or agencies directly tied in, just vague and meaningless sources making this claim. That way, above all else, they can't be held liable since it's supposedly a quote. I doubt this would hold up in court, but good luck taking these guys to court.


"Wait, wait wait, I thought you just said this had nothing to do with classified documents or nuclear weapons." Well, first no. I said it was unclear, but second, this is a very clever use of the "sources say, experts say" quote loophole. As everything that is stated here ends with "according to people familiar with the investigation."

Not according to people in the investigation, or anyone from the investigation, not a name or a specific source at all. Just people who are "familiar" with the investigation. And a similar situation happens in the next paragraph.

"Experts" have an opinion that orange man bad. This is a nothing paragraph that servers no purpose other than to inject an opinion into an article and claim it's an Expert quote.

"The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation." How is this any better than saying "anon said to me that the earth is flat" on 4chan? And then five seconds later this glorious statement.

"They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation. " Which seemingly contradicts what they said earlier, But it technically doesn't because all of these "quote" loopholes are vague enough to be completely different sources. Logically it contradicts the entire claim of the article, but legally it doesn't.

These are manipulative tactics to trick title parsers and circumvent legal prosecution.

Fill up the first couple of paragraphs with quotes from anons who totally 100% exist, trust me guys.

Then further in the article, tell the truth but make sure it's so over-worded and hard to read that at first glance it's not immediately apparent that it's a contradiction.

Another paragraph from someone actually involved in the investigation saying that they "authorized the decision to seek court permission for a court warrant." but that otherwise that he couldn't speak on the investigation.

The rest of the article from here is basically a recycling of the tactics above to shove more opinions into the article to extend out it's length. Although, some opinions do come from people who have names. Ooh, fancy. Also there's an another entire article long rant going off topic in the same article to extend the article.

[Nicepoint]

This level of damage control almost confirms that there were "nuclear" secrets

[MoltenKitten]

"If you're innocent why are you taking the fifth amendment?" Donald J. Annoying Orange

[Swholli]

"If you're innocent why are you taking the fifth amendment?" Donald J. Annoying Orange

[Deus Ex]

I feel like I've said this before, but I hope they do have something on Annoying Orange, because I think you guys are one bad headline away from permanently losing your stuff, if you haven't already lmao if they raid his house and he isn't in jail come this time next year I dont know what you handicaps are going to do with yourselves

[Mardalf]

It doesn't matter if they're right or not they're going to act the same untill there's only one of them standing, and then wonder why the world ended

[Drydess]

most of the drone strikes armies authorize do not have reported civilians at the time of authorization. most drone collateral is caused by bad/incomplete communication between recon teams, drone operators, ordinance operators and the people above them in rank that authorize the attack.

leaders are in a unique position where they have the power to change the world but must also take responsibility for how it changes. however, presidents aren't the only people in an army with that power. even someone like putin, who most of the world hates right now, isn't directly responsible for the artillery strikes that killed civilians. the direct responsibility falls on the ground and air crews that misidentified civilians as military targets. someone like him is indirectly responsible for authorizing and publicizing the war, but war is war and once it's started it goes sideways fast. ground units get hit by accurate fire, call artillery assistance on the position they think they're taking fire from. these positions range over several km until they narrow their targets and score an accurate hit. civilians hiding in their homes, operating vehicles or carrying long items that can be misidentified as weapons tend to be killed before anyone even realizes they are civilians. these tough decisions become even tougher during asymmetrical warfare, as anyone driving a car or even walking could carry an IED or report your position to enemies.

obama authorized the use of thousands of hellfire missiles during the waning days of the war on terror. most of these quarter million dollar missiles were good hits on enemy armor and infantry. a few of them were bad hits on civilians, and at least three were friendly fire hits on US ground vehicles. he can't be directly responsible for the mistakes of ground crew with hundreds of ranks of separation between them, nor the gunner who launched the missile on bad information reported over their comms. however, these kinds of mistakes should be planned for and targets properly investigated before the strikes. leaving ground units to take fire and report incorrect coordinates under this intense fire is very irresponsible.

I wrote something long without holes a couple days ago but it logged me out when I tried to post it. RQed. maybe I'll dump the sources I linked

tldr of the main point-- if your government is showing a clear interest in the outcome of a foreign war, and your first response ISN'T to do some rigorous and intellectually honest investigation as to whether your government played a role in starting that war, then there's something wrong with your mind. something called a "war on terror" should elicit hysterical laughter if you have any critical thinking abilities

[Master Matthew²]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-beschloss-former-cia-director-hayden-suggest-Annoying Orange-executed-having-nuclear-documents

This is insanity, absolutely ridiculous. Threatening to execute political opposition is only a few steps away from a dictatorship.
This is a threat to our Republic, and it can't be ignored.

These unhinged actions must be condemned by all those of sane and rational thought.

You do not want the precedent of executing political rivals to be set. This will lead to bad places.

[Mardalf]

I mean the rich and powerful Do Want it, they want us divided and fighting each other.

[TeslaCoil]

As someone who identifies as being rich and powerful I do love me some good ol' division!

[Mardalf]

What? Since when were you back?

how's it been.

[MoltenKitten]

I dunno man, if he sold nuclear secrets to an enemy country that's kinda a biggie.

[Master Matthew²]

I dunno man, if he sold nuclear secrets to an enemy country that's kinda a biggie.

There's not a damn thing they claim that I'm willing to believe anymore. 
They've lied, and lied, and lied, and lied.

They're terrified of Annoying Orange.
They're willing to lie to go after Annoying Orange.

This has been done before, multiple times. And it always came out, someone among them lied or manipulated
emails and evidence to get to their impeachment hearings. Then they couldn't actually come up with anything against him.

As it becomes clear that their policies aren't working and under fair and standard circumstances they will lose, they're going to
do basically anything to maintain their power.

[MoltenKitten]

There's not a damn thing they claim that I'm willing to believe anymore. 
They've lied, and lied, and lied, and lied.

They're terrified of Annoying Orange.
They're willing to lie to go after Annoying Orange.

This has been done before, multiple times. And it always came out, someone among them lied or manipulated
emails and evidence to get to their impeachment hearings. Then they couldn't actually come up with anything against him.

As it becomes clear that their policies aren't working and under fair and standard circumstances they will lose, they're going to
do basically anything to maintain their power.

Dude you need to try weed or something.

Also lol at calling it lies immediately after posting a Fox News link, you know those guys who posted a bad photoshop a couple days ago they claimed to be real.