Skip to main content

Home/ Politically Minded/ Group items matching "attack" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Ian Schlom

Pakistan urges US to end drone strikes - 0 views

  •  
    inarticle: Pakistan is holding talks with the United States to end drone strikes against suspected Taliban fighters, which sometimes also kill civilians, a senior Pakistani official has said. "Drone attacks are against sovereignty of Pakistan, against international law and against the UN charter," Jalil Abbas Jilani, the administrative head of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry told members of Parliament in Islamabad, the capital. "Innocent people have been killed in these attacks," Jilani said on Friday, adding; "We are having talks with the US to stop the drone attacks and we hope for a positive outcome of the dialogue and hope that drone attacks will stop." The attacks, which are operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), have strained Pakistan's relations with the US. Pakistan says the attacks violate its sovereignty.
thinkahol *

They hate us for our freedoms - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

  •  
    It's the perfect self-perpetuating cycle:  (1) They hate us and want to attack us because we're over there; therefore, (2) we have to stay and proliferate ourselves because they hate us and want to attack us; (3) our staying and proliferating ourselves makes them hate us and want to attack us more; therefore, (4) we can never leave, because of how much they hate us and want to attack us.  The beauty of this War on Terror -- and, as the last two weeks have demonstrated, War is the bipartisan consensus for what we are and should be doing to address Terrorism -- is that it forever sustains its own ostensible cause.
thinkahol *

Dean Baker: Attack Wall Street, Not Social Security - 0 views

  • On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.
  •  
    This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding health care costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the health care system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing health care is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy. The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US health care system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries. And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for health care as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our health care is paid through public sector programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in health care costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector. On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.
Muslim Academy

President Obama caught in tangle - 0 views

  •  
    The international media claims that the Obama administration was reckless in handling the security measures for its consulate in Benghazi. On one side, it challenged the long lasting legacy of Hilary Rodham Clinton, and on the other hand, it put Susan Rice in much trouble. But the major trouble rests on President Obama who made contradictory statements regarding the attack The U.S. consulate attack was an attack in reaction to the anti-Muslim film "innocence of the Muslims" and it was a "spontaneous" claim, but earlier the same week Obama claimed that it was an "act of terror". Looking into few statements of President Obama in leading daily papers, we can see Obama's sprawling contradiction:
thinkahol *

Afghanistan "sovereignty" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

  •  
    A spate of horrific civilian killings by NATO in Afghanistan has led Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand that NATO cease all air attacks on homes.  That is likely to be exactly as significant as you think it would be, as The Los Angeles Times makes clear: "This should be the last attack on people's houses," the president told a news conference in Kabul. "Such attacks will no longer be allowed." Karzai's call was viewed as mainly symbolic. Western military officials cited existing cooperation with Afghan authorities and pledged to continue consultations, but said privately that presidential authority does not include veto power over specific targeting decisions made in the heat of battle. So we're in Afghanistan to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Afghan People, but the President of the country has no power whatsoever to tell us to stop bombing Afghan homes.  His decrees are simply requests, merely "symbolic." Karzai, of course, is speaking not only for himself, but even more so for (and under pressure from) the Afghan People: the ones we're there to liberate, but who -- due to their strange, primitive, inscrutable culture and religion -- are bizarrely angry about being continuously liberated from their lives: "Karzai's statements . . . underscored widespread anger among Afghans over the deaths of noncombatants at the hands of foreign forces."
thinkahol *

The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal and the Flotilla Attack Was an Illegal Act of War | World | AlterNet - 0 views

  •  
    Because the blockade of Gaza itself violates international law, Israel committed an illegal act of war attacking the convoy, regardless of who attacked whom first.
thinkahol *

Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed US Gaza Flotilla Ship - 0 views

  •  
    The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists - including a vessel with 50 Americans on board - bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would "provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves." Clinton did not explain why a country had "the right to defend themselves" against ships which are clearly no threat. Not only have organizers of the flotilla gone to great steps to ensure are there no weapons on board, the only cargo bound for Gaza on the US ship are letters of solidarity to the Palestinians in that besieged enclave who have suffered under devastating Israeli bombardments, a crippling blockade, and a right-wing Islamist government. Nor did Clinton explain why the State Department suddenly considers the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the port of Gaza to be "Israeli waters," when the entire international community recognizes Israeli territorial waters as being well to the northeast of the ships' intended route.
Joe La Fleur

Muslims against Christmas: Mob attacks journalists for reporting on Christmas Tree ban by mostly Muslim housing association board - Atlas Shrugs - 0 views

  •  
    THIS IS ISLAM MUSLIMS HATE CHRISTIANS
Muslim Academy

US troops in Afghanistan-What more can US troops do before they leave - 0 views

  •  
    The American troops had established their base in Afghanistan. In the process of fighting the terror groups, so many people have lost their lives in a manner that cannot be understood. However, people should not be biased and take the efforts that had been extended in the Afghanistan in a negative way. Surely, there is much more that has been achieved by the soldiers in Afghanistan. It is evident that the people can now take part in their daily activities without the fear of being attacked by the terror groups all to the courtesy of the American troops. Even though there is much more the Afghanistan government and civilians can thank the troops for, the Americans need to understand that there is much more that they need to do before they leave Afghanistan, so that they ensure everything runs as smoothly as it was before the terror attacks. It is very evident that thousands of people have died in the process of fighting.
Ian Schlom

Pakistan to down American drones, US promises more strikes - 0 views

  •  
    Well. Notice that RT notes that "So far, the only drones making incursions into Pakistani skies have been US Predators used to attack Taliban insurgents." Making this distinction means that UAVs would be flying for a reason distinct from attacking the Taliban, i.e. war with Pakistan. This is in response to the bombing which killed many Pakistani soldiers due to NATO forces fucking up and thinking they were 'terrorists'.
thinkahol *

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube - 0 views

  •  
    NOTE: It is important to separate hunting down terrorists who attack our country and deserve justice (which Ron Paul is 100% for), and not confuse justice with occupying entire countries for a decade under the guise of the "War on Terror" or "Spreading Democracy". Terrorists are individuals and small groups, so why are we picking fights with entire nations? BILLIONS for Defense, NOT A PENNY for Empire. This speech is called "Imagine" and it was given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009. The original text of the talk is below: Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests." Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence. Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but inst
thinkahol *

The decade's biggest scam - Salon.com - 0 views

  •  
    The March, 2011, Harper's Index expressed the point this way: "Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 - Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29."  That's the threat in the name of which a vast domestic Security State is constructed, wars and other attacks are and continue to be launched, and trillions of dollars are transferred to the private security and defense contracting industry at exactly the time that Americans - even as they face massive wealth inequality - are told that they must sacrifice basic economic security because of budgetary constraints. 
thinkahol *

t r u t h o u t | Soldier at WikiLeaks Scene Says No Attack Was Being Planned - 0 views

  •  
    The soldier in a now-famous WikiLeaks video, who found a rocket launcher at the scene of a controversial 2007 Apache helicopter attack, in Baghdad, said in a radio interview this week that he did not believe an ambush was imminent. The video shows 12 men, including two Reuters newsmen, standing on a street corner before being fired upon by the Apache's 30mm cannon, resulting in what appears to be an unprovoked massacre.
thinkahol *

Hacker group defends attacks on WikiLeaks foes - Computerworld - 0 views

  •  
    Anonymous called DDoS attacks on Web sites of WikiLeaks foes a symbolic protest, not an effort to disrupt business
Jack Frost

Atheism and politics: Oh, the blessings of Islam! - 0 views

  •  
    A 64 year old man gets attacked by Islamic Extremists over some more depictions of their pedophile prophet. The video of the attack is *slightly* violent, certainly no Van Gogh incident, but this speaks volumes about the intolerance and warped conception of freedom among the Islamic faith.
rich hilts

Are You Letting Leftist Fear Stop Medicare & Soc Sec Reform? - 0 views

shared by rich hilts on 29 Jan 11 - No Cached
  •  
    What is it with the left and their attempts to make sure that nothing the right does or says EVER gets any credit or viewing - we just wrote an article detailing the attacks on real viable cuts and now attacks on fixes for two entitlement programs don't get discussion, but fear. Comments please!
thinkahol *

The military/media attacks on the Hastings article - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

  •  
    Last June, when Rolling Stone published Michael Hastings' article which ended the career of Obama's Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an article which was just awarded the prestigious Polk Award -- the attacks on Hastings were led not by military officials but by some of Hastings' most celebrated journalistic colleagues.  The New York Times' John Burns fretted that the article "has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations" and accused Hastings of violating "a kind of trust" which war reporters "build up" with war Generals; Politico observed that a "beat reporter" -- unlike the freelancing Hastings -- "would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal's remarks"; and an obviously angry Lara Logan of CBS News strongly insinuated (with no evidence) that Hastings had lied about whether the comments were on-the-record and then infamously sneered:  "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has."  Here's Jon Stewart last year mocking the revealing media disdain for Rolling Stone and Hastings in the wake of their McChrystal story.
thinkahol *

Obama v. Obama - 0 views

  •  
    US military action against Libya absent imminent threat or Congressional approval is outside the legal scope of the Presidency. Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement and letter to Congressional leaders after the President announced that the United States will support a United Nations-approved attack on Libya:
thinkahol *

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

  • As usual, the ideas stigmatized with the most potent taboos are the ones that are the most obviously true.
  •  
    When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."  This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force.  We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West.  That's not even a debatable proposition at this point. What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this.  Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war?  Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval?  Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war?  And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?
thinkahol *

The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com - 0 views

  •  
    That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly.  When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances.  The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission.  Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets  -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists.  That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language.  Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.
1 - 20 of 147 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page