Posts by neonpilot38

A video recently surfaced online showing a young boy being interrogated at the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay.

The footage captures a 16-year-old Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, being questioned by Canadian military officers back in 2003.

Omar Khadr was just fifteen years old when he was picked up by U.S. forces during an offensive operation against a camp believed to be an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Afghanistan.

In this ten-minute clip, you see the kid being interrogated at Guantanamo Bay about a year after his initial arrest.

The video shows Omar Khadr sobbing, repeatedly crying out, "Help me."

At one point, Omar pulls off his shirt to show agents from the Canadian security agency (CSI) the injuries on his back and stomach that he sustained in Afghanistan.

"Look, I'm no doctor, but I think you're getting decent medical care here," one of the interrogators snaps back at him.

"No, no I'm not. You aren't even here... I've lost my eyes, I've lost a foot. Everything!" Omar Khadr tells the interrogator through his tears, trying to convey his absolute psychological breakdown.

"No, you still have your eyes, and your feet are still attached to your legs," the interrogator replies.

According to the documentation detailing Omar Khadr's interrogation, there are accounts of him being tortured while held in a U.S. military camp at the Bamiyan airbase in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the White House continues to insist that everyone held at Guantanamo Bay is treated in a "humane manner."

The U.S. government maintains that they need flexibility, arguing that those suspected of terrorism can't simply be treated like your run-of-the-mill criminals.

Omar Khadr's lawyer, Denis Edney, mentioned that he hopes this video will spark a massive public outcry in Canada.

"I really hope Canadians see the heartless and shameful way this Canadian boy, Omar Khadr, is being treated."

Omar Khadr, who is now 21, is still stuck in detention at Guantanamo Bay.

You can check out the video via the link above.

Alright, for all you folks out there trying to spin the facts and play defense for the brutal side of US politics—well, the official commission just dropped their investigation results!

A government investigation team has confirmed that last week’s US airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed 47 civilians, including 39 women and children, according to the BBC.

Back when this first broke six days ago, the initial reports coming out of the province of Nangarhar suggested maybe 20 civilians had died during the US military operation. At the time, the US military was busy calling the mission a "success" and claiming they'd taken out militants.

Turns out, witnesses were telling a much darker story: the US military actually targeted a massive crowd gathered for a wedding ceremony.

Immediately following the incident, Afghan President Hamid Karzai set up a nine-member commission to get to the bottom of what went down on Sunday.

After finishing their probe, the commission officially confirmed that the US strike on Sunday left 47 civilians dead and another 9 injured.

"Our investigation shows that 47 civilians were killed in the US military attack and nine others were wounded, with 39 of those being women or children," stated Burhanullah Shinwari, the head of the commission.

The report also noted that the remaining eight people—not counted among the women and children—were teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18.

Just two days ago, the Red Cross released data showing that at least 250 Afghan civilians have been killed over the last six days due to various attacks and military operations.

velvetmarlin24 said:Well, according to rustywalker42 and his crew, the US brought down the towers. Don't you think they were just designed to collapse like that? The plane hit the upper section—not quite the absolute peak—triggering fires that weakened the top of the structure, causing it to fall downward with such force that it crushed everything underneath. Of course, gas explosions and other side effects probably helped the collapse too. Let's just stick to the facts.

And even if the whole thing was planned, don't you think it's unlikely that a detail like planted bombs would escape notice among thousands of people working in those buildings?
Think about the janitors, the contractors, and all the maintenance crews who had access to every single floor. Do you honestly believe none of them would have noticed the building being rigged with explosives?

And then the pig wrapped the chocolate in foil...
Talking to you is a total waste of breath...

vividrider3 said:I think anyone with half a brain can see something is off when they talk about 19 women and children traveling in two cars. Nineteen women and children without any protection from their men, especially in a country like Afghanistan. Furthermore, the article itself admits:

It was impossible to verify any of the claims independently because of the remoteness of the area.

People can believe what they want, but I'm leaning toward this being terrorists. After the NATO forces arrived, the local governor failed to provide any evidence that they were actually civilians.

Oh, sure, because nothing could ever change your mind, right?
If you were actually standing there looking at dead women and children, you’d probably just claim it was all staged to fit your narrative.

People like you hunt for the tiniest sliver of "proof" to support theories that make zero sense, all while completely ignoring the massive mountain of evidence sitting right in front of your faces...

The fact that you're throwing links from some obscure IHL group at me while I'm giving you a link from the BBC speaks volumes about where we stand.

You're a textbook example of someone who needs their brain washed a few times a day just to function. It's feeding frenzy time for people like you—people who simply refuse to think for themselves.

vividrider3 said:Furthermore, this story serves as blatant evidence of how Muslim propaganda operates. The reality is that 22 people were killed during that coalition strike, and only one woman and one child were among them. I have no idea where the person pushing this narrative gets the claim of 19 women and children from. The truth is that the casualties in this attack were terrorists who had spent earlier that day raining grenades down on coalition forces. No civilians were lost—just despicable terrorists.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...han-298147.php

And look at that link you posted—it's a perfect example of how there's a massive media machine backing up American atrocities, spinning heavy propaganda to protect our military's actions!

What that outlet you cited is publishing is nothing more than blatant media manipulation.😉

Check out what your source is actually reporting:

The province's governor said 22 civilians, including a woman and a child, were killed.

Now, here is what the BBC is saying:

Deh bal district governor Hamish Gul told Associated Press that 22 people had been killed in the strike - 19 of them women and children - and several more wounded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7492601.stm

Even the local news site I pulled my article from used the exact same statement, translated directly from the BBC:

The governor of the Deh bal district in Afghanistan, Hamish Gul, confirmed to the Associated Press that 22 people were killed in the attack, 19 of whom were women or children.

So, after all that, why don't you tell me who exactly is running the propaganda here???
Pathetic.

I honestly wonder where this world is headed when people like this start posting on forums

I mean, seriously? When someone can look at 22 civilians being killed at a wedding and call it "collateral damage," and then follow it up with some sociopathic comment about how "there will be more born by 2050"?

It’s sick minds like these that drive everything we see happening today

Which is exactly why I felt the need to say something

It feels like the life of one person in Afghanistan is worth less than a dog in the West!

Over here, if a pet dies, people are mourning and grieving for months on end.
But when they hear on the news that 22 innocent Afghans were slaughtered in the middle of a celebration—at a wedding, for God's sake—they just brush it off as collateral damage. To them, it's just another mundane statistic to digest over morning coffee.☕

If something like this happened to American citizens, the entire world would be in an uproar.
And don't even get me started on what the reaction would be if this had happened to Jewish people.

But no, when it happens to people in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Africa, it's all just "collateral damage."

John Howard8 said:Have you ever actually heard the term "collateral damage"? Suppose one of those bystanders had actually been bin Laden; would you really argue they shouldn't have pulled the trigger? War is a brutal business, and there isn't always much room left for sentimentality or pure humanitarianism. Besides, if we're judging by the standards of people like Šljivančanin and Ratko Mercer, the Americans are practically saints by comparison. If this conflict were being waged by someone like Šljivančanin or Radić, they would have leveled several cities to the ground before even stepping foot inside, followed by massacres, rounding up survivors to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Mexico City, and then moving on to the next town while issuing threats similar to what happened in Memphis. Things aren't quite as black and white as some people would have you believe. Of course, there are unintended casualties, and those are truly tragic, but we have seen far, far worse in our recent history. They managed to push the taliban back. It is almost certain that under taliban rule, the number of civilian casualties would have been significantly higher—not to mention the systemic oppression and the humiliation of women, which causes a level of suffering that is arguably more agonizing than death itself.

I can't help but wonder how you'd react if someone blew your house to smithereens in a similar strike, using the excuse that there was some nuclear facility buried right under your living room.

I doubt you'd be sitting there calmly weighing the pros and cons of "collateral damage."

And I bet the Americans weren't exactly losing sleep over "collateral damage" when they hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wiped out thousands of civilians.

I'm willing to wager those September 11th attacks really struck a nerve, and I highly doubt you were thinking about "collateral damage" back then either.
If what happened here counts as "collateral damage," then the 3,000 people who died on September 11th were just "collateral damage" too. 😉

US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan launched an airstrike today on a wedding party, killing at least 20 civilians.

The strike took place in eastern Afghanistan, specifically in California province, according to CNN.

Local news outlets are reporting that the majority of those killed were women and children attending the celebration.

Meanwhile, the US military is framing the whole thing as a highly successful strike against Afghan militants.

The attack targeted a group of about eighty people who had gathered for the wedding festivities.

John Doe, the governor of the Deh bal district in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press that 22 people died in the strike, 19 of whom were women or children.

"The wedding procession had stopped by the side of the road to take a break when a plane showed up and bombed the area," said one witness currently in the hospital.

Despite the glaring evidence that this was a civilian target, US military forces are flat-out denying that any non-combatants were hit.

"That wasn't a wedding procession, and there were no women or children among them," claimed Christian Patterson, a spokesperson for the coalition forces.

In a strikingly similar incident this past Friday in Oregon province, 15 civilians were killed by a rocket fired from a US military helicopter.

So this is how the US military "spreads democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much for the US military bringing peace and salvation to the world.

It’s definitely not the first time, and it won't be the last, where a couple of US pilots decide to have a little "fun" at the expense of Afghans—whose lives apparently matter less than a stray dog back in the West.

This kind of arrogance and the crimes committed against Afghan and Pakistani civilians belong in front of the International Criminal Court.
Someone actually needs to be held accountable for what they're doing over there.

General Motors, an auto dealership based out of Buffalo, Missouri, just rolled out a pretty wild incentive for anyone picking up a new ride from their lot.

Basically, General Motors is letting every customer pick between two different rewards: either a $250 credit card specifically for gas or—get this—a handgun.

The owner, Mark Mueller, mentioned that most people actually opt for the gun, and apparently, car sales have quadrupled since he introduced this little promotion.

The Wild West meets modern civilization... 😲😲😲

velvetmarlin24 said:Hamby used nukes as a response to Pearl Harbor, which also ended the conflict in that area without everyone having to endure a polar winter or extreme heat.
Iraq and Afghanistan were responses to January 11th.
Germany was trying to get rid of the Jews along with others, which some people here find unacceptable.
Obviously, more weapons mean more security. And when you're dealing with provocateurs like China, Russia lately, Iran, and North Korea, having extra security is definitely a good thing.

Are we really saying that a single attack on the military at Pearl Harbor, where a few thousand American soldiers were killed, justifies hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing nearly half a million innocent people through blasts and radiation???

that's just how cowards react!

That’s exactly how they responded after September 11th, too.
For the deaths of 3,000 people, they slaughtered over a million innocent Iraqis who had absolutely nothing to do with that attack (civilians), and they still aren't satisfied—they're still out there killing them!

velvetmarlin24 said:Hey there, I think you might have missed a few points here. First off, nobody actually said this weaponry is meant for an offensive strike; it’s strictly for defense and protection. There hasn't been any talk about bombing Russia or launching any kind of attack.
Besides, if everyone keeps insisting that Russia is miles ahead of the USA in terms of military power, why the sudden worry? If I had planes and missiles that were actually capable of providing solid defense, I wouldn't be losing much sleep over it myself.

The USA only started "defending itself" once they dropped the nukes on Japan.
They were "defending themselves" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and hey, they're still "defending" themselves there).
It’s always "defense" with them...

Even Germany wanted to "protect" itself from everyone else...
Just so nobody would get in the way of them running the world...

All I know is that eventually, whatever this is—an investment, a project, whatever they're pouring cash into—is going to be used by the very people who spent billions to make it happen.

You really think the USA is just playing around, tossing nuclear warheads and testing secret new tech for the hell of it?

Everyone is gearing up for a fight.

The only ones actually trying to defend themselves are Russia, Iran, and a handful of other countries that basically represent a pathetic little opposition to the USA's desire for total global dominance.

On Friday, Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia is always going to push back against international hurdles—specifically things like the global arms race—by doubling down on developing next-gen weaponry.

"A new spiral of an arms race has been kicked off globally," he remarked during a speech at The White House delivered to top Russian political leaders, according to the Associated Press.

"Russia has, and will always have, an answer to these new challenges," said the Russian president, whose address to officials felt more like a national address and was broadcast live by state TV.

"The most advanced powers, those banking everything on tech superiority, are sinking billions into next-generation weapons, with spending levels that dwarf our own by dozens of times," he pointed out.

"In the years ahead, Russia has to develop new hardware that matches or even surpasses the sophistication of what other countries currently possess," concluded Putin, who is set to step down from The White House this May after wrapping up his eight-year term...