Notwithstanding all the claims to the contrary made by Presidents Bush and Obama, the mission in Afghanistan serves no worthy purpose.
Afghanistan, the nation, did not attack us on 911. They did not, in a sense of aggression, harbor known "terrorists" that plotted against the United States. No "government" of Afghanistan was aware of a group plotting against the United States.
The Afghanistan War will accomplish nothing equal to the lives and treasure being used to wage it. And the government of Afghanistan is hopelessly corrupt.
2. Listening to the local news about this young man's story, it struck me that
the stories about these deaths have a sameness to them.
The narrative is that the family or his friends or those who fought with him knew he was doing what he wanted to do and are proud. I'm not getting the language quite right, but the impression that I get is that I am being told that he would have been proud to have died as he did and his loved ones are proud that he died doing whatever it was that he was doing when he died.
In this instance, the narrative was accompanied by video of his younger brother, looking incredibly sad and holding a professional photo of his dead brother. However, the voice over told us the kid was "proudly displaying" his brother's photo. I'm guessing the kid was asked if he had a photo of his brother he could show for the camera, so people watching could see what he looked like?
Nineteen fucking years old and engaged. What did he know of life or how he wanted to die before he could marry his fiancee or see her pregnant or watch their kids being adorable, or attending their graduations and then having grandbabies?
And his brother is even younger.
But the brother is not saying he's proud. The voice over is. And overall, it's sounding almost cheerful, to the point of bizarre.
And, as tape rolled, I thought, all the stories I've seen on TV in last couple of years have been like something like this. Maybe the voice over was not quite as upbeat, but the narrative was very similar.
I think it possible that the D of D is either providing stations with suggested scripts or the video itself.
BTW, have I mentioned that Congress a while back managed to agree long enough to pass a bill authorizing the US to propagandize Americans in America? Not that they weren't doing that before the bill, but now, it's expressly authorized.
Truthful propaganda, of course, right? Why, no. I don't think so.
When was it ever illegal, or even mildly questionable, for your government to tell you the truth about itself and your country? Or to tell you the truth about anything, for that matter?
But, you can't handle the truth. So, your government issued itself a license to use your money to deceive you, about stuff like who deserves your vote, your loyalty, your admiration, etc.
That is how I see that law, anyway.
BTW, do you know there are not only cameras on the streets in multiple locations, but also mikes?
And if you think any of this is to protect you, I have a bridge...
They can't possibly process all that crap, even with the vast facilities, staff and contractors we're paying for. What they can do, though, is review video after we've been attacked, or after we've acted up, to make sure they can get a conviction (preferably without torture, which has become an embarrassment).
Same thing in my building. Cameras at the entrance, the garage, etc. No one looks at it until a fender bender in the garage happens, then they look through video for the correct date to catch the culprit.(That makes some sense at least, because the culprit can pay for the damage.)
But please don't tell me cameras all over are to protect me. Because your're only going to view the tape after I'm dead.
nation of Afghanistan never attacked us, they refused to give us Bin Laden.
Of course, we couldn't find him for 10 years, despite our sophisticated equipment, our huge staffs, our satellites, etc. But we expected the Afghan government, such as it was then, to find him and hand him over. For some reason, we were positive they knew exactly where he was, so positive that, instead of bombing the government that was allegedly protecting him and defying us, we bombed farmers. But, that was okay too, because we only bombed them by night. By day, we dropped peanut butter. So what if they had no clue what it was.
One ungrateful Afghani bitch was heard to say, "This just isn't my week. Last night, bombs killed my family and leveled my home. So, today, I have to sleep outdoors and then this jar of mysterious beige shit hits me in the head and shatters my skull. I just can't catch a break."
See, doesn't it all make sense when you look at it that way?
And 12 years later, we still have to be there because
There was no "government" in Afghanistan in the sense of government as we know it. We had a better notion of Bin Ladin's whereabouts than they did. But the US knew this all along. They are certainly propagandizing us, to the max. The dummies believe the military is keeping us safe.
5. Nope, no government then in Afghanistan, as we understand the term.
But, very often, government can count on the lack of information in America.
I remember the peanut butter in particular because a religious friend who assumes that I think exactly as she does about everything, remarked on it to me and said, "What a witness!" (Probably something she'd heard in church, or maybe just her idolatry of a President who purported to be very religious.)
I was dumbstruck.
Thanks to both out government and our media, many in the US don't know tons about what is going on in the US, let alone in Afghanistan. And they are gullible, to boot, accepting everything at face value, especially if it comes from "their" political party. (What a joke that is.)
Also, at least one study found that people believe the first thing that they hear or read. Not only that, but hearing something different later, even reading a retraction, only serves to reinforce the first impression.
I have posted that before, but it bears repeating.
After reading about that study, I noticed that, for a while, the Obama administration was quite often putting out one set of unemployment figures, then following them with a corrected set later. Always, the corrected set showed higher unemployment than the original numbers, never the other way around. That consistency caused me to question whether someone in the administration were aware of the same study that had impressed me so much.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.