After ensuring no civilians were in the area, the force called for the airstrike which resulted in the deaths of
Why wait? Why hesitate? Why deny yourself the pleasure? Try crisp, clean Chesterfields today. More insurgents per volume for that satisfying smoke - and fewer additives!
My thoughts almost exactly. What a load of crap this is. A chopper went down and somehow in the chaos the U.S. was able to follow the person that shot a missile at the chopper to a "home", and instead of immediately attacking that person, waited a few hours and made sure there were no civilians in the area to attack? All the main details are totally unbelievable. Especially the making sure no civilians were in the area crap.
If I were a betting man I would bet they simply blew up the first house they saw in retaliation for losing their comrades--fuck if they cared if there were any 'civilians' in the area. How dare those Afghan rats fight back.
The beauty is, even if you take that graf at face value, the immediate follow-up question - "Why don't you usually ensure that civilians aren't in the area?" - will never be asked.
Wait didn't I just read that a few days ago. No, sorry I got confused; it was a story about local officials killing a shark after a shark attacked a surfer.
The whole story was pathetic bullshit, but I did get a larf out of the wide-eyed claim that they specifically made sure, with their extra-specially-accuratized missiles with impossible-to-miss guidance, got the dude who shot down the helicopter! WIN!1! USA, FUCK YEAH!1!!
The UK (lol- would they be uk riots if they were in aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Glasgow?) were worse than indiscriminate violence, they were senseless violence.
14 comments:
You just have to want to believe...
After ensuring no civilians were in the area, the force called for the airstrike which resulted in the deaths of
Why wait? Why hesitate? Why deny yourself the pleasure? Try crisp, clean Chesterfields today. More insurgents per volume for that satisfying smoke - and fewer additives!
My thoughts almost exactly. What a load of crap this is. A chopper went down and somehow in the chaos the U.S. was able to follow the person that shot a missile at the chopper to a "home", and instead of immediately attacking that person, waited a few hours and made sure there were no civilians in the area to attack? All the main details are totally unbelievable. Especially the making sure no civilians were in the area crap.
If I were a betting man I would bet they simply blew up the first house they saw in retaliation for losing their comrades--fuck if they cared if there were any 'civilians' in the area. How dare those Afghan rats fight back.
The beauty is, even if you take that graf at face value, the immediate follow-up question - "Why don't you usually ensure that civilians aren't in the area?" - will never be asked.
We live in a world of radical contingency.
Those London rioters are more indiscriminately violent though.
REMEMBER THE MAINE!
While acknowledging that there are “challenges ahead” to the American-led mission in Afghanistan...
Really?! But things seemed to be going so well!
I guess it's not too incredulous for the average times reader.
Wait didn't I just read that a few days ago. No, sorry I got confused; it was a story about local officials killing a shark after a shark attacked a surfer.
The whole story was pathetic bullshit, but I did get a larf out of the wide-eyed claim that they specifically made sure, with their extra-specially-accuratized missiles with impossible-to-miss guidance, got the dude who shot down the helicopter! WIN!1! USA, FUCK YEAH!1!!
I actually saw a bumper sticker the other day that read:
Navy Seals: 1
Osama Bin Laden: 0
I like how they knew the guy's name that shot the missile.
The UK (lol- would they be uk riots if they were in aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Glasgow?) were worse than indiscriminate violence, they were senseless violence.
For god and for country!
Post a Comment