White House defends letting billions in military equipment fall into Taliban hands

submitted by Chipit from (washingtonexaminer.com)

all 30 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]PatsyStone 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They did this intentionally to bribe the Taliban. There is no chance they didn't plan this.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. This plan has been in the making since at least last year, if not earlier. I would even say that the U.S. has been working with the Taliban group that was released from Guantanamo for Qatar during the Obama administration. The U.S. knew that the Afghan government they helped install would fail. The Taliban represents a controlling group in Afghanistan to keep ISIS from taking over and I think the U.S. military will continue to help them clandestinely.

[–]saidittwice 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

'defends' translates to : weak excuses the demlefty media will sanctify

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

Much of the equipment left behind was disabled or partially destroyed. Not sure what kind of news you watch, but the BBC has shown much of the disabled and destroyed equipment in the airport hangers &c. The overall cost has been in the $trillions, including new buildings and other forms of support for Afghanis. The US airlifted a record number of poeple out of Afghanistan in recent months, and it seems this was the priority, rather than concerns about removing helicopters. Moreover, it was important to have helicopters, planes, and other transportation vehicles on site until the last minute, in the event of other emergencies. The remaining supplies and equipment are minimal by comparison to the overall fiinancial commitment and last minute transportation requirements for the evacuation. Prioritizing their removal would have cost opportunities for people to be evacuated. It's also typical that washingtonexaminer.com wants to focus on this non-issue, rather than on the more important issues.

[–]Budget-song-budget 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Citing the BBC as a credible source? They still haven't come clean about Syria, western side carried out the attack but the blame was placed on the other side, or report on the trial of Julian Assange. Craig Murray did that. BBC uphold the values of the M15 who veted all staff have done since 1937. When an independent journalist exposed how the West was arming the very jihadists it was supposedly fighting, BBC went into propaganda mode. Imagine in Syria on one side of the street those dishing out money for the op'. Directly facing it, was the head quarters of the jihadists They were giving the money to. But oops, they had no knowledge. Imagine they didn't look out the window!

BBC is stuffed full of Tory donors, who get appointed to their BBC posts, to see to it, the narrative sings from their hymn book.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes - I know - the BBC is a Tory rag. It's shit, for some of the reasons you mention. I'm not going to defend the MSM, but one still has to use the best sources available, which will differ for different topics. Thus all MSM options together can be useful as a group, depending on what they report. The BBC has a reporter in Afghanistan who has provided important videos of the circumstances. One can judge for themselves what they see in the videos. My point about the video of disabled helicopters (and there are comments from the Taliban that they are upset about none of the equipment in working order or heavily damaged) is that one can see the evidence. That said, Black Hawk helicopters were supposedly left behind, but I didn't see any of those. It would have been really stupid to leave Black Hawk helicopters in place. My other main point is that the recent priority has been to transport people, not equipment.

[–]Budget-song-budget 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agree. Have to use 🙄 several sources to piece what's really going on.

Oh, boy! https://leftfootforward.org/2021/09/natalie-bennett-why-did-the-daily-mail-focus-its-front-page-on-disposable-nappies/?doing_wp_cron=1630511903.0450260639190673828125

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Why does this account consistently post in favor of government and other fascist authority figures?

the BBC has shown

Stop right there. There's your problem. If the BBC said shit tastes good you'd eat a mouthful, wouldn't you?

Remember when they admitted Aleppo Boy was propaganda?

BBC was once a part of our lives. Yet after their pedophile cover ups, failing to cover child grooming gangs, failing to call out the #charliehebdo murderers but acting like cowards and openly being biased again those whom voted Brexit. They are biased and untrustworthy. If they say the sky is blue you go outside and check.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Just because the BBC is obviously biased - as are many of Saidit's favorite websites that are listed at /s/ShitpostNews - does not automatically mean that the videos they provide are useless. It's ironic that there are so many who LOVE right-wing disinformation websites, without a smidgen of critical thinking about them, but are quick to argue that EVERYTHING at the BBC is rubbish. Why not think critically about ALL news resources, and consider corrobotating their claims, or check on their own approaches to corrobotate their claims? My other response to the BBC problem is here.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

does not automatically mean that the videos they provide are useless.

Yes it does. Whenever any other source lies and gets caught, it taints anything they've ever said and anything they may say in the future.

This is the precedent that the SJW and SJW-adjacent left has established. It's how Project Veritas is treated.

Remember when the BBC lied about women coding?

The BBC’s astonishing delay in retracting what was clearly a disingenuous headline, wouldn’t be so much of a problem if the story didn’t get picked up on an astronomical scale. The article went viral, getting hundreds of retweets, including by the executive chairman of Twitter himself.

Worse, a quick Google search for “women write better code” still yields 328,000,000 results, with the BBC piece on top of the list.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Whenever any other source lies and gets caught, it taints anything they've ever said and anything they may say in the future.

So - literally EVERY news source? Can you name one news source that has never manipuated the news to their own interests? Moreover, I am critical of the BBC, for reasons noted in the link I provided at the end of my comment. Yes, they fucked up with the "women write better code", and you can offer better examples, such as all of the ridiculous support for the Tories, or for the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc.

This is the precedent that the SJW and SJW-adjacent left has established.

I don't (personally) know anyone who has any interest in this, and I've seen no evidence of it. Seems that right-wing writers like to apply SJW to people they don't like, all they while referring to Trump as the second coming of Jesus. (Not that you're diong this, but I really don't see the SJW stuff online, even if it is there.)

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

all of the ridiculous support for the Tories

BAhahaha...the BBC supports conservatives? You're even further left than I ever thought possible. When you're far left, anyone to the right of Mao Zedong looks like a fascist to you.

I don't (personally) know anyone who has any interest in this, and I've seen no evidence of it

LOL, outed yourself SJW. How would you even know?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Why do you make comments that are obviously false?

It's apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the BBC, or about the rest of the world who know nothing about the SJW label.

Step away from the computer, go outside, and speak to people. You'll be amazed.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You consistently defend SJW positions, which makes you at the very least SJW-adjacent. But that "I don't know anyone who has any interest in this" line was a big mistake that let the cat out of the bag. Whoops.

Step away from the computer, go outside, and speak to people. You'll be amazed.

This is a personal insult and against Saidit TOS. Use arguments instead.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Bullshit. You want to call other people names in order for you to feel superior to them. No one gives a damn about a so-called "SJW-adjacent", nor do normal people know that it is.

Here's an argument for you: I recommend that you step away from the computer, go outside, and speak to people. You'll be amazed.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You want to call other people names in order for you to feel superior to them.

Wow, you can read minds! That's remarkable! Say, can you do it again? Can you tell me what I had for breakfast?

No one gives a damn about a so-called "SJW-adjacent",

Yeah they do. The term is in common usage due to the SJW left popularizing the term "white-adjacent" so that they can employ racial discrimination against Asians. You see, they have the irritating habit of destroying the race hate narrative by studying hard and having strong families. Even if you're not SJW, you are at the very least SJW-adjacent. But since that little slip of the tongue of yours, we know you're full SJW.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

A lot of this equipment is useless to the Taliban. The Taliban will crash a blackhawk or use it as a goat fucking station.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, the posters in favor of the powerful are certainly out in force on this thread.