If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Why did the world howl with outrage when Bush killed innocent civilians, but turns a blind eye as Obama more than triples the victim count?   (theatlantic.com) divider line 416
    More: Strange, innocent, obama, CIA, imminent threat  
•       •       •

3428 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 1:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 11:55:50 PM
Because teammates, that's why.
 
2013-04-12 12:02:30 AM
Define victim.
 
2013-04-12 12:14:37 AM
I guess those Iraqi civillians don't count.
 
2013-04-12 12:30:16 AM
Because the media tries to brush it under the table?
 
2013-04-12 12:36:54 AM
So, let me get this straight, we are going to compare extraordinary rendition, to those killed by drones, while ignoring civilian casualties in the actual ground actions, police actions, and air strikes during the last Administration?

Because extraordinary rendition, and targeted airstrikes are EXACTLY the same?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the remote control plan, because it still has small issues like poor intelligence and civilian casualties when the targets are misidentified. But rendition and drone strikes are hardly equal, they aren't even really in the same ballpark.

Compare drone strikes and civilian casualties with pilot or intelligence errors in the Bush years. Compare drone strikes and ground casualties. Compare even friendly fire incidents between the two, but to compare extraordinary rendition and drone strikes is comparing apples to tire irons.

What's next? Comparing Bush's golf score and Obama's layups? How about we compare how the Bush Administration handled Congress, and how Obama juggles puppies? How many victims did the Bush years score by their immigration policy, and then compare it to the horror of Obamacare?

There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.
 
2013-04-12 12:50:27 AM
Civilian casualties are a shame, but I like the use of drones overall, as long as they stay overseas.  Just because a target isn't a member of Al-Qaeda doesn't mean that they aren't a terrorist or that they aren't planning or supporting action against the US or our allies.  The drone strikes keep our own soldiers out of harms way, and have less collateral damage than a full on ground assault.
 
2013-04-12 12:50:53 AM

hubiestubert: There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.


I knew there was a reason I have you in orange, you said it better than I would have.
 
2013-04-12 12:52:28 AM

hubiestubert: So, let me get this straight, we are going to compare extraordinary rendition, to those killed by drones, while ignoring civilian casualties in the actual ground actions, police actions, and air strikes during the last Administration?

Because extraordinary rendition, and targeted airstrikes are EXACTLY the same?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the remote control plan, because it still has small issues like poor intelligence and civilian casualties when the targets are misidentified. But rendition and drone strikes are hardly equal, they aren't even really in the same ballpark.

Compare drone strikes and civilian casualties with pilot or intelligence errors in the Bush years. Compare drone strikes and ground casualties. Compare even friendly fire incidents between the two, but to compare extraordinary rendition and drone strikes is comparing apples to tire irons.

What's next? Comparing Bush's golf score and Obama's layups? How about we compare how the Bush Administration handled Congress, and how Obama juggles puppies? How many victims did the Bush years score by their immigration policy, and then compare it to the horror of Obamacare?

There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.


Yeah that comparison does seem a bit wrong. The problem I have in general with the drones is that we have decided that we can kill anyone we want anywhere because...terrorism. I'm guessing we must have approval from all those countries we regularly bomb in order to do so. But also comparing drone strikes to an active war is also wrong. We are not actively engaged in hostilities with Yemen, Pakistan or anywhere else except Afghanistan. So these people are not in an active war zone.

I don't have a problem with drones in general. But it does seem like we are relying on them just to make things cleaner. It's easier to kill rather than capture?
 
2013-04-12 01:15:27 AM
People ARE criticizing Obama's use of drones.  You're just not paying attention.  Or maybe you need to wash out your ears.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/intelligence-documents-sugge st -obama-administration-lied-about-who-drones-kill
 
2013-04-12 01:17:20 AM

Bucky Katt: People ARE criticizing Obama's use of drones.  You're just not paying attention.  Or maybe you need to wash out your ears.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/intelligence-documents-sugge st -obama-administration-lied-about-who-drones-kill


Glenn Greenwald has been on this for years now too.
 
2013-04-12 01:19:21 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: I guess those Iraqi civillians don't count.


Because they're not Americans. American lives matter. Well, white American lives matter.

The obama administration has killed people. The Bush administration (probably) killed more people. And thus it goes back and back. The empire kills people. It's what it does. The fact that you're getting your knickers in a twist about it now seems quite strange. Do you think Reagan's CIA sat around playing tea all day?
 
2013-04-12 01:21:20 AM
Triple?  I don't think there's enough drones in the world to triple Bush's body counts.
 
2013-04-12 01:22:29 AM

hubiestubert: So, let me get this straight, we are going to compare extraordinary rendition, to those killed by drones, while ignoring civilian casualties in the actual ground actions, police actions, and air strikes during the last Administration?

Because extraordinary rendition, and targeted airstrikes are EXACTLY the same?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the remote control plan, because it still has small issues like poor intelligence and civilian casualties when the targets are misidentified. But rendition and drone strikes are hardly equal, they aren't even really in the same ballpark.

Compare drone strikes and civilian casualties with pilot or intelligence errors in the Bush years. Compare drone strikes and ground casualties. Compare even friendly fire incidents between the two, but to compare extraordinary rendition and drone strikes is comparing apples to tire irons.

What's next? Comparing Bush's golf score and Obama's layups? How about we compare how the Bush Administration handled Congress, and how Obama juggles puppies? How many victims did the Bush years score by their immigration policy, and then compare it to the horror of Obamacare?

There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.


Or, you know, just starting the whole thing on a lie your entire administration backs and is even willing to lie to the UN over in order to get a facade of righteousness behind your cause.

This drone shiat is small potatoes, and everyone knows it.
 
2013-04-12 01:23:05 AM
because black people have been cooler than white people for decades
 
2013-04-12 01:24:27 AM

Bucky Katt: People ARE criticizing Obama's use of drones.  You're just not paying attention.  Or maybe you need to wash out your ears.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/intelligence-documents-sugge st -obama-administration-lied-about-who-drones-kill


does alternet really count as "people" and can you actually fault people for not paying attention to them?
 
2013-04-12 01:24:36 AM
Because we are Americans and we only care about money.
 
2013-04-12 01:25:40 AM
This guy should see my Facebook feed, where you will find howls of outrage. Daily. I'm sure it's having a big impact.

/npi
 
2013-04-12 01:27:16 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: I guess those Iraqi civillians don't count.



Note that this does NOT mean that we shouldn't hold Obama to task for the f--king BS drones.

But Jesus f--king Christ, The Atlantic is getting as bad as Slate as far as "headlines to grab f--king outraged page views and comments leading to short f--king articles that really don't do anything to address the actual issues at hand".

/yeah, I'm on Fark, I know.
 
2013-04-12 01:27:23 AM
Interestingly, the number being framed here as innocent victim count of the Bush Administration is approximately 2 days, 2 hours and 24 minutes worth of casualties in Iraq during the last 5 years Bush was in office.

Based on the information available about the drone program there is some really shady stuff going on concerning how targets are selected, but comparing it to extraordinary rendition on a casualty to casualty basis isn't making a case. The only way you could narrow the definition of 'innocent victims of the Bush admin' further is if it was restricted to hunting partners accidentally shot in the face with a shotgun.
 
2013-04-12 01:28:00 AM

Dr.Zom: This guy should see my Facebook feed, where you will find howls of outrage. Daily. I'm sure it's having a big impact.

/npi


Heh...mine is all about guns and GMO's...apparently the government is trying to kill us with GMO's all the while trying to stop killings with guns. It's all very confusing...
 
2013-04-12 01:28:40 AM

Tellingthem: Bucky Katt: People ARE criticizing Obama's use of drones.  You're just not paying attention.  Or maybe you need to wash out your ears.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/intelligence-documents-sugge st -obama-administration-lied-about-who-drones-kill

Glenn Greenwald has been on this for years now too.


Was gonna name drop him, you beat me to it.

I need to read him more often, but it gets the blood pressure rising so damn fast.

/no excuse, just saying
 
2013-04-12 01:29:31 AM

Bucky Katt: People ARE criticizing Obama's use of drones.  You're just not paying attention.  Or maybe you need to wash out your ears.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/intelligence-documents-sugge st -obama-administration-lied-about-who-drones-kill


Well, how many times did Fox News run a story critical of Obama while adding a light sprinkling of "This is what the mainstream media won't tell you"?  And usually a day or so after CNN runs it?
 
2013-04-12 01:29:34 AM
Last I heard, the civilian Iraqi death count was over 100,000. Are they saying Obama has killed 1/3 of a million people? He must be very busy.
 
2013-04-12 01:31:11 AM

Tellingthem: hubiestubert: So, let me get this straight, we are going to compare extraordinary rendition, to those killed by drones, while ignoring civilian casualties in the actual ground actions, police actions, and air strikes during the last Administration?

Because extraordinary rendition, and targeted airstrikes are EXACTLY the same?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the remote control plan, because it still has small issues like poor intelligence and civilian casualties when the targets are misidentified. But rendition and drone strikes are hardly equal, they aren't even really in the same ballpark.

Compare drone strikes and civilian casualties with pilot or intelligence errors in the Bush years. Compare drone strikes and ground casualties. Compare even friendly fire incidents between the two, but to compare extraordinary rendition and drone strikes is comparing apples to tire irons.

What's next? Comparing Bush's golf score and Obama's layups? How about we compare how the Bush Administration handled Congress, and how Obama juggles puppies? How many victims did the Bush years score by their immigration policy, and then compare it to the horror of Obamacare?

There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.

Yeah that comparison does seem a bit wrong. The problem I have in general with the drones is that we have decided that we can kill anyone we want anywhere because...terrorism. I'm guessing we must have approval from all those countries we regularly bomb in order to do so. But also comparing drone strikes to an active war is also wrong. We are not actively engaged in hostilities with Yemen, Pakistan or anywhere else except Afghanistan. So these people are not in an active war zone.

I don't have a problem with drones in general. But it does seem like we are relying on them just to make things cleaner. It's easier to kill rather than capture?


In a nutshell. The obstructionists have made it clear that the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo cannot be brought to or tried in the US. The American public have made it clear the same suspects must be given some kind of trial, or else freed. The scaremongers and war hawks have continued whipping up the global threat of terrorism and the danger to American interests overseas; the American people have continued to elect these politicians and support the continuance of the "war on terror" despite the results. Hence, our military has no option but to kill terrorist suspects anywhere we can find them because there simply is no alternative: They cannot be captured, since that would subject them to the legal system the obstructionist element has blocked as a means of treating them as a CRIMINAL threat; they cannot be killed by conventional military methods, since that would require invasion of the nation they are in (Pakistan or Yemen) in violation of international law and rules of engagement.

It is, quite simply, the ultimate consequence of the "war on terror" that Bush so thoughtlessly committed us to. If Ansar al-Sharia is a legitimate threat, then it must be dealt with--but if its members cannot be arrested and imprisoned (because they are "enemy combatants" and not subject to criminal law) and too dangerous to be confined on US soil (as the Gitmo obstructionists maintain)--and if they are located in a non-hostile nation which cannot be entered with traditional military forces (because that would be tantamount to declaring war without cause)--then there is no other option. Except not to go after the so-called terrorists.

Which, of course, is the preferable option, but the war hawks and scaremongers have done their best to deny this option as well. Ask anyone in any town in the US and they will assure you that terrorism is still a deadly threat to America and they hate us for our freedomz and whatever--and at the same time they'll agree that Obama's drone strikes are the worst thing since Hitler's ovens. But Obama really lacks the grassroots support he needs to just get up, like he did the night bin Laden was killed, and say "My fellow Americans, I'm declaring an end to the war on terror, because frankly, it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
 
2013-04-12 01:34:34 AM
The author and subby seems to like pallin' around with terrorists. Why do you hate America subby?
 
2013-04-12 01:34:50 AM
Tellingthem: 

The problem I have in general with the drones is that we have decided that we can kill anyone we want anywhere because...terrorism. I'm guessing we must have approval from all those countries we regularly bomb in order to do so. But also comparing drone strikes to an active war is also wrong. We are not actively engaged in hostilities with Yemen, Pakistan or anywhere else except Afghanistan. So these people are not in an active war zone.

I don't have a problem with drones in general. But it does seem like we are relying on them just to make things cleaner. It's easier to kill rather than capture?


The 'war on terror' can't be fought like a traditional war.  If your enemies are multi-national terrorist organizations it doesn't do any good to declare war on the country they happen to be in unless that country is actively supporting the terrorists.

We've had plenty of time to discover that trying to do the whole 'nation building' thing in the middle east is a huge waste of money and manpower.  I'm all for pulling the vast majority of our troops out and just leaving enough around to handle intelligence gathering which they can funnel to the CIA which can then send out the drones or strike teams to deal with it.  Keep a carrier group around in the area if air strikes are needed, but otherwise let's leave the majority of the people over there alone and let them do their thing.

Warfare is always evolving, and the next iteration may be small targeted assaults on specific targets instead of large scale invasions.  I'm sure there will always be some error and collateral damage, but if Yemen and Pakistan don't want our drones flying overhead they could start by handling the terrorist problem internally.  We have no real reason to believe anything Pakistan says after they repeatedly lied to our faces, even going so far as to harbor Bin Laden while swearing he was nowhere near their country.
 
2013-04-12 01:35:09 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Civilian casualties are a shame, but I like the use of drones overall, as long as they stay overseas.  Just because a target isn't a member of Al-Qaeda doesn't mean that they aren't a terrorist or that they aren't planning or supporting action against the US or our allies.  The drone strikes keep our own soldiers out of harms way, and have less collateral damage than a full on ground assault.


I realize that the idea of drone strikes looks new to people, and so the arguments for them seem a bit new and untried. But can you see how from another country, this comment looks racist? I see racism on 2 counts. 1) You can use them overseas but not at home. 2) Just because someone is not the enemy, them being overseas means they are droneable because they "support" and merely support, which could mean anything, like the target loves their aunt MIldred who knits socks for her son cousin Balki who happens to deliver pizza willingly to the enemy to pay his college tuition. And thanks to social media, you can see the target wish mildred happy birthdy and know the connection evne if nobody else on the street knows, ie, even if the target doesn't know Mildred's son's customers, but since FACEBOOK knows, then BOOM. But in the USA, that would not be allowed. That looks racist, is all. it needs to be reconstructed.
 
2013-04-12 01:35:51 AM
G.W. Bush killed 150,000 people as a minimum and Bush the junior has international warrants out for his crimes against humanity.


/Sure seems equal.

//Oh shiat but wait, Overlord Rmoney wanted to go to war in Iran and then Syria and then Hello Best Korea. For a finale he would of finished wiping out Palestine for his Squatting masters in Israel.

///Oh then there is that Mexico drug war that needed to be ramped up with shelling night and day from the North. Eventually he may of hit a drug runner.
 
2013-04-12 01:36:52 AM
Obama has killed more than 300,000 civilians? Ummm [citation please]
 
2013-04-12 01:39:00 AM
more than triples the victim count

According to what? Retard math?
 
2013-04-12 01:39:03 AM
ox-i.beforeitsnews.com
 
2013-04-12 01:39:10 AM

nmrsnr: hubiestubert: There IS certainly room to criticize the use of drone strikes. To compare it to extraordinary rendition is NOT really a way to do so.

I knew there was a reason I have you in orange, you said it better than I would have.


Is orange one of your good colors? I don't use it much because it look somewhat similar to retard red when I've been drinking.
 
2013-04-12 01:42:40 AM

Biological Ali: more than triples the victim count

According to what? Retard math?


Ah, but Retard Math is BEST Math.. or something like that.
 
2013-04-12 01:46:18 AM

Biological Ali: more than triples the victim count

According to what? Retard math?



Oh come on do the 100,000 civilian Iraqis really count as "people"?
 
2013-04-12 01:47:38 AM

TuteTibiImperes: as long as they stay overseas.


I'll be honest, I'm not sure an adjective exists in English to succinctly describe the peculiar reek of hubris, arrogance and xenophobia that whole "don't use drones on Americans/American soil" issue conveys to anybody outside the US.
 
2013-04-12 01:48:46 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Tellingthem:

The problem I have in general with the drones is that we have decided that we can kill anyone we want anywhere because...terrorism. I'm guessing we must have approval from all those countries we regularly bomb in order to do so. But also comparing drone strikes to an active war is also wrong. We are not actively engaged in hostilities with Yemen, Pakistan or anywhere else except Afghanistan. So these people are not in an active war zone.

I don't have a problem with drones in general. But it does seem like we are relying on them just to make things cleaner. It's easier to kill rather than capture?

The 'war on terror' can't be fought like a traditional war.  If your enemies are multi-national terrorist organizations it doesn't do any good to declare war on the country they happen to be in unless that country is actively supporting the terrorists.

We've had plenty of time to discover that trying to do the whole 'nation building' thing in the middle east is a huge waste of money and manpower.  I'm all for pulling the vast majority of our troops out and just leaving enough around to handle intelligence gathering which they can funnel to the CIA which can then send out the drones or strike teams to deal with it.  Keep a carrier group around in the area if air strikes are needed, but otherwise let's leave the majority of the people over there alone and let them do their thing.

Warfare is always evolving, and the next iteration may be small targeted assaults on specific targets instead of large scale invasions.  I'm sure there will always be some error and collateral damage, but if Yemen and Pakistan don't want our drones flying overhead they could start by handling the terrorist problem internally.  We have no real reason to believe anything Pakistan says after they repeatedly lied to our faces, even going so far as to harbor Bin Laden while swearing he was nowhere near their country.


Like i said I don't have a problem with drones in general. Honestly I still think the war on terror is mostly a bunch of crap. Did under Bush II and still do under Obama. But most people don't care so it's not going to change. So here we are.
 
2013-04-12 01:49:55 AM

Bennie Crabtree: TuteTibiImperes: Civilian casualties are a shame, but I like the use of drones overall, as long as they stay overseas.  Just because a target isn't a member of Al-Qaeda doesn't mean that they aren't a terrorist or that they aren't planning or supporting action against the US or our allies.  The drone strikes keep our own soldiers out of harms way, and have less collateral damage than a full on ground assault.

I realize that the idea of drone strikes looks new to people, and so the arguments for them seem a bit new and untried. But can you see how from another country, this comment looks racist? I see racism on 2 counts. 1) You can use them overseas but not at home. 2) Just because someone is not the enemy, them being overseas means they are droneable because they "support" and merely support, which could mean anything, like the target loves their aunt MIldred who knits socks for her son cousin Balki who happens to deliver pizza willingly to the enemy to pay his college tuition. And thanks to social media, you can see the target wish mildred happy birthdy and know the connection evne if nobody else on the street knows, ie, even if the target doesn't know Mildred's son's customers, but since FACEBOOK knows, then BOOM. But in the USA, that would not be allowed. That looks racist, is all. it needs to be reconstructed.


I didn't intend for it to come off as racist.  If a white guy from Michigan decided to join Al-Qaeda, fly over to Pakistan, and set up shop with a bunch of other extremists I'd have no problem having a drone take him out.  Similarly, if an Iraqi national member of Al-Qaeda managed to get into the US, I wouldn't want a drone strike on him here - let the police/ICE/CIA/FBI handle his arrest.

I'm sure the powers that be have a definition of 'support' that qualifies someone for the kill list, and I'd hope it's more than knitting socks or delivering pizzas.

I'll admit my view may be nationalistic, but I don't see that as a bad thing.  I live in the USA, and what's good for the USA is good for me.  Similarly, I can understand why someone from Pakistan would be upset that we're blowing stuff up over there.  I'd like to think that the non-terrorist populations of Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, would try to pressure their government to handle the extremists that are the reason we're bombing them, but I also understand that the USA is not very popular over there, and holding us up as the Big Bad probably makes them feel better.

It's a tough situation all around, but my original point was that if we're going to have to eliminate a target over there, I'd rather a drone do it than a whole armored division rolling in, blowing up half the countryside, and likely killing or displacing many more civilians than a targeted drone strike would.
 
2013-04-12 01:50:25 AM
Right or wrong, most people view these wars as messes inherited from W's administration.

It's the same reason why, despite the dire state of the economy, Obama still has a fairly decent approval rating. A critical mass of people understand that 2000-2008 was a time of unprecedented corruption and poor leadership that resulted in some disastrous results for the country.
 
2013-04-12 01:50:47 AM

Corvus: Biological Ali: more than triples the victim count

According to what? Retard math?


Oh come on do the 100,000 civilian Iraqis really count as "people"?


And that number is an estimate, and doesn't even include nonviolent deaths from the invasion, from disease and malnutrition and so forth.
 
2013-04-12 01:52:43 AM

TalenLee: PC LOAD LETTER: I guess those Iraqi civillians don't count.

Because they're not Americans. American lives matter. Well, white American lives matter.

The obama administration has killed people. The Bush administration (probably) killed more people. And thus it goes back and back. The empire kills people. It's what it does. The fact that you're getting your knickers in a twist about it now seems quite strange. Do you think Reagan's CIA sat around playing tea all day?


... "playing tea"???
 
2013-04-12 01:53:35 AM
If you objected to CIA detention and rendition in the Bush era, as I did, know that you'd have to double or triple its victims to equal the number of innocents estimated to have been killed in U.S. drone strikes.

What the hell kind of argument is this? Taking two completely unrelated numbers and comparing them, and then being alarmed that one is "double or triple" the other? I mean, if you're going to do that you might as well just compare the drone strike casualties to the number of pretzels that Bush choked on in order to get an even more frightening number.
 
2013-04-12 01:57:02 AM
If you don't like drones, get off your lazy safe butt, join the army, go over there and risk your life for the country.

Pretty simple.
 
2013-04-12 01:58:23 AM

costermonger: TuteTibiImperes: as long as they stay overseas.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure an adjective exists in English to succinctly describe the peculiar reek of hubris, arrogance and xenophobia that whole "don't use drones on Americans/American soil" issue conveys to anybody outside the US.


Drones are a tool of war.  I don't want to see M1-A1s, F-35s, or infantry divisions used on American soil either, unless we were invaded, but I don't think either Canada or Mexico is planning that at the moment.  I don't know where you're from, but if your nation were at war I'm sure you could see the difference between the tools of war being used against your enemies in their territories vs. on your home soil.

I suppose the tough part is trying to decide whether or not terrorists who make it into the US should be considered an invading force or civilian criminals.  I tend to view them as civilians, which means that their apprehension should be handled by non-military forces.
 
2013-04-12 01:59:16 AM

hubiestubert: What's next? Comparing Bush's golf score and Obama's layups? How about we compare how the Bush Administration handled Congress, and how Obama juggles puppies? How many victims did the Bush years score by their immigration policy, and then compare it to the horror of Obamacare?


This is why I have you labelled as "The smartest guy on Fark."
 
2013-04-12 01:59:23 AM

rnld: If you don't like drones, get off your lazy safe butt, join the army, go over there and risk your life for the country.

Pretty simple.


Or better yet, don't blow up anonymous groups of people in nations we aren't at war with.

Arguments like 'well, we have to kill them somehow' don't fly.  That's NOT a given.
 
2013-04-12 02:00:03 AM

TuteTibiImperes: imilarly, I can understand why someone from Pakistan would be upset that we're blowing stuff up over there.  I'd like to think that the non-terrorist populations of Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, would try to pressure their government to handle the extremists that are the reason we're bombing them,


Do you remember when Americans were telling their politicians to pull military bases out of hotspots right after 9/11?
 
2013-04-12 02:00:09 AM
Ohhhh subby?

This kinda shiat is why some of us hairy nose pickers think ill of y'all.
 
2013-04-12 02:01:46 AM

Bennie Crabtree: That looks racist


You don't even know what a race is, do you?
 
2013-04-12 02:02:48 AM
I can't even comment on the whole "NUH-UH Obama is doing the same thing as Bush only it's worse/expanded/tripled" bullshiat any more. We get it, you're butthurt.
 
2013-04-12 02:02:52 AM
I think Bush might've killed more Texans than that.
 
Displayed 50 of 416 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report