I'm about two hours from Philly, I was considering asking him to meet, not to argue, just a cup of coffee, lunch, actually meet the man behind the myth

 

Let's try to get back on topic here. Because we are still being lied to by Trump and his supporters. And if there a protests in Iran Trump supporters are all over them. But hundreds of thousands of protesters in Iraq telling the US to get out and people want to talk about Baller.

 

President Trump said Wednesday that he didn't mention the U.S. service members who were injured in a Iranian strike against a U.S. base because they suffered "headaches." He initially said no Americans had been injured in the January 8 strike on Al Asad airbase in retaliation for the strike that killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani.


CBS News' Weijia Jiang on Wednesday asked Mr. Trump, who was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, to explain the discrepancy between the initial reports that there were no injuries and the Pentagon's statement on January 16 that several U.S. service members were injured.

"I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I would say that, and I can report, it is not very serious," said Mr. Trump.

Jiang pressed Mr. Trump further, asking, "You don't consider a traumatic brain injury serious?"

"They told me about it numerous days later. You would have to ask the Department of Defense," Mr. Trump said. "No, I don't consider them very serious injuries, relative to other injuries that I've seen. I've seen what Iran has done with their roadside bombs to our troops, I've seen people with no legs and with no arms, I've seen people that were horribly, horribly injured, and that area, that war, in fact, [in] many cases, put those bombs, out there by Soleimani, who is no longer with us. I consider them to be really bad injuries. No, I do not consider that to be bad injuries, no."

United States Central Command spokesperson Captain Bill Urban said on January 16 that at least 11 U.S. service members "were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed."

"As a standard procedure, all personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injury, and if deemed appropriate are transported to a higher level of care," Urban said in a statement.

Major General Alexus Grynkewich, deputy commander for Operations and Intelligence, clarified Wednesday that the number of U.S. service members being treated for concussions is a bit higher, in the "teens." He also said that being evacuated doesn't necessarily mean a person has suffered a traumatic brain injury, but that he or she is reporting concussion symptoms.

 

The Trump supporters like @shootersa won't answer questions about this because Trump is obviously just lying again. But why? Well because Trump had to lie this time because he lied the first time. He nearly started a war with Iran with his assassination to try and change the headlines from impeachment.

So then he had to back down because Putin told him to. But the only he could back down is if he said no one got hurt. So ye just lied about the 11 US troops who got traumatic brain injury. Saying they just got headaches. Even though they had to be medivacked to Gernany for treatment. Which is all the same to Trump and @shootersa because our troops are just mere props to fake Patriots anyway.

 

Just one more. When we read what Trump said there are only two possibilities. Either the DOD is so fucking incompetent and negligent they would not tell the commander in chief about US troops injured in an attack the whole world was watching or Trump will lie about anything in the world stage including US casualties.

So gee @shootersa I wonder which one it is? Which one do you say it is?

 

Trust me. We WISH you would stop after just one more.

 

Yes I know you Trump supporters have a very low tolerance for truth and the same for socks.

 

So now the lie is 3 times as bad. Now the Pentagon is saying 34 troops were injured

Let's see if we can keep count shall we. First it was zero. Then 11. And now 34. Trump and the DOD are sounding more like Iran every day.

 

Yeh, but they were only headache related injuries, nothing to worry about.......all they'll need is a cup of tea and a wee lie down..

 

They are just mere props for Trump and his supporters like @shooters to use when it suits them and discarded like shitty toilet paper when it doesn't.

If they were 50 year old bones @shootersa could get all weepy about them. But live troops wounded in an attack Trump keeps lying about fuck 'em. They don't fit The Chosen One narrative where Trump can do no wrong.

 

Well when it comes to killing people, Oduma's record is hard to beat.

Oduma killed hundreds of civilians with his drone strikes.

I don't remember seeing any of your fake crocodile tears for those people....


Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians

Long-awaited assessment of death toll under Obama, criticized as an undercount, acknowledges government does not always know how many civilians it kills

Spencer Ackerman in New York




The White House and the CIA pioneered the strikes during the George W Bush era and dramatically accelerated them during Obama’s presidency. Photograph: James Lee Harper Jr/AFP/Getty Images
Barack Obama has claimed that drone and other airstrikes, his favored tactics of war, have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during his administration, a tally which was criticized as undercounted even before Friday’s announcement.

The long-promised assessment acknowledged that the government itself does not always know how many civilians it kills and that it may revise its death tolls over time.

Between 2009 and 31 December 2015, the administration claimed that it launched 473 strikes, mostly with drones, that killed between what it said were 2,372 and 2,581 terrorist “combatants”.

The assessment presents the White House’s account of the death toll from a method of warfare that defines Obama’s legacy in many parts of the world. The White House released its long-awaited drones report the afternoon before the Fourth of July holiday weekend, having pledged transparency on the drones issue for years.


Yet the count is also incomplete, leaving out the civilian toll from drone strikes in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Nor did the administration go into detail about where the strikes occur, citing what an official told reporters on Friday were “diplomatic sensitivities”, even as it presented the assessment as a significant advance in transparency. The Guardian has filed a freedom of information act request for records relating to the civilian-death assessment in the US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, where thus far the US military has concluded it has killed 36 civilians since summer 2015.

The upper limit of the civilian death toll from drones stands at more than 800 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, during the time period Obama’s drones tally covered. But that and similar accounts are imprecise, owing to both official secrecy and the difficulties of fact-finding and verifying in some of the world’s most dangerous places. In some cases, human rights groups have found that strikes intending to kill specific terrorist leaders killed many more people.

In 2013, senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that drone strikes had killed 4,700 people, some 2,000 more deaths than the upper limit the administration released on Friday.

Accompanying the release of the death statistics was a new executive order Obama issued to effectively codify his counterterrorism strikes for the next administration, a process his aides have debated since at least 2012.

A goal of the executive order is to “take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties” through training, “technological capabilities” and holding off on strikes to limit civilian deaths. As well, each May, the office of the director of national intelligence will publish an updated annual counterterrorism death toll.


The US has killed people whose identities it does not know, for fitting into what it considers patterns of life associated with terrorism, an anonymous method of killing known as signature strikes. But despite the executive order’s emphasis on steps to “ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished”, senior administration officials indicated that Obama will permit signature strikes to continue.

“We continue to reserve the right to take action not just against individual terrorist targets but when we believe we have, for instance, a force protection issue or information to suggest a continued imminent threat,” a senior official said when asked about signature strikes.

Drone strikes outside of declared war zones are the province of the CIA and the US military’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command. The administration has treated them as an official secret, and for years would not even utter the word “drone” or any of its associated acronyms. No entity outside the administration reviews the strikes. The executive order creates an internal mechanism to review drone strikes and take into account information from non-governmental organizations like human rights groups.

To critics, the secrecy has for years permitted Obama to conceal the damage in human lives inflicted by what he calls “targeted killing”, insulating him politically from the consequences of lethal decisions that the president has decided can occur anywhere on earth for an indefinite duration.

Another impact of the secrecy has meant policy arguments over drone strikes have accordingly occurred in an information vacuum.

The White House and the CIA, which pioneered the strikes during the George W Bush era and dramatically accelerated them during Obama’s presidency, have claimed without evidence that drone strikes are an antiseptic solution for terrorism and downplayed the civilian casualties, political destabilization and life-changing consequences described by strike survivors, witnesses, relatives and foreign officials.

John Brennan, the CIA director, and Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, have for years claimed the drone strikes kill “single digits” worth of civilians annually, though they have provided no evidence for the assertion.

To fill the information vacuum, Obama’s counter-terrorism czar promised in March that the administration would declassify casualty totals from its drone strikes, and rumored interagency disagreements about what and how much to disclose have contributed to the delay.

An additional factor in the discussions surrounding the drones disclosure has been what the administration will bequeath to its successor, and how constraining the rules it had crafted around them, unilaterally and secretly, will prove.


Human rights groups have reacted with cynicism in the intervening months, arguing that nothing prevents the CIA from grading its own work favorably and presenting unverifiable undercounts as the truth.

“Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt that the government will provide the kind of specificity that would actually be useful to journalists, human rights researchers, and the general public,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in a blogpost on Monday.

A senior official defended the rigor of the US’s internal count but conceded “at the end of the day, this is US government information, and people can make their own judgments about how they receive it.”

Other human rights campaigners criticized the White House drone tally on arrival.

“While a sign of progress, the information to be released today fails to provide enough information to allow the public to assess the harm to civilians, the legality of individual strikes, or the overall effectiveness of the targeted killing program, especially as the data only covers airstrikes outside Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan,” Human Rights First said in a statement.

The origin of the disclosures came in 2013, during an equivocal speech on war Obama delivered at the National Defense University. In retrospect, the speech reads as the beginnings of a president, who despite pledging the year before in his re-election campaign that the “tide of war is receding”, unravelling his promise. In his speech, Obama urged the US to “define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us”, and promised additional transparency for the strikes.

An associated document, partially declassified for the speech, added restrictions on drone strikes that led to a notable drop in drone attacks by late 2013. But its major terms were left vague: strikes had to target an “imminent” threat, with a “near certainty” not to kill civilians, after capturing terror suspects was “infeasible”, all of which raised questions about internal definitions. Before the year was done, a US drone strike killed 14 celebrants at a wedding in Yemen.

That full document, known as the Policy Planning Guidance, was not declassified with the death tally, although the justice department in February told a federal judge it will declassify the document after an ACLU transparency lawsuit.

Survivors of the strikes and relatives of the dead consider drone strikes to be proof that the US is waging an indiscriminate war on their largely Muslim countries, precisely the opposite of how Obama and his surrogates prefer to view their “targeted” counter-terrorism. Several have told the Guardian that the threat of the strikes have created an ever-present fear in their countries amongst civilians while having a negligible impact on the terrorist groups they are meant to contain or destroy.


Survivors also resent the lack of official apology, acknowledgement and compensation from the US for mistaken strikes, and bitterly note that Obama was quick to take responsibility for an errant 2015 strike that killed two westerners.

Rafiq ur-Rehman, whose mother was killed and children seriously injured by a 2012 drone strike in Pakistan, told the Guardian this year: “In my opinion, America treats us worse than animals.”

Faheem Qureshi, who at 14 years old survived Obama’s very first drone strike in January 2009, told the Guardian: “If there is a list of tyrants in the world, to me, Obama will be put on that list by his drone program.”

The executive order now requires the US to “acknowledge US government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences”, to include paying money for deaths it mistakenly causes. US officials could not say how much condolence money they have paid.

“Yes, we are accepting responsibility,” said a senior administration official, who would not agree to be quoted by name.

 

I'm tired of insistent points being pointed out like the source has a point to make besides pointing to themselves saying, look at me, I'm poignant

 

And as usual all you do is tell stupid and ignorant (two different things) lies. For some reason I can't seem to find the actual threads we had but if memory serves there were two different discussions. One was when President Obama made a really tasteless joke when asked about his teenage daughters and he said he would ask their potential dates if they had ever heard of a predator drone. That was really not funny since there were already reports of innocent civilians being killed. And then again when President Obama submitted new guidelines to cut down on the number of civilians being killed and what the new criteria would be. That sparked a discussion of hey how many civilians have been killed and what the fuck were your guidelines before.
But now under Trump he removed all those safeguards and we have know idea how many drone strikes he is conducting let alone how many people are being killed which makes you stupid, ignorant, lying hypocrite.

I did come up with enough to show that yes I was concerned about President Obama's drone strikes and certainly willing to criticize him.

 

I don't know. You think Trump wants to fuck with the VFW? I just don't think that's a wise political move.

VFW Says ‘Cannot Stand Idle’ on Trump’s ‘Misguided’ Remarks About Troop Injuries: We Expect an Apology

https://www.mediaite.com/news/vfw-s...ks-about-troop-injuries-we-expect-an-apology/

 

Anything.
Anything at all to get Trump.

Wheres your outrage over the deaths of.176 people at the hands of Iran?

Wheres your outrage over unarmed Iranian protesters dying in the streets, fighting for their freedom?

Pushed away to copy and paste an attack story about Trump for something he didn't say.

 

If Trump had not assassinated an Iranian General just to try and change the headlines on impeachment and look like a tough guy those 176 people would still be alive.

Where's your outrage for the hundreds of protesters killed in Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding the US leave. Come to think of it where's your concern for the 34 troops wounded in the Iranian strike let alone your outrage about Trump lying about them and then saying trumatic brain injuries are not series and they just had headaches>

Far more productive than your lies frauds and constant personal attacks.

 

Yes when the literally and clinically and totally fucking coward Trump assassinates a foreign government official just to take the attention off his impeachment, and give his buddies at Mar a Lago an insider trading tip to buy defense stocks Democrats get angry, and everyone should. Especially when Trump had no plan beyond just grabbing the headlines and brings us to the brink of war with Iran which could escalate to a world war before he loses his nerve and gets his marching orders from Putin to just stand down and let Iran attack us and like the coward he is backs down Democrats see that as incredibly dangerous and get angry and everyplace should.

Just like everyone should be very angry when Trump stands in front of the nation and lies through his fucking teeth that no troops were injured. And everyone should be outraged enough to be telling Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office when he stands there and tells the world the wounds our troops suffered are just headaches and not serious. You have to be a fucking brainwashed Trump cult follower sharing Trump's psychosis not to be angry about that.

And now I guess all our veterans must be Democrats too according to you.

Veteran Orgs: Trump Should Apologize for Remarks on Troops’ Brain Injuries

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-best-things-to-get-from-backcountrys-sale?ref=home

 

Oh yeah Trump sure showed those Iranians for attacking our embassy.

Three rockets hit the US embassy in Iraq capital: security source

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/three-rockets-hit-the-us-embassy-in-iraq-capital-security-source/

 

And that makes your little heart smile, doesn't it Stumbled.