Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

ergdj5 wrote

“Nah, man,” he said to his audience. “That’s just for the white ones.”

...probably not wrong, either.

Soon after, Kareem was tipped off by a source in Turkey that he had been put on a list of targets at Incirlik Air Base, a launching pad for American drones.

Turkey does that a ton. US intervention has come out of Turkey since just after WW2. It truly is the road to the Middle East.

2

noordinaryspider wrote

Deja goddamnedmotherfuckingcocksucking vu.

"As Obama was preparing to leave office, candidate Donald Trump was promising to jack up the number of bombings in the Middle East. “You have to take out their families,” he said

This is right out of the goddamnedmotherfuckingcocksucking grapes of fucking wrath.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Disposition Matrix.

Fuck me...

And of course they killed a bunch of random kids / old people while missing him.

How the fuck do USAmericans not permanently camp outside the pentagon and rage until they stop doing this shit in their name.

This is only even getting airtime because the guy is a US citizen. No one even makes note of it when they target everyone else they target.

1

ergdj5 wrote

USAmericans are incredibly compliant. Its depressing, I've not seen it in any other nation like this.

1

ziq wrote

And if he were on US soil, they'd just have a cop put a bullet in his head and say he was 'resisting'.

2

NeoliberalismKills wrote

This answers your question. Combined with having children to feed, healthcare tied to employment, being able to be fired for any reason and the worthlessness of legal protest (meaning you need to risk jail). I'm not excusing the utter lack of sincere action on this. This is just the facts on the ground. Hopefully the occupation of I.C.E SS facilities moves to other actions.

1

supernice wrote

Not justifying this craziness in general, but this guy is an ISIS propaganda mouthpiece, so fuck him. When the bad guys (US) are killing the other bad guys (ISIS), I couldn't care less. Let them all rot. This man Bilal would have my head on a stake just as quickly as the CIA would if it was in his power. It's like Saudi Arabia's beef with Qatar.....both pieces of shit, I hope they kill each other and leave the rest of us alone. I guarantee you Bilal here is on either Qatar or Saudi Arabias payroll.

1

ergdj5 wrote

You see, here's the whole issue with that-

A woman, an elderly man and a 10-year-old girl happened to be there that day. They were all killed.

The U.S isn't discriminate.

3

supernice wrote (edited )

You are right. I only take issue with this man in the article being seen as some innocent journalist whilst his very presence is the reason these true innocents ended up dead. He has as little business being there as the US military. They came to conquer, and so did he and his cohorts. Neither of them have the interests of the local populace in mind (I mistakenly said he was an ISIS mouthpiece, but in fact his chosen side is Al-Qaeda. Either way, both are extremist shit and there is hardly a difference between them).

If he had any respect for the lives of these people, he would not put them in danger by inserting himself amongst them and being a mouthpiece for violent extremists. He should stay in New York and do his good deeds there. Surely there are some New Yorkers who need his help? But he's a coward, he'd never do that. It's far easier to take advantage of a people living in the chaos of war. He can sue to be taken off the kill list. Can the local people who may get killed in the process do the same?

https://trofire.com/2017/07/14/cnn-paid-al-qaedas-media-man-syria-documentary/

1

NeoliberalismKills wrote

The article never dealt with the evidence against him. How are you so certain he's an actual propogandist?

Also, any precedent making it easier to kill Americans makes the revolution harder and makes it more likely the US will just murder minorities here and label them terrorists after the fact.

2

supernice wrote

Look into him. His articles are all pro-"rebels", i.e. pro-jihadists. He's always embedded in jihadist strongholds and has exclusive access to their leadership for interviews. It's pretty clear who he is, even without the wahabbi look that he sports.

As for the precedent to kill Americans, two things:

  1. Uncle Sam has already set it, that ship has sailed.

  2. Why is it OK for non-Americans? Are they less human?

1

NeoliberalismKills wrote (edited )

  1. I wasn't arguing that at all. Definitely something that needs to be addressed. And something American leftists have been trying to address. Problem is, like all counties, it isn't an actual democracy.

  2. The article listed what could be new precedence. And I'm fairly certain Anwar and his son weren't murdered with meta-data but actual hard intel. So it would be a precedent.

But you are correct the precedent for murdering civilians has already been set. The members of MOVE and Fred Hampton come immediately to mind..

1

supernice wrote (edited )

I don't disagree with you in principle, in an ideal scenario. This is far from that though. Consider who he is: An American Wahabbi from New York, who has gone all the way to Syria, to help create some fictional Islamic Caliphate without the consent of the Syrians. Syrians be damned. I've never met a Syrian who wants to live like the Saudi's do, and I have never met a Wahabbi Syrian (though I am sure there are some, they are not the majority). Syrians from what I've seen are pretty secular people for the most part, and nominally religious, like most people around the world who claim to be Christians or Muslims or whatever. They are born into a religion, follow it loosely if at all, and just try to get on with life and have a good time. The devout, or zealots even, are a minority in any religion in any place. So setting up an Islamic Caliphate in Syria is unlikely the desire of most people there. This guy came all the way from fucking New York to do that. Who is he? Why does he think he knows what's best for Syrians? Why the hell doesn't he focus on problems in his native New York if he's so insistent on making the world into his ideal vision? Typical American mentality if you ask me....we know whats best for everyone! He is no different than the American who shows up in an army uniform illegally in Syria, sets up a military base, and proceeds to bomb the hell out of the country. Why? Because he knows best of course! He's an American. Syrians be damned.

I differentiate between people who are fighting for the betterment of their country, as I'm sure many Syrians have done and will continue to do, and the filth who flocked there from all over the world to live out their fantasies at the expense of the Syrians. It doesn't matter to me if they are American soldiers, or American Jihadi's...fuck them all. They'll get no sympathy from me. Have a look at the article below. There's some intersting info there. It's no the only article about this asshole, but it's the first one that came up in my search. I honestly couldn't care less about what precedent people think this sets or doesn't set. I'd just like to see the Americans go home and quit fucking up other peoples lives.

https://www.alternet.org/world/bilal-abdul-kareem-us-journalist-syria-aleppo-propaganda-extremist-rebels

1

_0_0_ wrote

... and I have never met a Wahabbi Syrian (though I am sure there are some, they are not the majority).

Define "Wahabbi" or BO things you have no knowledge about.

1

supernice wrote

Not sure what you mean by "BO", but a Wahabbi is anyone who follows the Saudi brand of Islam. Or should I just come right out and say, the Saudi corruption of Islam? In other words, the extremist, backward as fuck, most destructive form of Islam.

1

_0_0_ wrote

Not sure what you mean by "BO",

"back out"

but a Wahabbi is anyone who follows the Saudi brand of Islam.

There is no such thing as a uniform Saudi (a state) brand of Islam.

Or should I just come right out and say, the Saudi corruption of Islam? In other words, the extremist, backward as fuck, most destructive form of Islam.

By "destructive" I think you're referring to terrorism, and I think that - as such - your statement is very untrue, I know many Saudi Islamic scholars who are outspoken against terrorism and ISIS (as an example). I can give you some examples and their words if you're skeptical about that. (This nice book mentions some of them)

2

supernice wrote

I understood back out/back off, what I don't understand is why you assume I have no knowledge about Wahhabis and/or Syrians, considering you know nothing about me. Posting a couple of PDFs about Islam doesn't make you a scholar friend. I certainly don't claim to be one, do you? And besides, my comments in this thread are not about Islamic jurisprudence, I'm talking about the Wahabbi scum named Bilal Abul Kareem the linked article is about specifically. So perhaps stick to the topic if you have issue with what I say?

As far as a uniform Saudi brand of Islam, I never claimed all Saudis are Wahhabis, I said it's a Saudi brand. It was founded by a Saudi and is only dominant in Saudi Arabia. So it's Saudi. Obviously not all Saudi's are Wahabbis. Nonetheless, the dominant form of Islam (if you can even call it that) in Saudi Arabia is Wahabbism.

To your third point, I'm sure you are right. Although I've never seen any myself (thanks for the link btw), it would be foolish to think that every one in Saudi Arabia agrees with the Wahabbi view. By destructive, I mean a few things actually. For one, they are simply the modern day Khawarij, nothing new in Islamic history, just a new name for the same extremist beliefs. Second, they are intolerant, violent, oppressive, murderous, and vile...hence, destructive to the Islamic community as well as non-Muslims. Everywhere they have taken root has seen nothing but chaos and destruction, to the degree that the Sunni Islamic conference in Grozny that was held in 2016 made a public declaration that Wahabbis are NOT Sunnis.

1

NeoliberalismKills wrote

"I'd just like to see the Americans go home and quit fucking up other peoples lives."

Couldn't agree more.

And I wasn't trying to play devil's advocate. The article made it sound like he was just a reporter. And the US has a large and useless definition of terrorist. I was doing due diligence with someone who probably has access to sources less biased to me in the heart of the empire.

2

supernice wrote

No worries, I appreciate the article anyway as it's always good to read up. That's what I like about this place the most, all the info that I might miss. I just have to speak up when I see something I know is misleading, and it's not on you, it's the article writer. Journalists are partisans too. My only interest in saying what I said is for like minded people, like you and I, to have as much info as possible.