U.S. soldier kills 16 civilians in Afghanistan, Karzai says

He's saying that their are ones who are already for Ron Paul supporters, not that they are the majority, I don't think they are either.

Mathloom: From my understanding, and I could easily be wrong, Ron Paul has a pretty strong isolationist policy. Does that include sending aid to other countries?

 

Yeah but the corporations make a fortune. And they run the show

 

From my understanding he would not support sending aid to other countries, but I could be wrong too. I haven't followed him as much as some on this board.

Isolationist sounds like it's a bad thing.

No one is attacking Middle Eastern countries but America or American allies, so assuming an isolationist policy, the need for aid would pretty much dissapear. I don't think you'll find many who would disagree with that. The only people who need the aid is Palestinians, but that's moot because.. well, you know.

I also think that, even if he got elected, and even if he got into office, the resistance to that kind of change would be too strong for him to be able to implement it quickly and swiftly. But we'll never know.

I can tell you that if by some miracle Ron Paul does become President, I would actually go out and celebrate. That is how strongly I feel Ron Paul should win out of this pool of candidates. I feel he would make the strongest contribution towards human civilization than ever made by a US president. I feel he would have the greatest positive impact on the world economy. I believe that the legacy of the financial crisis would be crushed and discarded, and its disgusting memory would not be bandied about for more charity from taxpayers. I believe that millions fewer humans would be killed in war in the world during a Ron Paul presidential tenure, regardless of the widely-discussed consequences of his isolationist policy.

How many presidential hopefuls have you met who have said they want to curtail their own powers, domestic and foreign?

 

Greenwald has a similar point:

 

And so it begins...

More:

 

There is, quite obviously, a desperate need to believe that when an American engages in acts of violence of this type (meaning: as a deviation from formal American policy), there must be some underlying mental or emotional cause that makes it sensible, something other than an act of pure hatred or Evil. When a Muslim engages in acts of violence against Americans, there is an equally desperate need to believe the opposite: that this is yet another manifestation of inscrutable hatred and Evil, and any discussion of any other causes must be prohibited and ignored

Rhad

This goes along with whatever the USA does was at worst the best that could possibly be done under conditions of moral amibguity, incomplete info etc.

When we invaded Iraq my brother asked a nurse why she thought we were doing it. Her reply: " I guess George Bush is doing that because he loves the Iraqis and wants to help them so much". Surprised, he laughed out loud and upset her.

 

More not surprising news...

 

That's hardly reliable evidence that there was more than one shooter. One of the boys who survived says there was only one shooter. Another witness describes a group.

It's certainly worth looking into, but there nothing conclusive at this time.

 

Is it normal for them to release the name and photograph of the soldier in question?

 

Agreed. Yet the story in the states is continually one of a "lone gunman", discrepancies be damned.

 

Wow, man you're crossing the line again.

 

Yeah, that's not good. And it should be investigated and checked out as thoroughly as possible. A coverup of something here would catastrophic.

 

I think you overestimate how much the US citizenry cares, as a whole.

 

I don't think it would be catastrophic with the U.S. citizenry but for our troops over there, and the hostility they'd face, and how detrimental it would be to our foreign policy in general.

 

I think the above may be catastrophic to the US citizenry, just not in the way folks expect per say.

 

Do you think afgan's would care. They look for any big or small reason to blow up crap.

 

I hope you are not being serious and the above is just a satirical rendition of Joe Schmo weighing in about current events as he learned them on talk radio. If so carry on. If not, then of course they care whether the U.S. is covering up a conspiracy to commit murder. Do you think any affected country would not? How about any person? I guess you could think they aren't people like you and I or the rest of the people on this board.

 

It's a matter of how many Afghans are blowing up crap. While yes there are always going to be Afghans targeting American troops there is a big difference if its 10% or 50% of them.

 

An eye witness says there was more than one soldier involved in the massacre of the 17 Afghans. Sadly I would tend to believe the child over the Pentagon.
**********

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/29/afghan-witnesses-say-sgt-robert-bales-did-not-act-alone/

| Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum
Child witnesses to the massacre of 17 Afghan civilians by Staff Sgt. Robert Bales say there was more than one U.S. soldier party to the crime, contradicting the story told by the Pentagon.

Yalda Hakim, a journalist for SBS Dateline in Australia, was born in Afghanistan and immigrated to Australia as a child. She is the first international journalist to interview the surviving witnesses, which she was able to do after American officials tried to prevent her contact with the village witnesses.

An 8-year old Afghan girl named Noorbinak, according to the MSNBC, “told Hakim that the shooter first shot her father’s dog. Then, Noorbinak said in the video, he shot her father in the foot and dragged her mother by the hair. When her father started screaming, he shot her father, the child says. Then he turned the gun on Noorbinak and shot her in the leg.”

“One man entered the room and the others were standing in the yard, holding lights,” Noorbinak said in the interview.

A brother of one of the victims said the children who witnessed saw many soldiers. “They don’t know whether there were 15 or 20, however many there were,” he said in the interview.