Monday, August 30, 2021
Did The Biden Administration Lie To The American People About A Successful Airstrike On ISIS-K?
Ten members of one family -- including seven children -- were killed in a US drone strike targeting a vehicle in a residential neighborhood of Kabul, a relative of the dead told CNN.
The US carried out a defensive airstrike in Kabul, targeting a suspected ISIS-K suicide bomber who posed an "imminent" threat to the airport, US Central Command said Sunday.
The youngest victims of Sunday's airstrike were two 2-year-old girls, according to family members.
Relatives found the remains of one of the girls, Malika, in the rubble near their home on Monday. A family member told CNN that it was unclear whether Malika had been inside the vehicle or in the compound when the strike hit.
They were "an ordinary family," a brother of the one of those killed said. "We are not ISIS or Daesh and this was a family home -- where my brothers lived with their families."
Relatives of the victims spent Monday at a Kabul hospital identifying remains and separating them into coffins. The 2-year-old girls, Malika and Sumaya, were among the names marked on the coffins.
Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five Things Newsletter.
close dialog
At a funeral held later in the day, family members shouted "Death to America."
Army Maj. Gen. William Taylor of the Joint Staff told a press briefing Monday: "We are aware of reports of civilians casualties. We take these reports extremely seriously."
On Monday, Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said the US works hard to avoid civilian casualties. "We're investigating this. I'm not going to get ahead of it. But if we have significant -- verifiable information that we did take innocent life here, then we will be transparent about that, too. Nobody wants to see that happen," he said.
"But you know what else we didn't want to see happen. We didn't want to see happen what we believe to be a very real, a very specific and a very imminent threat to the Hamid Karzai International Airport and to our troops operating at the airport as well as civilians around it and in it and that is another thing that we were very concerned about."
Neighbors and witnesses at the scene of the drone strike in Kabul told CNN that several people were killed, including children.
"All the neighbors tried to help and brought water to put out the fire and I saw that there were five or six people dead," a neighbor told CNN. "The father of the family and another young boy and there were two children. They were dead. They were in pieces. There were also...
Mass Migration Was Never Part Of America’s $2 Trillion Afghan Debacle.
Migration to the United States should exist for one purpose only: to enhance the prosperity and security of existing American citizens, whether native-born or legally naturalized.
This statement should not actually be controversial. To many on the Left, however, immigration is either some intrinsically inherent and pure good, or a cudgel with which to batter American culture and identity. For globalists, mass migration must be embraced, as a means to cheap labor and free votes, but now also as a matter of “social justice”. Because nothing says “equity” like stripping impoverished nations of their labor force and working them to the bone before sending them back to their American ghettoes.
This folly drives the present, dangerous rush for America to welcome hundreds of thousands of Afghans fleeing the ongoing civil war in their country as the Taliban takes over most of that land. After two decades, thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars expended by America in Afghanistan, what debts do we owe that country and its people?
For those who took material risk to assist American operations there, surely our country can assist their safe removal from immediate danger. We have many bases in the region, plus allies nearby who share cultural and religious traits with these migrants and can provide refuge. But not one of these Afghans should be coming to America. That was never the deal.
In a time of pandemic and a fast-rising economic anxiety, the present is no time to welcome vast amounts of refugees into America, many of whom will require enormous resources from taxpayers.
When I tweeted out a picture of a record-setting American airlift jam-packed with Afghanis, making the point that no American town should be burdened with this influx of largely unskilled and unvetted young men from the other side of the world, blue-check Twitter was predictably aghast.A simple (and widely-held) opinion earned condemnation from the likes of former CIA Chief Michael Hayden, anti-gun activist David Hogg, and CNN’s Jake Tapper who used a Bible reference from the Gospel of Matthew in response to me. Strange times when a host of that network, who is married to a former operative for Planned Parenthood, uses Christian scripture to try to shame...
Australian Truckers Protest Mandatory Vaccines and Lockdowns, Block Major Highway
Australian truck drivers have blocked a major highway in the north-eastern state of Queensland in a protest against vaccine mandates and tough border restrictions, causing traffic to back up for several kilometres.
The action marks a series of ongoing protests from Australians frustrated with state government COVID-19 lockdowns and mandated restrictions based on emergency public health orders.
The drivers parked their prime movers at 5:30 a.m. on the southbound lanes of the M1 highway at Reedy Creek in the Gold Coast portion of the arterial on Monday. The highway is used by tens of thousands of Queenslanders each morning.
A banner was unfurled and covered the front of both vehicles, reading: “Truckies Keep Australia Moving, Not Politicians.”
One driver named Brock, who did not give his surname, said the drivers were protesting the Queensland government’s strict health orders that prevented all individuals from entering the state, except for essential workers.
Those deemed essential workers need to be involved in skilled construction, farming, or healthcare, and must prove that a Queensland resident cannot do their job. Further, they need to prove they have received at least one dose of...
Joe Biden Has Been Derelict In His Duty. He Is Unfit To Lead. He Should Be Impeached
The deadly attacks in Afghanistan should be the final straw for Biden, whose incompetence has now cost the lives of at least a dozen American soldiers.
Joe Biden is not capable or competent to hold the office of the presidency. If there were any doubt on this point, his press conference Thursday evening in the wake of a pair of coordinated suicide bombings in Kabul should put the matter to rest.
The first blast Thursday killed 13 U.S. soldiers at a Kabul airport gate, along with scores of Afghans. Another bomb at a nearby hotel killed dozens more. Between the two blasts, as many as 170 people perished, not counting the U.S. service members. Hundreds more were injured, and according to U.S. officials there may be more attacks coming.
Whatever the final body count is, Thursday was the deadliest day for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2011, and the first time since February 2020 that any U.S. service members have been killed in action there. When the smoke finally clears, one thing is certain: Biden has been derelict in his duty, he is unfit to lead, and he should be impeached.
At his press conference Thursday evening, the president was slow and appeared at times to be confused, his answers rambling and unclear. When the time came to take questions, he said he’d been given a list, and had “been instructed” to call on certain reporters. It was a moment of quiet dread when we all saw confirmed again, before a gaping world, that although Biden is the president, he’s not actually running the country.
Of course Biden’s bizarre behavior at the press conference, although deeply disturbing, does not alone justify impeachment. Rather, it’s his fecklessness and incompetence, his failure to protect Americans in the evacuation of Afghanistan, and his inability to speak clearly and honestly about the situation, that justifies impeachment at this point.
Throughout this crisis, Biden and his White House have been evasive, defensive, and cruelly indifferent to a disaster entirely of...
Judge Strips Mother of Custody After Surprising Her with COVID Vaccination Question
A Chicago mother has been stripped of all rights to her son after she told a Cook County judge she has not been vaccinated against the coronavirus.
WFLD-TV reported that a woman named Rebecca Firlit has been divorced from her husband for seven years. Despite the ending of the marriage, she and her former husband shared custody of their 11-year-old son.
Following a virtual custody and child support hearing earlier this month, Firlit told WFLD she hasn’t seen her son in nearly three weeks. The mother lost her custody rights on Aug. 10, the day the court found her unfit to raise the child due to her vaccination status.
Apparently, the stripping of Firlit’s right to raise and care for her son came down to only her COVID-19 vaccination status. Per WFLD, the judge found out she did not wish to receive the vaccine, and so he took away her parental rights until she agrees to get the shot.
Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox
The outlet reported during the cold support hearing, Cook County Judge James Shapiro out of the blue asked Firlit if she had been vaccinated. Firlit told the court that she had avoided getting the vaccine because she has a history of adverse reactions to vaccines.
The court responded by telling the mother she would lose custody of her child until she gets vaccinated. The mom is allowed to call her son, but she cannot go near him.
“I miss my son more than anything. It’s been very difficult. I haven’t seen him since August 10th,” she told the outlet.
“I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families,” she said. “And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”
The mom accused the judge of forcing his own political views on her and her family. She is appealing the decision which bars her from...
Report: White House declined Taliban offer to have U.S. troops control Kabul during evacuation
Team Joe will have to answer for this but we can already guess what that answer will be. There was no way logistically to get enough American troops into Kabul quickly enough to secure a city with more than four million people, they’ll say. And maybe that’s true. It wouldn’t have taken many soldiers to provide checkpoints for the roads into Kabul, I assume, but how many would it have taken to keep order on the streets as the city fell into a panic over the impending Taliban takeover? And to process evacuees at the airport? And to conduct counterterrorism ops in Kabul? Even if Biden were willing to commit those troops, how soon could they have been deployed?
Was it feasible to secure Kabul temporarily? That’s what strategic planners, notably Lloyd Austin and Mark Milley, will be asked at the upcoming congressional hearings over our great Afghan bugout. Maybe the truth is that it wasn’t.
Or maybe this was the most costly example yet of Biden’s refusal to insert more troops into Afghanistan, even if only temporarily to ensure a more orderly withdrawal. He ended up having to do that anyway to secure the airport, an operation that ultimately led to tens of thousands of Afghan friendlies being abandoned because they couldn’t be processed in time. How many more soldiers would it have taken to secure the city, which presumably would have led to many more Afghans getting out safely?
In a hastily arranged in-person meeting, senior U.S. military leaders in Doha — including McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command — spoke with Abdul Ghani Baradar, head of the Taliban’s political wing.
“We have a problem,” Baradar said, according to the U.S. official. “We have two options to deal with it: You [the United States military] take responsibility for securing Kabul or you have to allow us to do it.”
Throughout the day, Biden had remained resolute in his decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan. The collapse of the Afghan government hadn’t changed his mind.
McKenzie, aware of those orders, told Baradar that the U.S. mission was only to evacuate American citizens, Afghan allies and others at risk. The United States, he told Baradar, needed the airport to do that.
On the spot, an understanding was reached, according to two other U.S. officials: The United States could have the airport until Aug. 31. But the Taliban would control the city.
Fast-forward two weeks and here’s the message that’s reportedly being received by some NATO helpers in Kabul, three days before the withdrawal is supposed to conclude:
The Taliban established extra checkpoints around the airport perimeter yesterday, partly to provide extra security against ISIS attacks but party too to seal it off so that no more Afghans could depart. France and the UK are now scrambling to propose a resolution at the UN that would...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)