US policy of dishonesty and hypocrisy
JC29856
Posts: 9,617
I can't post just the clip but for anyone who gives a shit, much can be drawn from this exchange starting after 35 min mark until just before 45 min mark. This is truly worth the 10 minutes, it sums up American foreign policy to the T.
https://youtu.be/PegVBHEhbDs
https://youtu.be/PegVBHEhbDs Post edited by JC29856 on
0
Comments
Where have we heard this before? Saudis bombing Yemen
The Saudis "have a right to defend themselves" and "rockets raining down"
I will search for the transcripts and post.
Love to hear your take on it.
Kirby realizing he just got his pants pulled down figuratively then attacks her by saying something like "I would love to see you ask your government, why don't you poke or prod your own government..."
Since he knows he full of shit he evades the questions and says go ask your government the same, like a typical arrogant asshole.
Russian FM Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova hit back at her US counterpart John Kirby, who warned that terrorist attacks may take place in Russia if the civil war continues in Syria. His remark sounds like a call to “get ’em,” she noted.
“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft,” US State Department spokesperson John Kirby told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing, adding that if the war in Syria continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”
The U.S. apologizes for bombing unintended targets when it’s politically expedient—otherwise, it prefers to remain silent.
MR KIRBY: The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft. The stability that they claim they seek in Syria will be ever more elusive, and it’s hard to imagine how a continued war – not just a civil war now, but increasingly more violent extremist activity in Syria – can be in the interest of a nation that says, that claims, and has claimed publicly time and time again that what they want to see is a whole, unified, pluralistic Syria and a stable Syria, a secure Syria, a Syria where they want to continue to have a defense relationship and a presence. So that’s what’s in it for them.
QUESTION: Well, when you say – just a quick follow-up – when you say that extremists will exploit the vacuum and that could include attacks on Russia’s cities and Russia could send its troops back in body bags, that also could suggest that perhaps the rebels could start sending home their troops in body bags.
MR KIRBY: It’s going to mean, again, more violence, more war, and you can expect casualties on both sides of this. But the question was what’s in it for Russia to meet its obligations under I don’t know how many different agreements, but specifically the one from September 9th in terms of seven days of reduced violence, humanitarian access. So the question posed to me was what’s in it for Russia, and that’s what’s in it for Russia --
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary has spoken to this and has acknowledged that the use of those kinds of weapons against civilian populations is in fact a violation of international law, as is the use of chlorine gas against innocent people, as is the bombing of hospitals or aid workers. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Now, I think I know where you’re going here, in terms of holding responsible. I’m not going to speculate about how, when, or in what way Russia will be held to account for what it has not only permitted, but assisted the Assad regime in doing. But when we say they’re responsible, we mean it. But I’m not going to get ahead --
QUESTION: So you’re suggesting --
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet.
good post.
The sad part is he is a fucking genius well ahead of his time and should be an asset to the country but instead the US macho dick show got in the way. Might is right.
MR KIRBY: I didn’t know that there was a different way of looking at somebody’s responsibility.
QUESTION: There is a – of course there is. You sit there all the time up from the podium and you say, well, that would get us into a legal determination which I don’t – you know what I mean? You’re always invoking that.
MR KIRBY: When we say that we’re holding them responsible, we mean within the universe of what that means. So is it moral? Absolutely it’s moral. And could there be some sort of legal ramification to that responsibility? Yeah, there could be.
QUESTION: But that – when you say that, that’s different than suggesting that you hold them legally responsible and you’ve contacted your lawyers and you’ve done – yes, it --
MR KIRBY: We’re not – I – I know you would like a lot more clarity on this than I’m going to give you today, but when we say we’re – we hold Russia responsible, we mean what we say. Now, I’m not going to speculate about the ramifications or consequences down the road of that.
QUESTION: But you’re not saying what you mean, though.
MR KIRBY: No, I’m not. I’m not going to go into any more detail on it than I have today, as much as I know you would like that. When we say we hold them responsible, we hold them responsible, in the entire universe of what that means, whether it’s morally or potentially legally.
QUESTION: So that would suggest that you’ve done a legal determination and you’ve found that they are legally responsible.
MR KIRBY: No, it doesn’t. It means that we hold them responsible.
Basically it's more lawful to break the law and less lawful to expose those who break the law. Makes perfect US sense.
the people that should be in jail are the ones in office ...
911 victims bill
As it happens, the White House’s principled opposition to the bill was based on its worry that it would open the door to lawsuits from foreigners accusing the U.S. government of crimes, possibly including the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, deaths of innocent people with drones, and global mass surveillance.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Which US ally cut off more heads last year?
A. Saudi Arabia
B. ISIS
Just joshin ya lol