White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Monday was confronted about the Biden Admin’s drone strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians, including 7 children.
Not one “high-level ISIS” terrorist was killed in Biden’s drone strike.
The US military conducted a drone strike one day after a suicide bomber in Kabul killed 13 US service members and wounded 15 more.
The Pentagon immediately came out and claimed the drone strike killed “high-level ISIS handlers,” however they refused to name the terrorists.
It was all lies.
Biden droned 7 children and a few innocent aid workers.
When confronted about these war crimes, Psaki invoked Biden’s dead children.
Biden’s son Beau passed away from Cancer in 2015.
Joe Biden’s first wife and daughter, Naomi died in a car accident in 1972.
“As a human being, as a president, as somebody who has overseen loss in a variety of scenarios… his reaction is — every loss is a tragedy,” Psaki said.
The Pentagon has finally admitted to the long-obvious fact that it killed ten Afghan civilians, including seven children, in an airstrike in Kabul last month.
In an article with the obscenely propagandistic title “Pentagon acknowledges Aug. 29 drone strike in Afghanistan was a tragic mistake that killed 10 civilians,” the New York Times pats itself on the back for its investigative journalism showing that the so-called “ISIS-K facilitator” targeted in the strike was in fact an innocent aid worker named Zemari Ahmadi:
“The general acknowledged that a New York Times investigation of video evidence helped investigators determine that they had struck a wrong target. ‘As we in fact worked on our investigation, we used all available information,’ General McKenzie told reporters. ‘Certainly that included some of the stuff The New York Times did.’”
Indeed, the Pentagon only admitted to the unjust slaughter of civilians in this one particular instance because the mass media did actual investigative journalism on this one particular airstrike. This is an indictment of the Pentagon’s airstrike protocol, but it’s also an indictment of the mass media.
Fake President but Real Dictator Joe Biden: “We are going to protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers.” Ah, if only the “vaccinated” workers had as healthy immune systems as their unvaccinated colleagues. Whatever the friendly U.S. government is injecting into people, it’s certainly not inoculating against or inhibiting transmission of the Fauci Virus if the “vaccinated” must walk around in bubble-boy suits for the rest of their lives. The “vaccine” that works so nice you have to take it twice…er, thrice…er, we’ll let you know when you’ve had enough, prole!
Before “hope and change” replaced the Scientific Method, not only did the medical community know the difference between males and females, but also vaccinations actually conferred immunity. Is there some unwritten rule that we must endure fake vaccinations during fake presidencies? I know we live in a time when the political left redefines words daily to fit its desired propaganda objectives, but if “vaccine” now means nothing more than “an injection that may or may not prevent illness so long as the subject remains in sterilized environments and wrapped in protective headwear,” then that’s hardly different from defining “bulletproof vest” as “a garment that may or may not prevent bodily harm, so long as the wearer curls up in the fetal position and hides from danger.” Now that Americans are being threatened with economic destruction unless they let Uncle Sam slap on some rubber gloves and play doctor, I think we know where this bowdlerization of medical terminology is naturally heading: “Vaccination, noun: The choice between letting the lying liars who run the U.S. government pump your an experimental serum into your veins or being forced into unemployment, homelessness, and starvation; also, Vaccinate, verb, a profane expletive for fornication, as in, ‘The pudding-brained Pretender-in-Chief sure vaccinated me this time!'”
As long as we’re considering technical definitions, maybe it’s time to consult long-standing international agreements on the protection of human rights and the prosecution of war crimes. As its first stated principle outlining the bare minimum required of medical professionals “to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal” duties, the 1947 Nuremberg Code states clearly:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
Let’s put aside whether, in their rush to “vaccinate” the world, medical bureaucrats have sufficiently “enlightened” patients as to all the health hazards that might be reasonably expected to come from an experimental treatment because the usual long-term studies that track potentially harmful side-effects of new treatments over the course of ten or more years were thrown out the window so governments could quickly jab their citizens without much scrutiny. Long-term harm? Only the future will tell.
Rather, let’s highlight what the Nuremberg Code says about consent: it must be free from “force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Does this set off any alarm bells for ethicists concerned about not following in the footsteps of Nazi medical science or treating civilians as guinea pigs for experimental research? Is it possible that Herr Biden’s angry threats against healthy citizens for not partaking in his medical research might amount to “duress” or “coercion”? Let’s see — jab this in your arm, or we will fire you, render you unemployable, threaten the financial survival of you and your family, and maybe leave you destitute and homeless. Ding, ding, ding! Talk about “overreach”! Surely, threatening people with economic destruction if they won’t submit to medical experimentation is the exact kind of government “force” (or mandate) the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg was trying to prevent in the future. Surely, “vaccine” mandates explicitly designed to outlaw “freedom or personal choice” should be scrutinized with an eye open to the human atrocities of the past. Yet here we are, seventy-five years later, and medical experimentation is back in style. Maybe the New World Order the globalists keep forcing down our throats is once again written in German, even if “President” Dummkopf speaks only gibberish.
The New York Times published the results of an investigation on Friday that suggests the Biden administration targeted an innocent man who worked for a U.S. organization in a drone strike that killed several civilians. If true, the airstrike could constitute a violation of international law governing such targeted killings in wartime — in other words, a war crime.
The airstrike, which took place on August 29, was presented by the Biden administration as an attack on a potential ISIS-K terrorist who had been driving an explosive-laden vehicle that was to be detonated at the international airport in Kabul. It was the second such strike, following one on Aug. 28 in Nangarhar province against suspected Islamic State terrorists.
The Times report suggests that the U.S. killed “the wrong person” in a report accompanied by security camera footage that shows the target, Zemari Ahmadi, filling water canisters for his family that the military may have mistaken for explosives.
Astonishingly, the Times reports that “[m]ilitary officials said they did not know the identity of the car’s driver when the drone fired.” But in the wake of an August 26 suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. servicemembers as well as scores of Afghan civilians, they believed that he posed an imminent danger based on “how they interpreted his activities that day.”
In the mid-1940s the US was leading the world in atomic weapons development and the understanding of radioactive materials. Just ten years after plutonium had been discovered, the Manhattan Project was already close to creating a working atomic bomb. Such advances had not been made on the safe handling of such materials, however. This lack of understanding led to researchers on the project injecting people, unwittingly, with plutonium, to study the effects.
The Manhattan Project was the name of the major US research and development program that produced working atomic weapons. It began officially began in 1942, but similar, less intensive research had been ongoing since the late 1930s. The US took the idea of atomic weapons seriously in 1939 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the Einstein–Szilárd letter from Hungarian physicists. This letter warned the US about the potential German development of atomic weapons and was signed by Albert Einstein.
While it’s most famous for the development of the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project encompassed a number of different paths of research at different sites.
Much of this was related to the incredibly complex development and production of the weapons themselves, but a small priority was placed on studying the health effects of the materials involved in the project.
In April 1996, Israeli artillery shells rained down on a United Nations compound where hundreds of civilians were taking refuge. As the shells exploded and the building collapsed, 106 civilians died and another 116 were injured.
The attack, now known as the Qana Massacre, was part of a larger Israeli offensive known as Operation Grapes of Wrath, a 16-day campaign of aggression in southern Lebanon.
The United Nations investigated the Qana Massacre and determined the Israeli shelling was deliberate. Then-UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghani condemned the attack, writing it was “all the more serious because civilians, including women and children, had sought refuge” in the compound the Israelis destroyed.
The commander of the unit that launched the assault was a man named Naftali Bennett, who’d go on to boast, “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life and there’s no problem with that.”
Bennett, of course, is now Israel’s prime minister. And on August 25, he arrived for a visit at the White House.
When President Biden took office, he promised to pursue a foreign policy based on human rights and the “rules-based international order.”
Those commitments already seemed at odds with the long-running U.S. support for Israel. Whether it’s giving Israel nearly $4 billion in military aid every year or providing diplomatic protection at the United Nations, the United States allows Israel to act with impunity even after repeated instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But Biden’s promise to put human rights and international law first seem especially at odds with supporting a government like Bennett’s. Bennett’s war criminal past is troubling enough, but his current positions flout international law – and longstanding US support for a two-state solution – just as aggressively.
The destruction of two important Gaza buildings housing 20 media outlets was both shocking and predictable. History shows that if the media aren’t around to document Israel’s war crimes, it’s a lot easier for it to commit them.
On Tuesday, Israel bombed the 10-storey Al-Jawhara Tower, causing it to collapse. Before doing so, it had ‘benevolently’ warned that the airstrikes were coming. The following day, it bombed the 14-storey Al-Shorouk Tower, also giving warning it was going to do so.
Most reports have the buildings as evacuated before being levelled. But without these media offices, reporting on Israel’s other war crimes will be left largely to what little media remain and citizen journalists.
The buildings were significant. A statement by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) noted the Al-Jawhara building housed the offices of 13 media institutions and NGOs. And an advisory by the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that the Al-Shorouk building housed at least seven media outlets.
A further statement by the same committee said that the Israeli military had defended its bombing of the building via email, bizarrely claiming it had “acted within international law,” alleging the Al-Jawhara building housed Hamas’ intelligence and military offices, and saying the Al-Shorouk building was a base for Hamas’ military intelligence offices and “infrastructure to communicate tactical-military information.”