I often get this strange feeling from wars, that they are totally fake.
Staged just to impress and scare everyone.
Especially true in this case since it makes absolutely no sense at all.
The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
I often get this strange feeling from wars, that they are totally fake.
Staged just to impress and scare everyone.
Especially true in this case since it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Shiftless2
Well-known member
She had already lost her husband, but then came another question she never expected to ask: if he died serving in combat, why would the government say some of the benefits connected to that service did not apply? Libby Klinner, the widow of U.S. Air Force Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, turned to social media in late August after saying she was told by a military officer assisting her family that certain combat-related benefits were unavailable because the United States had not formally declared war. Alex Klinner, 33, was one of six airmen killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq on March 12 while supporting U.S. operations against Iran. His death left Libby raising their three young children.
Her post quickly spread, bringing national attention to a painful dispute over military classifications, pay, and what families are entitled to after a service member dies. The benefits in question included combat-related hazard pay and tax treatment. But the story took another turn when Air Force officials contacted Klinner and began reviewing her husband’s pay. The Department of the Air Force later said that all eligible combat-theater benefits had been included in the pay he received, while Klinner said officials acknowledged that she had initially been given inaccurate information and that some of the benefits had been incorrectly itemized. In other words, the viral claim that her family had ultimately been denied those benefits was not the final outcome.
Yet the story left behind something larger than a dispute over a paycheck. For a grieving family, understanding military benefits can already be overwhelming; being told that complicated terminology might determine what they receive only adds another burden. After the review, Klinner said she hoped speaking publicly would make the process clearer for other families who might someday face the same devastating circumstances. Her husband’s final mission ended with his death, but his family’s experience opened a wider conversation about how clearly the military communicates with those left behind.
When a service member gives everything for his country, shouldn’t the family he leaves behind be able to understand exactly what they are entitled to without having to fight for the answer?
The part that bothers me is that anyone in the military would participate in action that is not a legal war.
Seems to me the attacks on Venezuela and Iran were in violation of US law and all involved should be charged with crimes?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Unfortunately most of those on the right can't do either. 
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Saudi Arabia has few options as it faces mounting threats from Iran and its allies
Saudi Arabia has few options as it faces mounting threats from Iran and its allies
A lightning advance by Houthi rebels threatens a crucial Red Sea shipping route. Drone attacks blamed on Iraqi militias have forced the closure of a major pipeline, and Iran is still disrupting the Strait of Hormuz.
www.pbs.org
My perception of Islam would be substantially less grim if the ostensible majority of Muslims of good conscience worldwide stood up in unity and forcefully, vehemently condemned the lawless violence of the implied malicious minority, al Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban, etc.
They do not.
Why do they not?
Two plausible explanations:
a) Perhaps they do NOT support any such message of condemnation, tacet approval of the carnage. That would surely explain it. BUT ! It's not the only plausible explanation.
b) Perhaps the more obvious, they are cowed into silence by the violent thugs that make the headlines.
That too would explain it. BUT !!
If there's significant truth to either of these explanations, doesn't it validate the distrust of Islam challenged by meme #425?
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall," By Mother Goose
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46951/humpty-dumpty-sat-on-a-wall
But the irony is too hilarious to not notice.
It was the US CIA who created the Mujahideen in 1979, and that is the source of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
We insisted on allowing Saudis to join the Mujahideen, and that foreign legion is where al Qaeda came from.
They were taught to say al Qaeda in Pashtun because it means "home base" so that they could be instructed how to get to the Mujahideen home base.
We did not create ISIS until around 2005 when we released hundreds of secular Sunni Iraq POWs.
The fact they were a fake US organization seems clear to me since we gave them hundreds of new Toyota trucks and paid them through our CIA annex in Benghazi.
What should make everyone suspicious of ISIS is that they do not have a single cleric supporter.
And they did things like incinerate that Jordanian pilot, when no Moslem would do that since it is forbidden by the Quran.
And in fact, all Moslem clerics do condemn ISIS.
{...
Roughly 1.5 million Muslims signed petitions condemning ISIS after 70,000 Muslim clerics declared that the terrorist group is not an Islamic organization. The India-based clerics also condemned the Taliban and al-Qaeda as non-Islamic.
...}
https://ing.org/resources/answers-t...nd-muslims/global-condemnations-of-isis-isil/