this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
704 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19243 readers
3184 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It wasn't "possibly illegal", it was just plainly illegal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon6789 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

these sacred moments of remembrance were respectfully captured and so we can cherish these memories forever," the families' new statement added. "We are deeply grateful to the president for taking the time to honor our children and for standing alongside us in our grief, offering his unwavering support during such a difficult time. His compassion and respect meant more than words can express."

So gross in so many ways.

If this is supposed to be a shot at Biden/Harris for releasing the bomber, as they like to do with the previous "Bigrant Crime" initiative, the Dept of Defense seems to disagree:

"With access to analysis from across the intelligence community, we were able to identify the Abbey Gate person-borne IED bomber as [Bomber], an [ISIS-K] member since 2016," said one Army official on the 12-person, joint supplemental review team.

[Bomber] was one of thousands of ISIS-K members the Taliban released from a pair of detention centers in mid-August 2021, according to another Army team official.

The same official also pointed out that the supplemental review team determined ISIS-K would have still been able to conduct the attack regardless of whether [Bomber] had been released, because the terror organization already had multiple suicide bombers available.

"This supports the conclusion that the attack at Abbey Gate was not preventable at the tactical level," the official said.

[–] Maggoty 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah they're just going to ignore that. And the fact that Trump obliterated any chance to maintain the Afghan government by cutting them out of the negotiations. The fact that Trump made no effort to remove local allies even though he was drawing forces down and knew we would leave within a few a years.

The situation at Abbey Gate could not have been avoided by anything short of a divine act during Biden's presidency. That stuff had to be done by Trump and it wasn't.