9 members of the same family in
Afghanistan died
following a drone strike.
That was done by the United States
in order to essentially
target a member of ISIS-K.
Who posed an imminent threat,
to people in the Kabul airport.
Now that
is what the Pentagon is alleging.
But when you look at the number of
casualties here innocent lives
that are lost.
It gives you a sense of just how
often and how brazenly,
the United States engages in these
drone strikes which leads to
literal children.
Being killed.
Solet me give you the details.
The US Central Command claims that
the target pose an imminent threat
as I mentioned.
To the airport as the US continues
to rush to evacuate people.
Now the youngest civilian who was
killed in this drone strike.
And it was the second drone strike
by the way in recent days
was a two year old girl.
According to the brother of
one of those killed,
they were an ordinary family.
He said, we are not ISIS or Daesh
or and this is or this was a family
home where my brothers lived with
their families.
The other children who were killed
in this drone strike were ages
3,4,9 and 10.
In fact, one neighbor spoke of
the family and told CNN, quote,
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,
the father of the family and
another young boy.
And there were two young children.
They were dead,
they were in pieces.
They were also there were also two
wounded.
And by the way, I should know.
That the United States is trying to
make it appear as though the drone
strike is not necessarily to blame.
For the death of this family nine
members of this one family.
By the way, the total number of
civilian casualties is 10.
As far as we know, it could go up.
Now, the US, as I mentioned.
Just tried to make it seem like
well, your initial drone
strike might not be the cause of
the civilian fatalities here.
Bill Urban a spokesperson for
the US Central Command argued
that quote.
We know that there were substantial
and powerful subsequent explosions
resulting from the destruction of
the vehicle.
Meaning the vehicle that they
targeted with the explosives and
the alleged terrorist.
Indicating a large amount of
explosive material inside that may
have caused additional casualties.
It is unclear clear what may
have happened and
we are investigating further.
We would be deeply saddened by any
potential loss of innocent life.
And let me be clear, it's not
potential loss of innocent life.
Innocent people were killed
civilians were killed including
several children
ages 2,3,4,9 and 10.
Janke >> Yeah.
So there's two elements to this
story.
One is the substance of American
foreign policy.
The other is how American media
covers it.
And later we're going to do a story
about how the Taliban is taken over
media in Afghanistan.
There's guys with rifle standing
behind the newscaster right?
But our guys are way,
way more subtle than that.
But their framing is well,
nefarious nonetheless.
So let me explain.
So first of all seven kids that.
If ISIS had killed seven kids,
let alone all the other civilians.
How would the American media
frame that brutal killers ISIS.
Well, ISIS would say, well,
we did it for our own purposes to
achieve our purposes, whatever.
And we of course,
think those purposes are horrible,
right?
But America says the same thing.
We're doing it to achieve our
purposes.
But the difference is
the media says rightfully, well,
ISIS purposes are absurd.
And you can't kill seven kids
to achieve your purpose.
That's not.
Right ends to a mean or right means
to an end, I should say.
But when America does it, the media
immediately takes it as well.
I mean, it was a means to an end.
They had to achieve their purpose.
They were trying to attack an ISIS
bomber.
It turns out there was a family
nearby and
they all exploded in there.
Their body parts were the report
explaining body parts as a kid
strewn all over the place.
>> I mean, when you really think
about it, though Janke.
The US government is at least
consistent and I'm not giving them
brownie points for this.
But they are consistent in regard
to targeting
who they want to target.
Regardless of the innocent lives
that will be lost in whatever drone
strike or whatever bombing they do.
I mean, they defend the Israeli
government over and over and
over again.
When hospitals are bombed or
when schools are bombed either in
the Gaza Strip or the West Bank,
and the argument that.
They make is that well,
you have Hamas fighters who
are using these innocent civilians
as human shields.
And as a result, we got to do we
got to do we got to target what we
believe to be a threat.
And so that's exactly what the US
government is doing here right?
They refer to civilian casualties
as collateral damage.
This is a long standing phrase
that's been used in regard
to little children.
Who have died as a result of these
drone strikes or
missile strikes or whatever.
Their preferred weapon of choice
is when they carry out these,
these missions.
But there are consequences to that.
>> Yeah, and so guys,
it's easy to understand if you put
the show on the other foot.
So for example,
in America here every once in
a while we do an easement.
So a highway needs to go through
that property,
we need to buy that property.
As we're going to
give you a certain amount of money
to compensate you for.
Now, a lot of times people
are furious about that because it's
sometimes it's used for the walls.
Sometimes it's used for
a mall, right?
And people say that's taking my
freedom away.
Now imagine if the government said.
Hey look, there's some dangerous
people in your neighborhood so we
had to murder seven of your kids.
It's not a big deal.
It's just an easement is collateral
damage way to murder seven of
your kids.
Now who in America would
accept that?
No one, it would be up in arms.
It would be the biggest scandal in
in history.
We take seven kids in one bombing,
by the way.
We've killed 1000s upon 1000s of
children through our drone strikes,
and it's barely noted.
Again CNN calls it the US coward,
a defensive airstrike in Kabul.
Well, if they say so, right.
Well, it seemed pretty offensive to
that family, not just defensive.
So we value their lives and
their kids lives a lot less.
Now, that's obvious.
There's no question about that.
Even if you're a right winger,
you're probably agreeing saying.
Yeah, but
I didn't want them to attack and
if a family had to be killed,
at least it protects me or my art.
A service members.
So hence I don't care.
But you can argue that, that we
don't kill them in a regular basis.
And with little deference for
their lives.
And you can't argue that we
wouldn't do it here in America.
If we just bombed dropped a bomb
and murdered a family like that.
And so now what we had to do it was
just like we, collateral damage,
no big deal.
Everybody would be rightfully
furious, now.
But I'm on the media and
I have a couple more, points here.
They're the ones who ginned up the,
like the need to strike ISIS
in the first place.
>> All right. >> So every time,
you know either.
Soccer Joe Biden went up to
the podium.
They were like,
what are you going to do?
Is Kerry going to murder them?
Why aren't you killing them?
But what do you do?
What about the Taliban?
How come you're [INAUDIBLE]
you going to go back and
you're not going back in?
Are you going to let the sense of
Biden had to come out and
if you remember.
We chastise him for
we've supported him for
the withdrawal throughout.
But he came out and so on.
We're going to kill
the hell out of him.
Right?
Cause this is the dumb stuff that
happens in America.
And when we're bloodthirsty,
everybody applauds.
When the other guys do it, my God,
barbaric terrorists.
They are.
But what are we, what are we
Armenia never asked that question.
Because that's
an uncomfortable question.
In fact, they do the opposite.
They egg on the violence.
And then by the way,
this reports in the media which
told you I just quoted CNN, right.
But what happens?
They quoted they
give the Pentagon perspective, and
then they have collective amnesia.
And the next time that,
for example,
a brutal dictator like Assad.
There's a chemical weapons attack
and some kids die.
We're all rightfully
outraged, right?
And then the media takes
the pictures.
And puts them all over tells you
kids dead kids, then kids,
we have to do the bombing.
We have to do the bombing.
What is Trump
going to do the bombing, right?
And then when he does it, they go,
beautiful bombs, beautiful bombs.
So I'm not saying that you
shouldn't be outraged by Assad's
actions.
We're pretty clear on the record
that you should be.
>> Yes >> Outraged by that Not in
Taliban and ISIS,
you should definitely be outraged.
But we should also think about
our own actions.
And we should be outraged when we
kill civilians and kids.
And we should be outraged that
our media is not at
all even handed about it right.
It almost sounds like they have an
agenda for more war both in Syria.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen,
you name it.
And whenever it suits their agenda
for more war,
they show dead kids on the screen.
>> Right. >> Whenever it doesn't
suit their agenda.
No dead kids on the screen.
>> No, I mean,
you're absolutely right about that.
And, look, I think that, these
types of stories, these types of
discussions are important to have.
Because it's not in any way at
attempt to launder the reputations
of terrorists.
Is there but it is, in my opinion
also a foreshadowing moment.
Because it makes me worry that
while there are headlines
everywhere.
I'm getting news alerts nonstop
about how we've withdrawn
completely.
Today marks the final day of our
war in Afghanistan.
I don't believe that it's our final
day of war in Afghanistan.
So obviously,
they like to make a distinction.
Regarding boots on the ground
versus doing airstrikes and
drone strikes.
By implementing sanctions,
there are different ways of
engaging in war.
And the fact that you have members
of the media.
And various pundits on cable news
urging the Biden administration
to retaliate against ISIS.
It's all about continuing the war
but in a different form.
Maybe we don't have US troops
there.
But at the same time,
we're going to continue carrying
out airstrikes or drone strikes.
And part of the problem is.
We're not really getting much
transparency from the Biden
administration or the Pentagon in
regard to what they plan on doing.
Biden had a lot of tough talk for
ISIS, Kay.
He said that he would retaliate,
that they would pay for
what they did.
But there have been really no
details about what this alleged,
you know, counterterrorism
strategy really is.
And I'm worried that this will
just be a, like a different form.
And a continuation of the war in
Afghanistan.
And by the way, we're supposed to
be cooperating with the Taliban to
get people out of Afghanistan.
The Taliban wasn't notified about
this at all.
So they were angry.
That the United States carried out
this operation without notifying
them without talking to them.
The Taliban which now, which is now
in control of Afghanistan.
Condemned the strike later Sunday,
saying the US had violated
the country's sovereignty.
Bilaal Karima.
The Taliban spokesperson said that.
It was not right to conduct
operations on other soil and
that the US should have informed
the Taliban.
Whenever the US conducts
such operations, we condemn them.
Now, I have no love for
the Taliban.
Of course I don't.
But remember the Taliban and ISIS,
they are enemies, they are rivals,
they do not get along.
And to your point Janke.
The media has been trying to
somehow persuade Americans that
the Taliban and
ISIS are working together.
Basically to convince Americans or
to manufacture consent to remain in
Afghanistan.
>> Yeah.
And there's another
element to it, too.
I mean no of course there's
a little bit of bigotry mixed in
their ISIS, Taliban.
They're all Muslims who
can tell right.
And by the way,
the Palestinians also Muslims.
And you know all Muslims understand
as violence.
That's what you have to occupy
them forever.
Whether it's 20 years in
Afghanistan, or 50 60 years in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
So this is a very familiar theme
that the media has built up
over a long period of time.
So don't tell me that
our media doesn't support violence.
Yeah, they an Afghan television,
there might be a couple rifles in
the back.
But in our case,
we're way more sophisticated in
pushing massive bombings and
invasions of countries.
That lead to a lot more deaths and
we do it through our media.
So and now on the Taliban and
ISIS, look, we were forced to state
obvious things.
Because of the.
Demagoguing in the media in America
and by the right way, so who are
the Taliban and ISIS kill first?
Well me and Anna.
All right, they would kill
me because I'm a apostate Muslim.
I left Islam, it's the worst thing
there is they'd kill me first.
And then Anna being a woman and
being strong and open etc.
>> Pretty mouthy.
>> Yeah we're all we're gunners.
So are we in favor of
Taliban or ISIS?
Of course not.
Right.
Now, having said that,
should we coordinate with Taliban?
Of course we should.
They're telling us they're giving
us a relatively safe exit out.
And they have they haven't done
any bumps.
If they started to do bombings.
We wouldn't have 30 service
members dead.
We would have had hundreds dead,
we would have thousands of our
Afghan allies dead already.
We made a deal.
We made a deal with people who were
our enemies.
That's who you make deals with.
And ISIS scares one that
attacked us.
So should we coordinate with
the Taliban against a worst enemy
of ISIS?
Hey, yes, for
the moment being we should.
For example, Stalin was a terrible,
dictator.
And we made a deal with him to
fight Hitler who was worse.
Yeah, that's called real life.
But if you do that in America,
my god.
[INAUDIBLE].
This is how damn our media is.
[INAUDIBLE].
I guess he's
a muslim fundamentalist.
He likes terrorism.
Then you have to bother debating
guys with that are.
Let's put it this way that have no
honest intent at all >> Exactly.
They have profit motives in mind.
And that's what's fueling much of
the discourse
that you see in corporate media.