August Events: Major is far from the worst predator to reside in the White House

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > August Events: Major is far from the worst predator to reside in the White House

«‹›70 »

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Rice is an idiot, but this is still an incredibly lovely thing to say.

Our local allies there were just a bunch of serial pedophiles / serial killers who took our cash in exchange for letting us bomb and send kill teams after their people and the occasional photo shoot of a girls school, and the people who live there know that. The brutality of the us occupation both directly and via our proxies is massive. People there saw zero legitimacy in our local allies and clearly see legitimacy in the Taliban or they wouldn't have immediately surrendered to them and then gone back to work like normal a few days later.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:24

Defenestrategy: Oct 24, 2010

Best Friends posted:

People there saw zero legitimacy in our local allies and clearly see legitimacy in the Taliban or they wouldn't have immediately surrendered to them and then gone back to work like normal a few days later.

I guess we'll know in a few months if the Taliban starts getting hit with car bombs and mortars

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:13

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Afghanistan chose the Taliban a drat sight more than it chose the US.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:13

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

Best Friends posted:

Our local allies there were just a bunch of serial pedophiles / serial killers who took our cash in exchange for letting us bomb and send kill teams after their people and the occasional photo shoot of a girls school, and the people who live there know that. The brutality of the us occupation both directly and via our proxies is massive. People there saw zero legitimacy in our local allies and clearly see legitimacy in the Taliban or they wouldn't have immediately surrendered to them and then gone back to work like normal a few days later.

This is an insane argument. The Germans rolled through vast swaths of France and the Soviet Union in a relatively short time, do you also think the French and Soviets saw their governments as less legitimate? If there are any lessons to be learned from the past two decades, it's that simply having military power over a population does not automatically generate consent�and the fact that the Taliban are better led, more motivated, and far more capable than the Afghan government is not inherently evidence that the population would prefer to be under Taliban rule, even if the previous government also sucked.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:16

PookBear: Nov 1, 2008

Best Friends posted:

Our local allies there were just a bunch of serial pedophiles / serial killers who took our cash in exchange for letting us bomb and send kill teams after their people and the occasional photo shoot of a girls school, and the people who live there know that. The brutality of the us occupation both directly and via our proxies is massive. People there saw zero legitimacy in our local allies and clearly see legitimacy in the Taliban or they wouldn't have immediately surrendered to them and then gone back to work like normal a few days later.

a lot of it reminds me the ottomans, where their first rate troops with modern guns would stay near the capital while the second rate gently caress ups with obsolescent guns were on their borders in constant skirmishes.

Basically the elite of kabul found a way to offload their pedophiles and thugs onto the pashtuns. And if they both kill each other Karzai/Ghani don't give a poo poo

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:20

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

For this analogy to work both France and the Soviet Union entirely dissolved the instant the foreign power that installed them left

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:23

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

That's pretty close to what happened in France.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:26

Defenestrategy: Oct 24, 2010

Best Friends posted:

For this analogy to work both France and the Soviet Union entirely dissolved the instant the foreign power that installed them left

Also the Soviet government would have had to surrender

And the Free French would need to not have a military in being around the world

And there'd be no active partisans

And....

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:26

Nick Soapdish: Apr 27, 2008

https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1428091752867586052?s=19

Makes sense for why they didn't keep Bagram and planned for HKIA

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:44

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

Best Friends posted:

For this analogy to work both France and the Soviet Union entirely dissolved the instant the foreign power that installed them left

The core of your argument, as I understand it, is that "if the people of Afghanistan didn't want the Taliban to be in power, they would have fought against them instead of surrendering." Is that correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong, because that's the gist I'm getting.

If that is your argument, then there are some major problems with it! Just for starters, a population not fighting back against an invading army is the norm in human history�civilians don't (usually) fight, armies do. Civilians typically do their best to stay out of the way and keep living their lives, whether it's the Taliban rolling in, the Nazis, the French, the Mongols, or any other conquering army throughout history. This goes double for when the occupying power is especially brutal, as the Taliban is, and there's no hope that fighting back is going to change anything. With the Afghan National Army dissolving for a wide variety of reasons (many of which are discussed in the article Bored as gently caress posted), and with no hope for a successful resistance, why would you even expect typical Afghan to do anything but accept the Taliban rolling in and continue to live their lives? What are you expecting them to do?

It is very likely that violent resistance to the Taliban will begin in earnest, as resistance cells are able to gather willing volunteers and supplies. The former Vice President of Afghanistan has already declared his home province will resist the Taliban government. What results from that can only be seen in the months and years to come.

But actually, let's go back to this point, because there is an illustrative example:

quote:

For this analogy to work both France and the Soviet Union entirely dissolved the instant the foreign power that installed them left

The example you're looking for can arguably be found just a few years later, in the collapse of Vichy France as the Allies moved in. The Vichy government was, of course, absolutely not seen as legitimate by the vast majority of French, and didn't last any longer than the Nazi armies in France that put them there. So there is a very pertinent example comparing the US withdraw from Afghanistan�but with one crucial difference.

In 1944, people celebrated. Thousands of people lined the streets of Paris when the Allies arrived, waving French and American flags. You can look at any pictures of France, Belgium, Holland, or other liberated countries during World War II and see similar reactions as the invaders were ousted.

There's no celebration for the Taliban, at least not that I've seen. Well, the Taliban are celebrating. But people aren't lining the streets and cheering columns of armored vehicles. People aren't waving flags for the Taliban.* Every article I've read of the Afghan perspective describes not an atmosphere of celebration, but of fear�people wondering what this is going to mean for themselves or their families, and how long the few freedoms the previous government did provide will last. The mayor of this particular town certainly doesn't sound like she chose the taliban!

There are, obviously, quite a few Afghans who openly support the Taliban, for a variety of reasons. But the idea that the people as a whole chose the Taliban simply because they didn't fight against the inevitable is, in my opinion, both ignorant and insulting towards those who had no other choice.

*I'm sure there's at least some evidence to the contrary of this point. If you can find it, please feel free to post it and call me wrong or whatever.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 21:58

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

Nick Soapdish posted:

Makes sense for why they didn't keep Bagram and planned for HKIA

Most of the Press Corps's questions have a hidden bias to "well, why don't you bring in more troops, reinvade, and stay another 6 months?". There is absolutely, positively, no loving chance that Donnie would've been able to keep up the "we're getting out" position in the face of this kind of news coverage.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:01

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

My argument is that the two choices on offer were the worst, most corrupt people on Earth + foreign soldiers + foreign kill teams, and the Taliban. The former had literally zero legitimacy as borne out by it immediately disintegrating. The latter has substantial legitimacy, in surviving for almost 20 years of being hunted and bombed. If I lived there, given those two options, I also would also have made that choice. I'm not "blaming" them for not supporting the government, I'm observing. When no one is sticking their necks out for a government and the leaders run away with literal pallets of cash, in basic poly sci terms, that is not a government with any popular legitimacy. Their foreign sugar daddy who's been killing their people left and the gov immediately disintegrated. That's not what a conquest looks like. I think the comparisons between the Taliban and Nazis taking France are wild. What it looks like is that we were the conqueror.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:09

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

You're saying they made a choice. I'm saying they didn't have a choice at all.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:12

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

It's gonna take awhile for you to unwind from decades of American Intervention #1 propaganda isn't it

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:16

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

To the extent government legitimacy is a choice, yes. It's not necessarily a conscious choice but legitimacy requires some level of consent of the governed.

Framing the Taliban as a) literal Nazis and b) foreign occupiers is some serious 2004 era MSNBC brain.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:20

UP THE BUM NO BABY: Sep 1, 2011; by Hand Knit

Y'all think Joe will ever get around to giving us the rest of the two grand he owes?

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:20

PookBear: Nov 1, 2008

hopefully, all the gently caress ups in the ANA and government join the taliban and dilute it down

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:22

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

Best Friends posted:

Framing the Taliban as a) literal Nazis and b) foreign occupiers is some serious 2004 era MSNBC brain.

...What?

that is not even close to what I was trying to argue what the gently caress. The Taliban are the loving Allies in the Vichy comparison!

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:33

Prop Wash: Jun 12, 2010

Best Friends posted:

My argument is that the two choices on offer were the worst, most corrupt people on Earth + foreign soldiers + foreign kill teams, and the Taliban. The former had literally zero legitimacy as borne out by it immediately disintegrating. The latter has substantial legitimacy, in surviving for almost 20 years of being hunted and bombed. If I lived there, given those two options, I also would also have made that choice. I'm not "blaming" them for not supporting the government, I'm observing. When no one is sticking their necks out for a government and the leaders run away with literal pallets of cash, in basic poly sci terms, that is not a government with any popular legitimacy. Their foreign sugar daddy who's been killing their people left and the gov immediately disintegrated. That's not what a conquest looks like. I think the comparisons between the Taliban and Nazis taking France are wild. What it looks like is that we were the conqueror.

What it looks like is that you probably don�t have a lot of credibility to describe how Afghans feel about one group versus the other group

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:34

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

also "consent of the governed" is a classic line but ignores that "consent" can often come from "threat of massive and violent retaliation." Did the people of Chile "choose" Pinochet when they didn't rise up after Allende was killed by a CIA-backed coup?

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:36

boop the snoot: Jun 3, 2016

I don�t think any of us know what we are talking about tbh

# ? Aug 18, 2021 22:52

Bored As Fuck: Jan 1, 2006; Fun Shoe

Think this might have been missed.

Best Friends posted:

Counterpoint: the Afghan people have in fact chosen the Taliban

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Rice is an idiot, but this is still an incredibly lovely thing to say.

It's actually a mix. Some Afghans did in fact choose the Taliban. Many did not, and want to flee. That's more than understandable.

Afghans aren't all the same. Many Afghans liked the civilian government and the few services that came with it out in the rural areas - even if they knew how corrupt it was.

Many others welcomed the Taliban with open arms. The thing is though, once the Doha agreement was signed, everyone knew / thought it was inevitable that the Taliban would take over eventually. This led to a cascading, snowballing effect of villages, cities, then districts making deals with the Taliban. Many Afghans thought "well gently caress, why fight a losing battle?"

quote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/

Afghanistan's military collapse: illicit deals and mass desertions
KABUL — The spectacular collapse of Afghanistan’s military that allowed Taliban fighters to walk into the Afghan capital Sunday despite 20 years of training and billions of dollars in American aid began with a series of deals brokered in rural villages between the militant group and some of the Afghan government’s lowest-ranking officials.

The deals, initially offered early last year, were often described by Afghan officials as cease-fires, but Taliban leaders were in fact offering money in exchange for government forces to hand over their weapons, according to an Afghan officer and a U.S. official.

Over the next year and a half, the meetings advanced to the district level and then rapidly on to provincial capitals, culminating in a breathtaking series of negotiated surrenders by government forces, according to interviews with more than a dozen Afghan officers, police, special operations troops and other soldiers.

Within a little more than a week, Taliban fighters overran more than a dozen provincial capitals and entered Kabul with no resistance, triggering the departure of Afghanistan’s president and the collapse of his government. Afghan security forces in the districts ringing Kabul and in the city itself simply melted away. By nightfall, police checkpoints were left abandoned and the militants roamed the streets freely.

The pace of the military collapse has stunned many American officials and other foreign observers, forcing the U.S. government to dramatically accelerate efforts to remove personnel from its embassy in Kabul.

The Taliban capitalized on the uncertainty caused by the February 2020 agreement reached in Doha, Qatar, between the militant group and the United States calling for a full American withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some Afghan forces realized they would soon no longer be able to count on American air power and other crucial battlefield support and grew receptive to the Taliban’s approaches.

"The Taliban capitalized on the uncertainty caused by the February 2020 agreement reached in Doha, Qatar, between the militant group and the United States calling for a full American withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some Afghan forces realized they would soon no longer be able to count on American air power and other crucial battlefield support and grew receptive to the Taliban’s approaches.

"Some just wanted the money,” an Afghan special forces officer said of those who first agreed to meet with the Taliban. But others saw the U.S. commitment to a full withdrawal as an “assurance” that the militants would return to power in Afghanistan and wanted to secure their place on the winning side, he said. The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because he, like others in this report, was not authorized to disclose information to the press.

The Doha agreement, designed to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, instead left many Afghan forces demoralized, bringing into stark relief the corrupt impulses of many Afghan officials and their tenuous loyalty to the country’s central government. Some police officers complained that they had not been paid in six months or more.

“They saw that document as the end,” the officer said, referring to the majority of Afghans aligned with the government. “The day the deal was signed we saw the change. Everyone was just looking out for himself. It was like [the United States] left us to fail.”

The negotiated surrenders to the Taliban slowly gained pace in the months following the Doha deal, according to a U.S. official and an Afghan officer. Then, after President Biden announced in April that U.S. forces would withdraw from Afghanistan this summer without conditions, the capitulations began to snowball.

As the militants expanded their control, government-held districts increasingly fell without a fight. Kunduz, the first key city overrun by the militants, was captured a week ago. Days of negotiations mediated by tribal elders resulted in a surrender deal that handed over the last government-controlled base to the Taliban.

Soon after, negotiations in the western province of Herat yielded the resignation of the governor, top Interior Ministry and intelligence officials and hundreds of troops. The deal was concluded in a single night.

“I was so ashamed,” said a Kabul-based Interior Ministry officer, referring to the surrender of senior ministry official Abdul Rahman Rahman in Herat. “I’m just a small person, I’m not that big. If he does that, what should I do?”

Over the past month, the southern province of Helmand also witnessed a mass surrender. And as Taliban fighters closed in on the southeastern province of Ghazni, its governor fled under Taliban protection only to be arrested by the Afghan government on his way back to Kabul.

The Afghan military’s fight against the Taliban involved several capable and motivated elite units. But they were often dispatched to provide backup for less-well-trained army and police units that repeatedly folded under Taliban pressure.

An Afghan special forces officer stationed in Kandahar who had been assigned to protect a critical border crossing recalled being ordered by a commander to surrender. “We want to fight! If we surrender, the Taliban will kill us,” the special forces officer said.

“Don’t fire a single shot,” the unit’s commander told them as the Taliban swarmed the area, the officer later recounted. The border police surrendered immediately, leaving the special forces unit on its own. A second officer confirmed his colleague’s recollection of the events.

Unwilling to surrender or fight outmatched, the members of the unit put down their weapons, changed into civilian clothing and fled their post.

“I feel ashamed of what I’ve done,” said the first officer. But, he said, if he hadn’t fled, “I would have been sold to the Taliban by my own government.”

When an Afghan police officer was asked about his force’s apparent lack of motivation, he explained that they hadn’t been getting their salaries. Several Afghan police officers on the front lines in Kandahar before the city fell said they hadn’t been paid in six to nine months. Taliban payoffs became ever more enticing.

There is a long, long cultural history of switching sides, deal-making, and having "arrangements" during and after conflicts in Afghanistan. It is something so widespread and common, and it's a practice that goes back centuries. It's not cowardice. It's not weakness. It's just Afghanistan.

These articles explain it better:

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/08/16/afghanistan-history-taliban-collapse-504977?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.afghan-analysts.org/en/...-afghan-cities/

# ? Aug 18, 2021 23:09

UP THE BUM NO BABY: Sep 1, 2011; by Hand Knit

Enjoy this will written piece from Teen Vogue

Afghanistan’s Crisis Is the Result of Decades of Foreign Intervention

Zeb Larson posted:

The “peace” that the United States brokered in Afghanistan wasn’t expected to last, but it seems few officials in the Biden administration thought the government would collapse so quickly. Within a week, a rapid offensive by the Taliban captured nearly every major urban center in the country and led to the fall of the government this Sunday. Armed Taliban fighters swept into the presidential palace, and chaotic scenes from Kabul’s main airport show thousands of Afghans desperately trying to flee the country.

In all likelihood, the reimposition of Taliban rule will be a nightmare for the Afghan people. Anybody who collaborated with the U.S. or allied organizations is at serious risk, and many of them were left in limbo as the government fell apart. The reimposition of their brutal interpretation of Sharia law seems likely.

The growing humanitarian crisis and the conspicuous failure of a 20-year effort to build a viable alternative to the Taliban has unsurprisingly set off a blame game. Where did the more than $2 trillion spent by the United States for this war ultimately go? Former president Donald Trump is keen to blame President Biden and lie about the peace deal he created. Commentators are dusting off their think pieces on the “graveyard of empires,” shorthand for the historical failure of foreign nations to conquer the country. The stories blame Afghanistan’s tribalism for making the country “not ready or willing” to embrace democracy. There already are comparisons to the fall of Saigon in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War, ignoring profound differences between the two moments so that Americans can make the unfolding crisis about their own sense of defeat.

That the former Afghan government was flawed and deeply corrupt isn’t in question, but these other explanations don’t go deep enough, and many are frankly offensive. Much of this rhetoric puts the blame on the Afghan people, hence the current administration’s repeated pleas for Afghans to “fight.” Similarly, evoking the “graveyard of empires” casts Afghanistan as fundamentally primitive, unstable, and violent. Corruption isn’t intrinsic to Afghanistan’s society. It’s become normalized through decades of war and privation. There’s a much simpler explanation for Afghanistan’s problems: They were created by foreign intervention, and the United States needs to own that.

Afghanistan’s current turmoil was not historically inevitable. One need look no further back than the 1960s, when visitors to the country called Kabul the “Paris of Central Asia.” Women received the right to vote in 1964 after an aborted attempt at granting them suffrage in 1919. Afghanistan was a poor country, but its GDP per capita was ahead of India, China, Indonesia, and Kenya in 1970. Afghanistan saw a coup that ended the monarchy in 1973 and precipitated much of the coming instability. Just a year earlier, South Korea had undergone a coup called the October Restoration that led to years of authoritarian rule. Afghanistan had problems, but its problems were hardly unique, and they were not necessarily worse than what other countries faced.

So why has the country suffered so much over the past several decades? Outside interference that began in the 1970s. The republic that came out of the 1973 coup could not stimulate economic growth and alienated the Soviet Union. In 1978, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) launched a coup that brought a Marxist government to power. While U.S. observers and President Jimmy Carter worried about growing Soviet influence in the country, in reality the coup caught the Soviets by surprise. The PDPA did not bring stability to the country, and infighting between different factions threatened the government’s survival. The Soviets, meanwhile, feared that the collapse of an allied government would make them look weak. On Christmas Day 1979, Soviet troops entered the country, setting off a nine-year war.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was extraordinarily violent: At minimum, 500,000 Afghans died in the fighting, and the death toll was likely higher, possibly closer to 2 million. Millions of people were forced to flee the country for Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere, many of whom never returned. The Soviets were guilty of war crimes in their attempts to try and end a hostile insurgency. For the United States, Afghanistan represented an opportunity to force the USSR to fight a punishing war. Through the CIA and by getting Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to help fund the Afghan fighters, or “mujahideen,” the United States directed billions of dollars to sustain the conflict.

These are the conditions that helped to create the Taliban and leave Afghanistan where it is today. Academics and journalists have called into question the easy story that the United States solely armed the Taliban or al-Quida to fight the Soviets. They’re right: Osama bin Laden, the Saudi Arabia–born al-Quida founder, never directly received money from the U.S., and the number of foreign fighters like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets was not significant in the war. Pakistan directly trained and worked with most of the mujahideen, and not all of the mujahideen went on to support the Taliban.

But these details should not let the United States off the hook either. This episode represents much of the U.S.’s careless approach to foreign policy: seizing on a crisis in another country for its own ends, working with whomever might be at hand as an ally, and then walking away once it’s convenient. When the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the fighting didn’t stop. It continued until 1996, when the Taliban finally came to control a devastated country. The U.S. paid little attention to what happened. Former Soviet ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin was left to fume that “Don’t we [the United States and Russia] have some responsibilities there, after all of our involvement?”

Seeing how the U.S. behaved (and the extent of the damage in Afghanistan) during the 1980s, the failure of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is not so shocking. U.S. intervention in Afghanistan failed to create a stable economy. Economic aid failed to solve poverty, which increased during the occupation, and much of it disappeared into a pit of corruption. Washington and its allies insisted we were engaged in nation building but had no coherent strategy to try and hold the country together.

Afghanistan is no graveyard of empires: It’s just one graveyard that empires feel the need to create whenever they worry about image or credibility or their own declining power. We get to go home; the Afghan people have to live there. These are the fruits of U.S. foreign policy, and Americans need to rethink how we engage with the world.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 23:11

Sentinel: Jan 1, 2009; High Tech
Low Life

UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:

Y'all think Joe will ever get around to giving us the rest of the two grand he owes?

Come on Joe. I think we could all really use some extra booze money right now.

# ? Aug 18, 2021 23:47

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

I for one look forward to new promises from Joe he won't keep while Twitter libs go off about how words and numbers actually don't mean what they mean

# ? Aug 19, 2021 00:16

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

boop the snoot posted:

I don�t think any of us know what we are talking about tbh

I barely know what's going on at any given time

# ? Aug 19, 2021 00:17

UP THE BUM NO BABY: Sep 1, 2011; by Hand Knit

maffew buildings posted:

I for one look forward to new promises from Joe he won't keep while Twitter libs go off about how words and numbers actually don't mean what they mean

He already said we weren't in Afghanistan to conduct nation building lmbo

# ? Aug 19, 2021 00:28

Pigsfeet on Rye: Oct 22, 2008; I'm meat on the hoof

CommieGIR posted:

Time to drone strike some F-150s.

gently caress that, time to reduce the stockpiles of Rockeye IIs and DPICMs

# ? Aug 19, 2021 00:28

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

@me when people are walking off with Hellfire's and Tomahawk's and maybe i'll see the comparison.

There is always that guy in the background with an RPG-7. If you've got an AR/AK you're a dude, but if you get to carry the RPG you're the dude. Nobody cares about small arms domestic or abroad, and for good reason. Anybody who's anybody has something in the autocannon+ range.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 01:33

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

M_Gargantua posted:

@me when people are walking off with Hellfire's and Tomahawk's and maybe i'll see the comparison.

There is always that guy in the background with an RPG-7. If you've got an AR/AK you're a dude, but if you get to carry the RPG you're the dude. Nobody cares about small arms domestic or abroad, and for good reason. Anybody who's anybody has something in the autocannon+ range.

Just ask Abu Hajaar.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 01:39

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/1428123235074428932?s=20

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/alabama-doctor-unvaccinated-patients-valentine/

quote:

In Alabama, where the nation�s lowest vaccination rate has helped push the state closer to a record number of hospitalizations, a physician has sent a clear message to his patients: Don�t come in for medical treatment if you are unvaccinated.

Jason Valentine, a physician at Diagnostic and Medical Clinic Infirmary Health in Mobile, Ala., posted a photo on Facebook this week of him pointing to a sign taped to a door informing patients of his new policy coming Oct. 1.

�Dr. Valentine will no longer see patients that are not vaccinated against covid-19,� the sign reads.

Valentine wrote in the post, which has since been made private but was captured in online images, that there were �no conspiracy theories, no excuses� stopping anyone from being vaccinated, AL.com reported. The doctor, who said at least three unvaccinated patients have asked him where they could get a vaccine since he posted the photo, has remained resolute to those who have questioned his decision in recent days.

�If they asked why, I told them covid is a miserable way to die and I can�t watch them die like that,� wrote Valentine, who has specialized in family medicine with Diagnostic and Medical Clinic since 2008.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 01:42

Wombot: Sep 11, 2001

Washington State has reinstituted a mask mandate for everyone, regardless of vax status, when indoors.

There's now also apparently the strictest vaccination requirements in the nation for WA educators - anyone volunteering or employed in K-12, anyone employed in higher-ed, and anyone employed in pre-K is now required to be fully vaccinated by 10/18. No requirements for students, but "anyone" includes folks like the janitors and coaches, not just teachers. No vax, no job.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 01:54

Sentinel: Jan 1, 2009; High Tech
Low Life

Stultus Maximus posted:

Just ask Abu Hajaar.

If god wills it he'll load the right ammunition.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 01:54

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

That Works posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/alabama-doctor-unvaccinated-patients-valentine/

vae victis

# ? Aug 19, 2021 02:03

Stravag: Jun 7, 2009

Arizona has apparently decided if a school has a mask mandate they will have funding held.

https://apnews.com/article/health-arizona-coronavirus-pandemic-f4c807150376d4a1dc1ea88b3aecce7c

# ? Aug 19, 2021 02:10

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

they're just witholding additional funds? neeerds, SC passed a bill to cut all funding weeks ago

# ? Aug 19, 2021 02:26

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Stravag posted:

Arizona has apparently decided if a school has a mask mandate they will have funding held.

https://apnews.com/article/health-arizona-coronavirus-pandemic-f4c807150376d4a1dc1ea88b3aecce7c

It�s not a mask mandate.

It�s the dress code.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 02:44

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

HELL YEAH

IT FINALLY HAPPENED

https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1428164716883582983

# ? Aug 19, 2021 02:49

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

Saw similar from WaPo, so although there's gonna be hella dead, plenty sound like they will get out.

https://twitter.com/katie_robertson/status/1428178760730390529?s=19

facialimpediment fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Aug 19, 2021

# ? Aug 19, 2021 03:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:24

Buttchocks: Oct 21, 2020; No, I like my hat, thanks.

shame on an IGA posted:

they're just witholding additional funds? neeerds, SC passed a bill to cut all funding weeks ago

I'm astonished there was any funding there to be withheld.

# ? Aug 19, 2021 04:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > August Events: Major is far from the worst predator to reside in the White House

«‹›70 »