Skip to main content

The question the media won't ask about Ft. Hood incident

"What is the US government doing in Iraq and Afghanistan that is driving men like Hasan and, earlier, Akbar to kill their fellow soldiers out of rage against the US government and its military?" The official line, "they went nuts" just isn't reasonable. Neither is the Israeli-esque suggestion that they were brainwashed by clerics. Maybe you can believe that, in one case, someone just went nuts and started shooting people up for no reason. But this is now a pattern. This has happened on more than one occasion. A (presumably) Muslim member of the US Armed Forces starts shooting/blowing up fellow soldiers in what can only be interpreted as an act of one-man-war* against the US military in retaliation for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are these men seeing that our media is not showing us?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not expressing anything other than moral outrage and condemnation of this man's actions. Murder is murder. But events so terrible as to drive someone to commit murder-suicide to get the attention of the public should be investigated by the media. Instead, our so-called mainstream media will blank this question out as they do any meaningful question that might get to the root of problems within the government-media complex. It's time that we Americans start holding the media responsible. Shut your television off, stop surfing the big name media sites. Read overseas news. Watch YouTube clips from Russia Times or even the BBC. The US media has zero credibility. They think you are all idiots, even if you are well educated, you're an idiot because you can't think outside the invisible box they put you in. It's all a game to them. But when a dozen people are murdered and dozens more wounded, PTSD doesn't cut it, asymptomatic schizophrenia doesn't cut it, clerical brainwashing doesn't cut it. Stop eating up the garbage the MSM feeds you and start thinking for yourself.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are imperialist wars and the behavior of the US government directly reflects its imperialist aims. This has nothing to do with saving Iraqis or exporting freedom, democracy and all that jazz - we've killed roughly 100,000Iraqi civilians in 6 years. If that's not a genocide, I don't know what is. Yes, I said it. Your government is committing genocide all the while strutting about the world stage as if it has some kind of moral authority. It's high time that Americans started introspecting a bit about throwing support behind wars against countries they can't even find on the globe.

On a closing note, my support for the Afghanistan and, later, Iraq war extended clear up through 2007. I am not being sanctimonious. My process of introspection started from a completely unrelated study of economics which resulted in a transformation in my view of human affairs. Most people will not take the route to understanding the evil of this war that I took but no matter which route you take, it will not happen overnight. If you consider yourself a "conservative", I recommend you go back and take a look at the conservative principles of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were strict non-interventionists. We've allowed our government to become involved in the politics of empire. In the process, our political system has been corrupted. The only way out is a general shift in the attitudes of Americans about the imperial globe-strutting of the US government. Until there is a shift in attitudes, our Presidents will continue trying to play Caesar and America (the people, not the government) will be bankrupted and parceled out to foreign creditors.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...