f'n insane, and if you think this is ok or that we should tolerate this type of murder, time for a moral check up. we absolutely shouldn't put up with this. ignoring the law and intentionally taking innocent life isn't acceptable. somebody needs to speak up and stop this, like right now. please make a phone call.
"Contrary to false denials, the U.S., under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been bombing Yemen for the last two years, including one attack using cluster bombs that killed dozens of civilians. But what's new is that this will be a CIA drone attack program that is a massive escalation over prior bombing campaigns." Know what you're paying for when you give the government money.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
America's denial of the roots of 9/11 is not a unique phenomenon in U.S. history, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. Although Osama Bin Laden told the world why he attacked-he detested specific U.S. policies in the Middle East-Americans did not want to hear this, just as they wished not to learn about U.S. policies that precipitated other security crises.
Like the citizens of many other countries, Americans believe that their government is blameless when it comes to taking up arms against other peoples: wars are simply thrust upon their government, which they absolve of any responsibility for helping to create the conditions that precipitated the crises. The pattern, Eland argues in his latest op-ed, can be found in the popular perception of the causes of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, and the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Americans need to better learn their history-and to see what their government does in their name. Were they to do so, they would learn scores of unacknowledged truths, such as that the War of 1812 was instigated by congressional "war hawks" who sought to grab land from Canada, that the Mexican-American War was precipitated by President James Polk's blockade of the Rio Grande, and that the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted from the United States cutting off oil and other vital resources to Japan. "American history vindicates the old saying that ‘truth is the first casualty of war,' Eland writes, "but the passage of time should allow a republic to undertake a more honest and dispassionate examination of historical events. It rarely does, with truth being swept under the rug in favor of assuming uncaused indignities.
Now that is refreshing i have been so tired of initial Bush lies, "they hate our freedoms" being the extent of debate in the US over the last 10 years. What happened to, " know your enemy"?
95% of the world just wants to make a living, raise their family in peace and be left the HELL alone. The other 5% fucks everything up and wants us to be a part of it.
America's denial of the roots of 9/11 is not a unique phenomenon in U.S. history, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. Although Osama Bin Laden told the world why he attacked-he detested specific U.S. policies in the Middle East-Americans did not want to hear this, just as they wished not to learn about U.S. policies that precipitated other security crises.
Like the citizens of many other countries, Americans believe that their government is blameless when it comes to taking up arms against other peoples: wars are simply thrust upon their government, which they absolve of any responsibility for helping to create the conditions that precipitated the crises. The pattern, Eland argues in his latest op-ed, can be found in the popular perception of the causes of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, and the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Americans need to better learn their history-and to see what their government does in their name. Were they to do so, they would learn scores of unacknowledged truths, such as that the War of 1812 was instigated by congressional "war hawks" who sought to grab land from Canada, that the Mexican-American War was precipitated by President James Polk's blockade of the Rio Grande, and that the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted from the United States cutting off oil and other vital resources to Japan. "American history vindicates the old saying that ‘truth is the first casualty of war,' Eland writes, "but the passage of time should allow a republic to undertake a more honest and dispassionate examination of historical events. It rarely does, with truth being swept under the rug in favor of assuming uncaused indignities.
From the 18th century to our own time, the liberal tradition has stood firmly against war, based both on principle and on the reality of how and why wars begin, and also the wicked damage they do to society. The excuses for wars mask the underlying reason for them.
The king of Prussia, Frederick II ("the Great"), confessed that he had seized the province of Silesia from the Empress Maria Theresa in 1740 because, as a newcomer to the throne, he had to make a name for himself. This initiated a war with Austria that developed into a worldwide war (in North America, the French and Indian War), and went on to 1763. Of course, many tens of thousands died in that series of wars.
Frederick's admission is probably unique in the annals of leaders of states. In general, rulers have been much more circumspect about revealing the true reasons for their wars, as well as the methods by which they conduct them. Pretexts and evasions have proliferated. In today's democratic societies, these are endorsed - often invented - by compliant professors and other intellectuals.
For generations, the unmasking of such excuses for war and war making has been the essence of historical revisionism, or simply revisionism. Revisionism and classical liberalism, today called libertarianism, have always been closely linked.
How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to remove a murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein? Most of the models that researchers use to study conflicts like the Iraq war assume that civilians and leaders make a rational calculation: If the total cost of the war is less than the cost of the alternatives, they will support war. But according to a new study, those models are wrong. Surveys of people in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other violent situations suggest that participants consistently ignored quantifiable costs and benefits, relying instead on "sacred values." The finding could lead to better predictions of when conflicts will escalate to violence.
Models of rational behavior predict many of society's patterns, such as the prevalence of tax evasion and union strikes. But seemingly irrational behaviors like war—in which the measurable costs often far outweigh the measurable benefits—have stumped researchers going back to Charles Darwin. The prospect of crippling economic burdens and huge numbers of deaths doesn't necessarily sway people from their positions on whether going to war is the right or wrong choice. One possible explanation is that people are not weighing the pros and cons at all, but rather using a moral logic of "sacred values"—convictions that trump all other considerations—that cannot be quantified.
To try to capture people in the act of making such decisions, psychologist Jeremy Ginges of the New School for Social Research in New York City and anthropologist Scott Atran of École Normale Superieure in Paris challenged people around the world with a series of difficult questions. (...)
"Hedges delivered a rousing speech about the nature of hope (in contrast to what certain campaign slogans might have suggested in recent years), pointing out that 'hope has a cost, hope is not comfortable,' before joining other supporters of Veterans for Peace who chained themselves to the White House fence."
On Thursday, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges and Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg were among the 131 anti-war activists arrested during a nonviolent demonstration outside the White House to protest against the war in Afghanistan as well as America’s ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Pakistan.
Hedges delivered a rousing speech about the nature of hope (in contrast to what certain campaign slogans might have suggested in recent years), pointing out that “hope has a cost, hope is not comfortable,” before joining other supporters of Veterans for Peace who chained themselves to the White House fence. When asked why he chose that course of action, Hedges replied, “Because it’s all we have left at this point. ... The normal mechanisms by which democratic participation are rendered possible in this country have been closed shut, and if we don’t do this, we die. This is what’s left of hope in this country.”
Ellsberg said he was drawn to the demonstration in part because veterans were leading the action. “I know that people here understand this war is as hopeless and wrong as the war we participated in in Vietnam, and it is not going to end by a presidential initiative,” he said. “It’ll only be because the American public has awakened to their responsibilities and to the realities of this war.” The “big lie” that the American government is telling its people now, Ellsberg believes, “is that these wars are protecting us at home.” —KA
The mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater has argued in court that the company's private contractors who killed 17 Iraqis in Baghdad in 2007 should not be held accountable. Why? It's Washington's fault, they claim, as Blackwater fighters were acting as employees of the U.S. government at the time. -JCL
Al-Jazeera English:
The security company formerly known as Blackwater has told a US federal judge that the US government, and not the company itself, should be held accountable for a 2007 shooting by its contractors that killed 17 Iraqis in Nisour Square in Baghdad.
Lawyers for the company, now known as Xe Services, argued in court on Thursday that Blackwater contractors were essentially acting as employees of the US government because they were providing security to State Department personnel.
The North Carolina-based company and several of its contractors are seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of three people killed in the shooting: Ali Kinani, Abrahem Abed Al Mafraje and Mahde Sahab Naser Shamake. The lawsuit accuses the parties of wrongful death and negligence, and seeks punitive damages.
