EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: A Conspiracy of Silence
An IoS poll shows 77 per cent of Britons want our forces to come home
It is one of the few genuine issues of life and death during this general election campaign. It will not dictate how much any British school improves, how many police appear on the streets of a city, or how quickly patients are allowed to leave hospitals around the country. But it will, literally, decide the fate of thousands of British service personnel and, ultimately, how many of them live and die.
A British soldier stands guard during a patrol in Qari Saheb village in Helmand province. (Photo: The Independent) Yet nobody wants to talk about Afghanistan.
When Nick Clegg "won" the televised party leaders' debate on Thursday night, his victory owed nothing to his limp response to a question about support for British troops serving in Afghanistan. The Liberal Democrat leader agreed that British troops in Afghanistan were under-paid and under-equipped, but he did not question why they had lost 281 colleagues in that country, or why they were there in the first place.
Similarly, Gordon Brown and David Cameron have pledged loyal support for a campaign that is deep into its ninth year, and shows no sign of nearing an end. In front of the cameras, the Prime Minister offered sombre reflection on the campaign, while Mr Cameron queried the number of helicopters available to British forces. Yet neither has gone out of his way to tackle the issue head-on elsewhere during this campaign, to explain why the UK should remain in Afghanistan, why it should continue to support a discredited government in Kabul, and how many more British service personnel must die before the mission can be brought to a close.
Last November, The Independent on Sunday called for a "phased, orderly withdrawal" of British forces from the "ill-conceived, unwinnable and counterproductive" campaign in Afghanistan. The UK still remains in there - and more than 50 servicemen have died since then. Last month, The IoS revealed that Britain harboured profound concerns at the highest levels over the quality of the Afghan police who must guarantee security before our troops can leave.
The leaders may, at last, be forced to explain their positions this week, when the second debate concentrates on foreign affairs. But, given their performance so far, it is unlikely that they will offer any fresh hope for the service personnel in Afghanistan or their families back home.
"We want to see more substantive engagement on defence issues from the parties," said Douglas Young, executive chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation, an independent staff association for service personnel. "Up to now, there have been too many airy-fairy platitudes and not enough substance."
These are leaders who last week presented election manifestos amounting to more than 80,000 words on their grand plans for education, health, the economy, but who managed to mention Afghanistan only 19 times between them.
The stifling of the issue might be due to the fact that all the main parties know their policies are entirely at odds with the feelings of the population over Afghanistan. In November, a poll found that 73 per cent of people wanted British troops to come home within "a year or so" - and almost half of them called for immediate withdrawal.
A poll for The IoS today finds that this number has increased, with 77 per cent now supporting withdrawal on the same terms. The number disagreeing is now below one in seven. Further, more than 50 per cent of those polled believe that the risk of terrorism in the UK is increased by the presence of British troops in Afghanistan.
However, none of the major parties is promising to pull troops out if they get into government and only the Scottish National Party - confined to one part of the UK - is calling for an honest reappraisal of the operation. The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, last week made much of his record of "speaking out pretty forcefully" on Afghanistan. But his manifesto commits the party to being "critical supporters of the Afghanistan mission'', albeit with a pledge to match the military surge to a strategy of tackling corruption and winning over moderate Taliban.
The Lib Dem defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, yesterday conceded that anti-war voters have few choices. "If they are against the whole principle of being involved [in Afghanistan], they'll struggle to find anyone putting that case," he said. For opponents of the war, the lack of differentiation between the three main parties and their failure to embrace the Afghan question during the first two weeks of the election campaign amounts to a "conspiracy of silence" to suppress debate.
Chris Nineham, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: "There has been a deafening silence about Afghanistan in the run-up to the election. The three main parties are doing their best not to mention the war, despite the fact that the vast majority of the population oppose it."
Yet, despite complaints from the most vocal critics of the war, there is no guarantee that, however strongly voters feel, they are prepared to treat it as an electoral issue. In November 2006, when the toll of British deaths during five years of the campaign stood at 41, pollsters Ipsos Mori found that "defence/foreign affairs/Iraq and Afghanistan" topped the list of concerns facing the country. Two out of five voters spontaneously identified it as a key national problem. Three and a half years on, with 240 added to the death toll - 36 this year alone - it has slipped to seventh.
A leaked CIA report last month observed how "some Nato states, notably France and Germany, have counted on public apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission". It also argued that such apathy "enabled leaders to ignore voters". It seems that Britain's leaders are banking on indifference to help them through a potentially troublesome campaign without having to confront the most troubling issue before them.
"All three parties in 2001 thought we should go in. There are no votes in it, so they keep quiet about it," said General Sir Hugh Beach, former deputy commander of British Land Forces.
Five years ago, public opposition to the Iraq War was widely listed as a contributory factor behind a general election result that cut Labour's majority from 167 to 66. And lingering rancour over the war helped to lever Mr Blair from office two years later.
Afghanistan has been different. It has been overwhelmingly regarded as the "just" war. It was portrayed as a campaign to democratise a wild nation, to oust the Taliban, al-Qa'ida and all the extremists threatening the West with terror plots over the past decade.
That justification has lost its power as the death toll spirals and Afghans show little inclination to take control of their own affairs. Military commanders in Pakistan, where suicide bombers killed more than 40 people yesterday, regard the failure of US-led forces to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan with ill-concealed derision.
"They don't have the legitimacy we do," said Colonel Nauman Saeed, who commands 3,500 solders in Bajaur, a mountainous district on the Afghan border. "Afghans see them as illegitimate intruders and occupation forces." At the moment, the Pakistan military are in a victorious mood after retaking much of the territory along the Afghan border which was ruled by the Pakistan Taliban a year ago.
When experts point to terror plots from Pakistan and even within the UK, the Government's contention that the Afghan campaign is vital to protect Britain's security at home is difficult to explain.
And the government of President Karzai continues to raise concerns in Nato capitals. "The problem we have is that the regime in Afghanistan, which we support, is built on electoral fraud, with graft and corruption," said the SNP's foreign affairs spokesman, Angus Robertson. "We need to be absolutely honest about our options, and one of the aspects of that is that there needs to be a decision about when we bring our forces home."
The IoS military covenant panel
Major General Patrick Cordingley
"There is an embargo on the Ministry of Defence, so there is virtually no news coming out of them. The two main parties basically agree on Afghanistan. If somebody disagreed it would be a big issue but as they all agree, there's no point banging on about it."
Major Julian Thompson
"The reason is the parties have stayed off the issue in toto. Defence is unfortunately the last thing people think about and it is not something that turns people on. Labour got us in there in the first place and don't want people to be reminded of it."
General Sir Hugh Beach
"Nobody thinks there are votes in it one way or the other. All three parties in 2001 thought we should go in. There are no votes in it either way, so they keep quiet about it."
Rose Gentle, mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, killed in Iraq
"It isn't really a vote-winner. Iraq isn't mentioned and the soldiers that died there are the silent heroes. Families I've spoken to think someone should say something about it, but to be honest I don't think anyone will."
Retired Colonel Clive Fairweather
"In 2001 it was the war on terror, but since then the country can't make the connection with the war on terror any more. I don't think the Tories or Nick Clegg have much else to offer. It would only become an issue if there were multiple casualties, which is not very good for troop morale."
James Fergusson, journalist, foreign correspondent and author of 'A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan'
"It is easy to say we need more helicopters but I have always thought that the argument that we are fighting over there to protect the streets is easily shot down. But I think the [political] opponents are too scared to take on the issue."
The Rifleman: 'William would have made a fantastic husband and dad'
Anyone who met Rifleman William Aldridge had only to look at the teenager to know how much his family meant to him: he had the name of his young brother George tattooed on his arm.
He had planned to get Archie, the name of the youngest brother, inked on his other arm but was deployed to Afghanistan before he got the chance. He was killed, aged 18, by an IED blast while on foot patrol with the 2nd Battalion The Rifles in Sangin province on July 10. He now holds the tragic distinction of being the youngest British soldier to die in the conflict.
It took his mother Lucy Aldridge, 42, a couple of weeks to find the right words to tell his brothers - then aged five and four - that they would not see him again. "I explained that William was doing a very important job protecting people in another country but now he had a much more important job to do and that meant that he wouldn't be able to come home because he had gone to be with the angels and look after everybody."
William's brothers meant "everything to him. He would have made a fantastic husband and dad."
The rifleman was a "very keen outdoors type" as a child, enjoying martial arts, rowing and canoeing. He was a Cub and a Scout, and joined a rifles cadet force when he was 12, his mum said from the family home in Bredenbury, Herefordshire.
"It was his dream, so I couldn't have been happier with him knowing exactly what he wanted to do."
That dream saw him sign up at the age of 16 after taking his GCSEs at the Minster College in Leominster. He passed out in August 2008 after basic training at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and moved to Catterick for infantry training. He joined his battalion in Ballykinlar, Northern Ireland, that December.
William, who had formed part of the rearguard looking after families of serving soldiers, was posted to Afghanistan three days after celebrating his 18th birthday on 23 May last year with a family meal.
In their last conversation he sounded in "good spirits" but also "extremely tired" after being at a patrol base for 10 instead of 28 days due to "an inability for them to be resupplied with equipment, with basics like water and ammunition".
Two days later, he was killed following an improvised explosive device (IED) blast during an early-morning foot patrol. The "calm" soldier helped comrades caught up in an earlier explosion in which he had also been injured. He was airlifted to Camp Bastion but died about an hour and a half later.
Ms Aldridge is calling for a ban on foot patrols "unless greater safety measures are put in place to protect these young men".
She has since thrown herself into fundraising, launching the Kilimanjaro 2010 Appeal in October. The project hopes to raise £40,000 for the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine patient welfare fund at Selly Oak Hospital and the Rifleman's Fund, supporting injured riflemen and bereaved families.
This October, she will officially launch the William Aldridge Foundation to raise money to support charities caring for wounded service personnel across the three armed forces. She wants to expand help "not just for the physically injured but those who are psychologically scarred", and describes the problem of soldiers suffering mental illness as a "ticking time bomb" that urgently needs government funding.
"I would hope that had my son returned home somebody would be doing the same for him," she said.
Kate Youde
The amputee: 'He never wavered'
At just three, Lance Corporal Simon Wiggins was inspired by his grandfather's interest in the Guards, and the pair watched Zulu together. Now 23, he is rehabilitating after stepping on an IED on 16 March 2008, while serving with the First Battalion Coldstream Guards in Helmand. The blast - two weeks before he was due home - necessitated the amputation of his leg. He also suffered extensive internal trauma and lost a finger. His mother, Gilly Wiggins, 50, of Coulsdon, Surrey, said his military passion never wavered during his childhood and "he used to go running with a backpack full of Coke bottles filled with water to train".
The sniper enlisted in 2004 after his A-levels and trained at Catterick, passing out in May 2005. He was serving in Iraq the following month.
But Mrs Wiggins, vice chair of a support group at the charity Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association Forces Help, worried about his deployment to Afghanistan and had a "strange feeling" about it. Her son made a "miraculous recovery" and is now at the regiment's Aldershot base.
Kate Youde
The veteran: 'I was a mess. The Army didn't help me'
Lance Corporal Jim Maguire (not his real name), 29, from Hull joined the Army in 1998 and served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He began to develop obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), depression and anxiety in Iraq which developed into PTSD after he was ambushed in his Scimitar in a village in southern Afghanistan. "I was a mess. The Army didn't provide me with help. Fortunately I was referred to Combat Stress. They saved my life. I met other guys who'd been through it too. It was a massive help. It's easy to hide a problem. They hide people like me. "
Paul Bignell
The mother: 'I was glued to the news'
Diane Blackmore-Heal, a police officer from Banbury, near Oxford, welcomed her son, Adam, 22, home just two weeks ago after a seven-month tour with the Household Cavalry in Helmand province.
"Adam has wanted to be in the Army since he was five years old. This was his first tour of active duty, and I don't think I realised how stressed I was until he came home and I started to sleep properly again. I was glued to the news for seven months. Somehow I felt he would come back but I was aware of the IEDs and worried whether he would cope with a serious injury. Adam showed me a picture of a colleague, taken after he lost both legs on their last patrol; it could have been him."
Nina Lakhani
The parties...
Labour
Manifesto: 78pp, 30,227 words
Defence: 2,750 words
Health: 2,950 words, 47 mentions
Education: 1,927 words, 61 mentions
Afghanistan: 11 mentions
Conservatives
Manifesto: 120pp, 28,733 words
Defence: 1,178 words
Health 1,741 words, 72 mentions
Education: 1,184 words, 58 mentions
Afghanistan: 5 mentions
Lib Dems
Manifesto: 110pp, 21,668 words
Defence: 466 words
Health: 1,143 words, 34 mentions
Education: 1,719 words, 87 mentions
Afghanistan: 3 mentions
Greens
Manifesto: 50pp, 20,427 words
Defence: 254 words
Health: 715 words, 59 mentions
Education: 522 words, 35 mentions
Afghanistan: 4 mentions
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

41 Comments so far
Show AllThe "conspiracy of silence" being described for the other side of the pond is basically the same as in the U.S.A. The leadership of neither the Republican nor Democratic Party is disposed to have much too critical to say about the prosecution of our imperial adventures in the Muslim world-- or those of our "staunch ally," Israel. The London Consensus looks very much like the Washington one. The majority of Americans---like that big 77% of Britons who want to withdrawal U.K. troops from Afghanistan---have to look to "fringe" (can't win) parties to find support for their views. Check today's Dissident Voice for a good article on how "Islamophobia" in the U.S. is being nurtured for manufacturing public consent for today's "anti-terrorist" conflicts just as McCarthy's Red Scare did for the communist "containment" conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
The more things change.....
Agree, the conspiracy of silence is here in the US also on issues of war, surveillance on US citizens, Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, torture... The conspiracy is between the Republicans, Democrats, and M$M.
The tripartisan support for the British policy of playing poodle to the US despite overwhelming public opinion against this stupid war shows how important the natural resources of this region must be to the big boys that control the politicians.
An astute connection between the McCarthyite red scare and the terrorist scare to justify our Afghan war blunder. Why are we there? To support the corrupt Karzai, to support the world's opium habit, to help Taliban recruitment???
"Why are we there?"
More to the point: Why are young British soldiers dying in Afghanistan?
That's an easy question. Your children are being sacrificed to protect American control of the gas pipeline that's routed through Afghanistan. Be assured, your children are not dying for nothing. They are dying to protect American corporate profit.
By the way, they are not planning on sharing any of that profit with you or the UK.
Reasons for U.S. presence in Afghanistan:
1) Industrial and generally economic reasons:
oil, natural gas, and pipelines for those fossil fuels; minerals and metals in the geological formations of the country (see the article on the very quiet years-long presence of the U.S. Geological Survey in Afghanistan, "Afghan Geological Reserves Worth A Trillion Dollars," Common Dreams 2/1/2010); and keeping the U.S. armament industries content and happy, and thereby the Wall Street crime syndicate.
2) geopolitical reasons: squeezing and bullying Iran; containing China and Russia; controlling Pakistan.
3) domestic reasons: keeping a certain constituency of war mongers and militarists happy; and disciplining, or keeping in line, the citizenry and other residents of the United States (a process the Nazis called 'Gleichschaltung').
Nice summing up.
'Jill' - Good comment, as per usual fm u.
Question is, why don't the troops in at least one of the NATO nations go on strike for higher wages? Most everyone knowing that the war is over oil and which multinational oil corporations make the most profit in oil.
And of course the answer is, all of the troops feel they deserve to be rich and with a little luck they could someday be filthy rich. For the purpose of this world is to prove the harm in feeling you deserve something, when worthless man deserves absolutely nothing.
"The right of association for military personnel can be restricted by a denial to strike. The member associations of EUROMIL do not use the right to strike."
http://www.euromil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=39
"The European Organisation of Military Associations (EUROMIL) is an umbrella organisation consisting of 37 national military associations and trade unions promoting the social and professional interests of military personnel of all ranks in Europe. Including 25 countries from the Russian Federation in the East to Ireland in the West, and from Finland in the north to Malta in the South, EUROMIL is a truly European organisation.
"EUROMIL is the main Europe-wide forum for cooperation among professional military associations on issues of common concern. Through the international secretariat in Brussels, EUROMIL facilitates exchange of information, experiences and best practice among member associations.
"The organisation, moreover, strives to secure and advance the human rights, fundamental freedoms and socio-professional interests of soldiers by monitoring and advocating in multinational negotiations on the European level.
"Military associations entirely respect and abide by the chain of command, and neither condone or support insubordination and mutiny. Associations do not intend to comment on strategic or operational matters."
http://www.euromil.org
So this is a group the peace movement must move!
Thanks for the info.
I bet in their hearts and minds they are ready to build a better world without war and are ready, willing and able.
Sooner or later.
Sooner saves lives.
Pity the Brits they are on their fourth invasion of Afghanistan.
Not enough about the Afghans the Nato forces are killing.
There is no Difference between Karzai election and USA elections in fact the CIA kept certain candidates off the Afghan ballot.
Do you Brits have valid elections ? USA diffinitely did not in 2000 or 2004.
While you are withdrawing please give back the Afghans the other half of Pastunstan that you split off with the Durand Line.
You know the primary sympathy lies with the Victims of the invaders.
If Karzai had his way there would be Peace with the Taliban today.
I am greatly saddened that other countries are as misinformed, misled and misrepresented as we are here in the United States.
I'm reading that part in the US Declaration of Independence that calls for the government to be '..abolish(ed)..' when it becomes '..destructive of these ends(consent of the governed)..' - is that the only solution?
It's still on the table and our Declaration, and that's good enough for me!
Yes, that seems to be our only choice. Abolish our government. This will take fighting in the streets and the government is well armed. Perhaps we can make a peacefull attack first.
Don't vote for anyone in office now. Don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican. "Oh", you say, "then my vote won't count!" Get wise. It don't count now, if you vote for the corrupt people with pockets full of corporate loot. If we count all the people who don't bother to vote (knowing it is a farce) and those who vote non corporate, we can figure out our power if it comes to revolution.
Time to stand up and not take it any more. Get over your hope for change you can believe in. You had that already and look what it got you.
Wow, we only have two business parties. Britain has three.
Unfortunately there is just as much apathy in this country as there is in the UK with 89 [!] yr. old Helen Thomas being one of the very few journalists willing to do what journalists are supposed to do and that is to take on the establishment with tough and critical questions instead of the usual softball inquiries that her colleagues are all too willing to ask of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama. The all too compliant mainstream press should be rattling the cages of the Obama administration regarding the slaughter of so many innocent civilians in the Middle East. Instead they are all too content to lay prostrate while the government simply walks all over them when someone like Defense Secretary Gates will claim with a straight face that the deaths of those civilians who were killed by the Apache Helicopters came about because of the "fog of war". These journalistic hacks are not exactly a shining example, to recall the words of JFK, of profiles in courage.
True, Helen Thomas is the only one! She remembers and practices the ethical code of good journalism. When she's gone, who will take her place? No one - all by design.
Thank you Helen Thomas. Are you here amongst us? I wouldn't be surprised.
to erroll: it's lie prostrate, not lay prostrate, unless there's some laying to be done somewhere in that sentence. see next to last sentence.
It used to be considered poor manners to correct ones syntax, spelling and grammar on the internet. Of course, manners used to count for something.
johnny u
I wish to express my thanks to you for pointing out that grammatical error to me. Having said that, I do not believe that my mental lapse should take anything away from my main point which is the lack of moral courage that today's press corps exhibit toward questioning and challenging the United States government. It is a sad day for journalism when an 89 year old woman is practically the only one among the White House press corps who seems willing to call out the Obama administration for their transgressions against the American, Afghan, Iraqi, Palestinian and Pakistani people.
I certainly agree that grammar and syntax are important in today's semi-literate world. But is not confronting the government with their lies, fabrications, deceptions and falsehoods just as important also?
Bring America Back !!!!
***So here is a nice Brit spending lots of time counting words and mentions in the news. I hereby nominate this
brite fellow be appointed as Lead Journalistic Investigator for Nessie, The Loch Ness Monster...who, what and where !!
**Look Bud, Mainsteam Media, including most or much of the
Brit Press is part and parcel of the Corrupt Military Industrial Complex====War is much more printworthy than Peace. Don't believe it...just count the word peace, and the mentions too !!
Such shit !
If you can't brag about your work, you shut up.
That seems to be the rule and that is hard to do for politicians.
England, amerika... the mic controls the msm... deadly, murderous result for the World 1
Sounds like leaders don't see themselves as representing voters any more. The connection is severed.
British "poodle politics" continue, in support of empire - although it's no longer the British one. Participation in war for nostalgic reasons and out of reflex. That's how twisted the reasons for warring now is. "Gotta support our allies, although we know they've gone insane."
Britain unfortunately is also hostage to corporate interests. Even though the vast majority of Britons want the war to end right now, it won't because it is far too profitable for a handful of defence contractors and related business interests.
It is easy to criticize the United States as a corpocracy, and it is, however Britain has proven too that it will subject the public's will to the moneyed interests regardless of the loss of life. Afghanistan and Iraq are two contemporary examples that show the world that Britain still ahs a long ways to go to achieve true democracy.
Is there a conspiracy of silence because the war in Afghanistan is predicated, at least for public consumption, on a lie, to wit, that the Taliban, for harboring Bin Laden, was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks, even though no evidence has ever been forthcoming to demonstrate either Bin Laden's or the Taliban's responsibility for the events of that day?
Is there a conspiracy of silence because the real reason for the war is to build a pipeline and loot Afghanistan's resources, while giving the American Empire a strong foothold in the Middle East and South Asia?
Is there a conspiracy of silence because many players in the political class and mass media of the U.S. and the U.K. actually know the real reasons for the war and cannot even allow themselves to consider the possibility of the fundamental lie at the source of it all?
And if there is indeed a conspiracy of silence, does that not mean that conspiracies do exist, in many forms, conscious and unconscious, and are not merely the paranoid imaginings of deranged minds, but have always been among the methods used by covetous men seeking power and wealth in ways deemed unacceptable to the general populace and thus needing to be kept from public knowledge?
Just asking.
thank you
killing the sons and daughters of the citizenry directly via war, or indirectly, via heroin, for personal gain isn't popular either way...
hence the choice: lies, or silence...
When Patrick Kennedy spoke out in the United States chamber of congress that the Media in America was avoiding the news of the Afghanistan War, he was ridiculed. He was passionate and you could hear it in his voice. He was RIGHT. Not enough Americans care. "Afghanistan: A Conspiracy of Silence" in the U.K. and the U.S. Probably because the Afghan war is totally irrational.
Well, "the Afghan war is totally irrational" for all of the officially stated reasons.
But really a highway robbery by the strongest pack of nations against one of the weakest nations on Earth. It's so blatant "assault and robbery" that few can believe their own minds thinking the thought fully through. That's the main problem.
As for 9-11 in this connection, it isn't. I.e. there isn't a real connection.
Now the complete disconnect between what we as a nation do and what we speak of as reasons for the conduct is eating into everything: from on high there's been a signal that actions don't need real reasons anymore.
And look how the fabric of consensus making up society unravels. It's spooky to observe. People have gotten the message: "I don't need to justify what I do any longer, as long as I'm the stronger and can get away with it."
Try in a crowd saying of 9-11 and the Taliban the simple and obviously true: "But they didn't do it." - and hear the aggressive reactions to such "blasphemy". People have heard the lies of justification and they've stuck. And no wonder - what's the alternative? - To live with the impossible explanation that we've become everything we officially despise? - That's even harder to get the mind around than settling for living with lies.
"But they didn't do it."
0 sez "these are facts, not theories to be debated."
comply, you heretic!
Today, War is it's own excuse.
No, war is its own excuse. No apostrophe.
Beautiful like the chance encounter of an umbrella and a sewing machine on a dissection table.
"Domination vs. Partnership Relations"
The Chinese and Russians are well beyond us in this realm. Sadly, the people in this country don't realize how many "mutually agreeable" trade deals these competitors have already made around the globe to secure the future of their economies and the citizens of their countries. Our men and women are getting killed every day because the U.S. doesn't think it should have to negotiate to get what it needs to survive and thrive in a competetive environment.
In the meantime, many South American and Middle Eastern governments, among others, are choosing to do business with China and Russia, both of which are more interested in their economic and social development than their military escalation. This of course is taking place while the U.S. continues its pathological empire-building, domination practices.
Greediology and Superiority have been so programmed in the non-thinking minds of Americans that they can't seem to get a f-king grip on reality and what the human species needs to do (now) to survive on this planet.
Will the $hitheads ever learn?
Another conspiracy theorist! Sheesh, silly truufer.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"
Hermann Goering
Did you hear the one about the imperial nation that saved so much money by invading, rather than trading with, other countries that it went out of business?
Thanks Sanctuary & Gail
Passionate & compassionate statement they are.
Please save the thought, I promise you we will need every bit of it. Unfortunately the empire has chosen a path from which there is no way back at least from its primal and blind quarters. it is not showing signs of hesitation and thats the worst place to be, when certainty kicks in, murder takes a whole new meaning.
For those who, experienced or witnessed tyranny, fascism, dictatorship or Nazism or any other form of denial, the signs & symptoms are unmistakable. this is when the 0.1% of the population being the Industrial military Complex the corporate machine and other forces in the shadow, attempt to drag the rest of the population to the edge of the cliff.
its the time when we close schools sack teachers jail whistle blowers only to recruit informers, infiltrators, spies. mercenaries with or without uniforms , naturally inquisitions cannot take place without tormentors and torturers.
Having said that the edge of the cliff use to be so visible and convincingly terrifying . it is slightly blurred nowadays thanks to fox trash and the alike. A cat is caught in the sewage ten cameras are covering the event half a million people are marching for human rights not a single camera on sight. WE MUST BE THE MEDIA. Hitler looked spoke and acted like the monster he is.
His language was strait forward. the German citizen knew what Hitler represented or at least through fear propaganda dogma & the usual promised land tyrants generally prophase.
Some embrassed it in the fever and the spirit of the herd.
On the other side of the coin, the average French & polish, Jew & gypsy, and in the background the doomed third world country man & woman, who could not understand why France and England were screaming wolf & liberty, being the oppressors themselves, quite an irony. Nevertheless they gave their lives generously in the hope it'll have some karmic effect on their destiny.
In vain they had to fight an other day an other oppressor.
What is fundamental? it's the fact that They all knew beyond doubt that Hitler was not good for their diet.
W Churchill Not my favorite hero, he too had blood in his hands. His big problem and leaders like him, begin the moment they perceive themselves as the defenders of THEIR people ONLY, they, very literally create the enemy. Perhaps thats one area where real changes must be pursued to avoid creating or amplifying the dynamic of the enemy out there. It may sound funny but it is not impossible that, we may end up with thousands of miles of walls criss crossing the planet imitating Israel and the us pathetic empire.
Turning earth into a giant prison without life.where competition and retribution are the commandments of the day.
I fume when I hear people mentioning Winston Churchill s quotes unfortunately I m going to do just that.
And it goes (On the beaches, On the sand On the roads and rivers On the sea and the mountains we must stand ground), something along those lines.
The following statement may sound cliche, but it is at our risk and peril to do so.
We must stand by our brothers and sisters miners and teachers, all workers and those waiting for a job, thinkers, writers, journalists at least the few good ones, we must stand by our woman and man of heart&soul & good will, we must stand next to the weak, the poor we must stand with all of those whom life soul heart and land have been destroyed by our own leaders in our names, we must stand with them to the end & perhaps to a beginning.
More importantly we must stand with all the gentle peace warrior without helmets world wide. They are part of all the people mentioned above and millions more connecting and evolving one soul at a time as I speak.
PS: For what its worth we must not allow Obama to finance space research with imperial wars and mayhem. nor can we allow our astronauts to walk the skies all the way to Mars dripping Iraqi's blood & the blood of millions.
Question,
are they driven ? yes they are.
What do they see ? Oil rigs, pipe lines military bases and absolute hegemony.
The rest is distraction, sand in the eyes.
Privatize everything including space if it fails bail it with people's sweat&blood. or go to plan B invade a country or two or 179.
In Soulidarity.