Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pacified
If the U.S. public looked long and hard into a mirror reflecting the civilian atrocities that have occurred in Afghanistan, over the past ten months, we would see ourselves as people who have collaborated with and paid for war crimes committed against innocent civilians who meant us no harm.
Two reporters, Jerome Starkey (the Times UK), and David Lindorff, (Common Dreams), have persistently drawn attention to U.S. war crimes committed in Afghanistan. Makers of the film "Rethinking Afghanistan" have steadily provided updates about the suffering endured by Afghan civilians. Here is a short list of atrocities that have occurred in the months since General McChrystal assumed his post in Afghanistan.
December 26th, 2009: US-led forces, (whether soldiers or "security contractors" (mercenaries) is still uncertain), raided a home in Kunar Province and pulled eight young men out of their beds, handcuffed them, and gunned them down execution-style. The Pentagon initially reported that the victims had been running a bomb factory, although distraught villagers were willing to swear that the victims, youngsters, aged 11 - 18, were just seven normal schoolboys and one shepherd boy. Following courageous reporting by Jerome Starkey, the U.S. military carried out its own investigation and on February 24th, 2010, issued an apology, attesting the boys' innocence.
February 12, 2010: U.S. and Afghan forces raided a home during a party and killed five people, including a local district attorney, a local police commander two pregnant mothers and a teenaged girl engaged to be married. Neither Commander Dawood, shot in the doorway of his home while pleading for calm waving his badge, nor the teenaged Gulalai, died immediately, but the gunmen refused to allow relatives to take them to the hospital. Instead, they forced them to wait for hours barefoot in the winter cold outside.
Despite crowds of witnesses on the scene, the NATO report insisted that the two pregnant women at the party had been found bound and gagged, murdered by the male victims in an honor killing. A March 16, 2010 U.N. report, following on further reporting by Starkey, exposed the deception, to meager American press attention.
Two weeks later: February 21st, 2010: A three-car convoy of Afghans was traveling to the market in Kandahar with plans to proceed from there to a hospital in Kabul where some of the party could be taken for much-needed medical treatment. U.S. forces saw Afghans travelling together and launched an air-to-ground attack on the first car. Women in the second car immediately jumped out waving their scarves, trying desperately to communicate that they were civilians. The U.S. helicopter gunships continued firing on the now unshielded women. 21 people were killed and 13 were wounded.
There was press attention for this atrocity, and U.S. General Stanley McChrystal would issue a videotaped apology for his soldiers' tragic mistake. Broad consensus among the press accepted this as a gracious gesture, with no consequences for the helicopter crew ever demanded or announced.
Whether having that gunship in the country was a mistake - or a crime - was never raised as a question.
And who would want it raised? Set amidst the horrors of an ongoing eight-year war, how many Americans think twice about these atrocities, hearing them on the news.
So I'm baffled to learn that in Germany, a western, relatively comfortable country, citizens raised a sustained protest when their leaders misled them regarding an atrocity that cost many dozens of civilian lives in Afghanistan.
The air strike was conducted by US planes but called in by German forces. On September 4, 2009, Taleban fighters in Kunduz province had hijacked two trucks filled with petrol, but then gotten stuck in a quagmire where the trucks had sank. Locals, realizing that the trucks carried valuable fuel, had arrived in large numbers to siphon it off, but when a German officer at the nearest NATO station learned that over 100 people had assembled in an area under his supervision, he decided they must be insurgents and a threat to Germans under his command. At his call, a U.S. fighter jet bombed the tankers, incinerating 142 people, dozens of them confirmable as civilians.
On September 6, 2009, Germany's Defense Minister at the time, Franz Josef Jung, held a press conference in which he defended the attack, playing down the presence of civilians. He wasn't aware that video footage from a US F15 fighter jet showed that most of the people present were unarmed civilians gathering to fill containers with fuel.
On November 27, 2009, after a steady outcry on the part of the German public, the Defense Minister was withdrawn from his post, (he is now a Labor Minister), and two German military officials, one of them Germany's top military commander Wolfgang Schneiderhan, were forced to resign.
I felt uneasy and sad when I realized that my first response to this story was a feeling of curiosity as to how the public of another country could manage to raise such a furor over deaths of people in faraway Afghanistan. How odd to have grown up wondering how anyone could ever have been an uninvolved bystander allowing Nazi atrocities to develop and to find myself, four decades later, puzzling over how German people or any country's citizenship could exercise so much control over their governance.
Today, in the US, attacks on civilians are frequently discussed in terms of the "war for hearts and minds.".
Close to ten months ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a June 12, 2009 press conference in Brussels that General Stanley McChrystal "would work to minimize Afghan civilian casualties, a source of growing public anger within Afghanistan."
"Every civilian casualty -- however caused -- is a defeat for us," Gates continued, "and a setback for the Afghan government."
On March 23rd, 2010, McChrystal was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph. "Your security comes from the people," he said. "You don't need to be secured away from the people. You need to be secured by the people. So as you win their support, it's in their interests to secure you, .... This can mean patrolling without armored vehicles or even flak jackets. It means accepting greater short-term risk - and higher casualties - in the hope of winning a "battle of perceptions and perspectives" that will result in longer-term security."
And on March 2nd, 2010, he told Gail McCabe "What we're trying to do now is to increase their confidence in us and their confidence in their government. But you can't do that through smoke and mirrors, you have to do that through real things you do - because they've been through thirty-one years of war now, they've seen so much, they're not going to be beguiled by a message."
We're obliged as Americans to ask ourselves whether we will be guided by a message such as McChrystal's or by evidence. Americans have not been through thirty-one years of war, and we have managed to see very little of the consequences of decades of warmaking in Afghanistan.
According to a March 3, 2010 Save the Children report, "The world is ignoring the daily deaths of more than 850 Afghan children from treatable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia, focusing on fighting the insurgency rather than providing humanitarian aid." The report notes that a quarter of all children born in the country die before the age of five, while nearly 60 percent of children are malnourished and suffer physical or mental problems. The UN Human Development Index in 2009 says that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, second only to Niger in sub-Saharan Africa.
The proposed US defense budget will cost the U.S. public two billion dollars per day. President Obama's administration is seeking a 33 billion dollar supplemental to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most U.S. people are aware of Taleban atrocities, and many may believe the U.S. troops are in Afghanistan to protect Afghan villagers from Taleban human rights abuses. At least the mainstream news media in Germany and the UK will air stories of atrocities. The U.S. people are disadvantaged inasmuch as the media and the Pentagon attempt to pacify us, winning our hearts and minds to bankroll ongoing warfare and troop escalation in Afghanistan. Yet it isn't very difficult to pacify U.S. people. We're easily distracted from the war, and when we do note that an atrocity has happened, we seem more likely to respond with a shrug of dismay than with a sustained protest.
At the Winter Soldier hearings, future presidential hopeful John Kerry movingly asked Congress how it could ask a soldier "To be the last man to die for a mistake," while contemporary polls showed less prominent Americans far more willing to call the Vietnam war an evil - a crime - a sin - than "a mistake." The purpose of that war, as of Obama's favored war in Afghanistan, was to pacify dangerous populations - to make them peaceful, to win the battle of hearts and minds.
Afghan civilian deaths no longer occur at the rate seen in the war's first few months, in which the civilian toll of our September 11 attacks, pretext for the war then as it is now, was so rapidly exceeded.
But every week we hear - if we are listening very carefully to the news, if we are still reading that final paragraph on page A16 - or if we are following the work of brave souls like Jerome Starkey - of tragic mistakes. We are used to tragic mistakes. Attacking a country militarily means planning for countless tragic mistakes.
Some of us still let ourselves believe that the war can do some good in Afghanistan, that our leaders' motives for escalating the war, however dominated by strategic economic concerns and geopolitical rivalries, still in some small part include the interests of the Afghan people.
There are others who know where this war will lead and know that our leaders know, and have simply become too fatigued, too drained of frightened tears by this long decade of nightmare, to hold those leaders accountable anymore for moral choices.
It's worthwhile to wonder, how did we become this pacified?
But far more important is our collective effort to approach the mirror, to stay in front of it, unflinching, and see the consequences of our mistaken acquiescence to the tragic mistakes of war, and then work, work hard, to correct our mistakes and nonviolently resist collaboration with war crimes.- Posted in


87 Comments so far
Show AllIt isn't just this war in Afghanistan, it is like this in all wars. there are no "good" wars. I am a Vietnam vet, and I can still see dead children, and live children clinging to their dead mothers. I also remember, vividly, finding parts of children.
That is war, That is every war. You don't bring freedom and democracy to any country at the point of a gun without killing many innocent people.
I have always said, "If you kill my mother or father, my sister or my brother, God forbid my child, or even my best friend down the street I'll hate you till the day I die.
We have a lot of people hating us all around this world, and they will go on hating us until the day they die.
"We have a lot of people hating us all around this world, and they will go on hating us until the day they die."
IMHO, that's been the plan since before nine one one, to foment a steady stream of "enemies" by which both wings of the "party of money and war" ( thank you, Ms. McKinney) may profit.
"The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists." Dr. King
Peace, Jack Chase
"to foment a steady stream of "enemies" by which both wings of the "party of money and war" ( thank you, Ms. McKinney) may profit."
This is a plank in the neocon platform; the neocon godfather Leo Strauss promoted this idea. It is supposedly a way to get the people to unite behind their leaders.
It is a very sick country, one that most likely should be put down like a rabid dog.
Thanks, Kent Shaw. I'd read of Strauss and his disproportionate influence, but did not know this.
Also, this Strauss idea may be the basis for what Sheldon Wolin calls "inverted totalitarianism," whereby politics is in service to economics, not the other way around.
PeaceTruthBeauty!
Jack Chase
Who was it who said, "You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it."?
to: jimmytwoshoes
You have said more in 4 paragraphs than the entire media has in 40 years. Keep on truthtelling.
Seconded.
Do the legions of adoring Obama supporters have responsibilities?
You know I'm wondering about this.
In only a year we've seen that Obama is going to continue with the Imperial juggernaut unfettered by any pesky constituents who dreamt otherwise.
In only a year we've seen Obama will gladly hand over taxpayer dollar to the proven grand bandits of Wall St. and will do so in amounts that would leave even the Bush gang green with envy.
In a mere year we've seen that the much rumored Changling has surrounded himself with a cesspool of reactionary troglodytes, the very same pariahs that have been swirling around DC for decades.
So I wonder, as we bear witness to the entire bloodthirsty American political charade what are the responsibilities of those who approached their guy Obama with nothing less than religious fervor?
Do these people not have any responsibility to hold their man's "feet to the fire?"
Do they not bear any responsibility for the criminal acts they have enabled with their tacit or vocal support for this guy?
So do they now just walk away from the voting booth with a hollow lament that their guy has been "a disappointment so far" and not bear any responsibility for his policies (in the Imperium we must callously refer to mass murder and colossal banditry as POLICY), policies which many of us described in detail long before they even became policies?
Is their any responsibility for every child who is bombed by US planes in Afghanistan?
Is their any responsibility for the Obama supported continuation of the corporate takeover of the world and for this unending financial disaster?
What about for wiretapping and rendition (both of which Obama supports)?
Are you who with cult-like devotion willing to stand behind Obama as he commits crime after crime? Don't you bear responsibility for stopping your guy Obama as he continues on this march of death?
I need to know.
mcoyote: I always look for your excellent postings, you are a wise man. I have seldom posted over the past 6 months because we all at CD seem now to be going around in circles.
Just in case few respond to your plea, I am compelled to answer your posting.
Yes, I am one of those out there who voted for Obama. Previously I had voted twice for Nader. I knew Obama was a carefully packaged candidate, but hope overcame me. Martin Luther King proved not to be a flake. I know many who had hope as well. But that does not mean that I or them have given up. I have been peace and social activist for the past 12 years. Yes, I too am pissed off! So,mcoyote, take it a little bit easier, there are millions who are disappointed but will continue to push forward in their own unique ways. Each with our own gifts.
I have just published a book, available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble in 30-45 days. That's my post election effort. I hope this book opens many doors for me to critique the "Dirty Rotten System" Dorothy Day spoke so well of. The above activist Kathy Kelly is a courageous living saint. I have walked with with her and many others who I feel sure voted for Obama.
If you or anyone else is interested, the title of my book is "CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY AND EMERGING CHRISTIANITY, An Essay By A Catholic Activist". It will not be available until at least 30-45 days.
Keep up the good fight Coyote and continue to write well.
WHY didn't you check his voting record before you voted, Stephen V. Riley?
It's all there.
Peace,
Jack Chase
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: Congratulations on your new (upcoming) book! I hope you wake up those prepared for a new awakening! Best wishes, Sioux
Kathy, thank you for citing of my work on US military atrocities, but it hardly deserves to be put in the same sentence as the incredibly courageous work of the London Times' Jerome Starkey, who is risking both Taliban violence and the wrath of the US military in order to get the stories out.
By the way, while my work appears often at Common Dreams and at Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org), the best way to find all my work is to go to www.thiscantbehappening.net
Cheers,
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave, any thoughts of adding comments capability at thiscantbehappening?
I tried it once. I just get bombarded by racists, fascists, Pentagon trolls and idiots, including people who would bomb the mail site with 100 identical rants. I found I had to spend so much time cleaning out the box from these idiots that it was debilitating, so I dropped the idea.
You need a full time person to manage a mail site if you're running a news operation. And I'm just me.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Why, because you want more contributions? We run a small organization whose contributions are totally free. IN FACT WE WOULD REFUSE ANY "GIFTS" even though our input is generously small. We spread some of the news simply because we strive to do our part for the preservation of sentient life on this planet.
I have a radical suggestion: The prosecution for war crimes not only of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but of every national leader of NATO past and present.
A pipe dream, I know.
But it would be nice to use the laws we have on the books, the treaties the nations of the world signed and ratified as national and international law to supposedly prevent wars of aggression. No one, no one can argue that the US and it's allies had any reasonable excuse to attack and invade two sovereign nations, especially after their tissue of lies for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq fell apart time after time.
Any national leader who continued these criminal acts is just as guilty as the initial perpetrator. And yes, I do include Canada's Prime Ministers in that list of international criminals.
The only reason that these criminals have not been brought to justice is the big stick the US wields called 'The Economy'. The US made it perfectly clear that any attempt to bring US war criminals to justice would result in US retaliation, either economic or military.
I say it's high time the US gets a taste of it's own medicine.
Picking up on Galenwainwright's suggestion, the New York Times actually carried a story which revealed the blantantly murderous intentions of the United States. Last Friday The Times quoted General Stanley McChrystal stating, without any subterfuge, that:
"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever been a threat."
Think about what McChrystal has said. He had commented, according to The Times, on US and NATO troops which had killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 since last summer. Those numbers do not include shooting deaths caused by convoys guarded by private security contractors. He has admitted that, despite NO AFGHANS HAVING "EVER BEEN A THREAT", those innocent people were nonetheless killed for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever. Unless I am mistaken, I do not believe McChrystal's honest statement ever received any recognition or dissection on last Sunday's talk shows. Usually US and military officials will attempt to justify the killing of Afghan civilians. Either what was a slip of the tongue or a rare admission of candor by a senior military official, there has actually been an acknowledgement that the US has unjustifiably shot and killed, in cold blood, innocent civilians. Yet the corporate media, outside of The Times, seems to have ignored this astounding declaration by McChrystal which stated, without any reservation, that the US murdered those people without just cause. Perhaps McChrystal [and Obama and company] realizes that the US can carry out these acts without fear of retribution as the media, for the most part, will simply refuse to act or it will pretend, like something from an Orwell novel, that McChrystal's words had never been spoken. Out of sight, out of mind.
"Picking up on Galenwainwright's suggestion, the New York Times actually carried a story which revealed the blantantly murderous intentions of the United States."
The U.S. seems to be punishing the entire Afghan population because it couldn't catch bin Laden when he was supposedly there. It seems to be a war driven by spite. All innocent Afghans must suffer because the Taliban, despite prior support of $300,000,000 received from the U.S., refused to turn over bin Laden without the U.S. providing some evidence of his guilt. They lost their "US Ally" status and privileges when they did not do as ordered, like all US puppets who don't toe the line.
What is being done in Afghanistan is unconscionable and horrific.
BABY KILLERS! Do "the troops" realize they have been recruited to KILL BABIES? Five years ago, eight years ago, maybe not. But, surely, those who enlist today MUST know that they will be called upon to KILL BABIES. I SPIT ON THE TROOPS.
So even McCrystal has a conscience. Would that he would give it charge of his actions!!!
Isn't that an amazing admission for an American general? He could not say anything much more revealing than that without calling for prosecution himself.
I should really think this is worth a barrage of letters to local papers and news agencies. If such an admission is not front-page news, what is?
Look into Vince Bugliosi (sp?), a very hard-nosed prosecutor (like 95-1), who prosecuted the Manson killings, and others. He wrote a book and claims he can prosecute Bush for murder, but he needs a DA somewhere in the country to bring charges. He outlined how he would do it in a book. He would be the one.
It's so much more fun to make friends than enemies. Help with building libraries, schools, clinics, water and sanitation systems is fun for everybody involved. Cooperation is the lesson nature shares with all who are willing to see. Endless war against humanity and nature has led us to the brink of environmental and social disaster. It's time to try something new. The sustainable direction is learning to cooperate and externalize profits instead of costs. Use the honey bee is a model; the bee economy makes sweet gold for internal consumption while pollinating the planet for the rest of life. Ancient bacteria patiently eked out a living with an external profit that made an atmosphere for us to live in today. Let these lessons from nature lead our brightest minds to a new way of thinking. We need to cooperate and replace corporatist war mongers, their troops will abandon them and return home to us when we learn to have more fun in qualitative social and economic growth we can share rather than fight about. If we don't do it, who will ?
American's have clearly been propagandized by the Pentagon and buttressed by American media. When a match is lit in the form of organized protest, it is quickly tamped down by government propaganda and media compliance. A social invention, i.e. a new more effective method of protest needs to be invented to counter the government/media advantage. It will take a well known courageous individual to step forward and coordinate an effort. These people will not step forward unless they are sure that organized groups will support them and participate in common action. Many of these groups are not-for-profit corporate entities and fearful of losing their government provided corporate not-for-profit status. So it seems that more loosely associated groups need to take the lead. It all comes down to risk taking by committed individuals organizing in thousands of small decentralized groups coordinated by a common message. That is not yet happening.
Why is it that our endlessly studious policy makers fail to take the lesson that Ms. Kelly has taught? The way to pacify Afghans is to treat them like the American public which is incredibly pacified as Ms. Kelly points out.
"The way to pacify Afghans is to treat them like the American public which is incredibly pacified."
Neither the environment nor the economy can withstand another America.
*Comment deleted by site administrators for using all capital letters*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
I think it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY Einstein CAPITALIZED seemingly random words, there's no way he would be SO FUCKING ANNOYING.
Exhibit 1A: "....and in this way encourages the SELFISH INSTINCTS of humans while Diminishing the Social instincts..."
Why is 'Diminishing' capitalized? I'm confused.
"as Albert Einstein said so well:
"MAN can only find true meaning in life in Service to society.' "
ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
Our policy makers make the policies they're told by the overlords to make. You still think this is a functional democracy (when corporations own both parties and the voting machines to boot)?
Who said anything about a functional democracy? The reference to 'endlessly studious policy makers' may be altered to 'the overlords' without affecting my point.
"It's worthwhile to wonder, how did we become this pacified?"
- Possibly, by creating a country of citizens that is so concerned abut keeping their jobs, putting food on the table, and paying their bills (there are benefits to politicians for going on vacation without passing an unemployment extension); and meanwhile, having corporate media fill out minds with meaningless junkfood types of reports; rather than real news.
Yes indeed Progressive,
and we can add stressed about living in one of the most violent socieities and stressed about affording health care. Even if one has insurance, if something happens, the deductibles and co-pays can bankrupt you very quickly.
I (and others) believe the USA to be the most heavily propagandized (PR'ed) nation on earth. The money spent here for media spin, public relations, advertising and "lobbying" is more than most of the rest of world combined.
Why limit the atrocities of the United States to Afghanistan?
1.2 million Iraqis died in an illegal war and no tears were shed by America. 4-5 million Iraqis are now homeless refugees, but nothing on msm calls for empathy and symphathy for those poor souls.
But then again, 4.5 million Vietnamese were slaughtered in America's quest for communist free South East Asia, and the only pity there was went to the American soldiers who were trying to fit back in. 1 million of those Vietnamese bore arms, but they were no less innocent.
Even though John McCain knowningly led 23 A-4 Skyhawk squadron bombing missions over innocent civilian targets in that Vietnam War - thereby killing more innocent civilians than all Al Qaeda attacks put together - the neocons marched this nitwit up like a hero and America bought it and still does.
After Sukarno was overthrown in 1967 with CIA tutoring, a million Indonesians(Muslims all of them) were slaughtered while the USA stood by.
The 1955 overthrow of Mossadeque in Iran, the 1956 overthrow of Guzman in Guatemala, and the 1973 overthrow of Allende in Chile resulted in tens of thousands of 'leftist' innocent civilian lives lost, but who in American msm ever even brought this to front page news? Ah heck, they were all commies anyway. Why pity them - they didn't have mothers did they?
And don't get me started on Palestine and our latest psuedo shot across the bow of Israeli oppression.
I don't blame Bin Laden for bombing the United States - we had it coming and we have a lot more coming. Bin Laden won, and he is gloating about it.
Yes, but even the FBI does not claim they have any proof that OBL did it. The huge amount of circumstantial evidence and motives point to an inside job.
Just ask the question, "who benefits" from 9/11?
Check out the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" (Adam Curtis, BBC2 2004) available on:
http://www.documentary-film.net/search/video-listings.php?e=68
Also "New American Century" is a more recent documentary that is great
http://www.documentarywire.com/the-new-american-century
Even without researching it, one thing is crystal clear: the official story of 9-11 is irrational and false and there is a clear history of false flag or pre-knowledge of attacks that the US used to start a war. It is textbook.
The USS Maine was a false flag
USS Liberty was a false flag
FDR knew about the impending Pearl Harbor attack beforehand
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was false flag
The Lusitania incident was as well.
No matter what one thinks about 911 one thing is very,very, true about American history: We cannot believe anything we are told by our Government... and one needs to believe that everything they tell us is untrue until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
The Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat U20. There is no doubt it was a German sub, they admitted it, they celebrated it, they even struck commemorative medals for it. It was not a false flag operation. OTOH, the Lusitania did contain contraband weapons (rifles) and ammunition bound for Britain that were secreted aboard before launch. Technically, she was a legitimate target for the sub although not an ethical one.
You are right JohnShade, but we can still say that: the RMS Lusitania was a British ship, it was loaded with ammunition and explosive material, the Germans issued a warning before it was sunk. It seems this was a provocation to provide an excuse to enter the war on the side of France/UK. There was also a lot of pressure to go to war against Britain for illegally boarding US merchant ships. At that time, one must remember, there was a lot of mistrust of the British Empire in the US Congress. The incident worked quite well to bring the US into the war.
"the RMS Lusitania was a British ship"
Of Course. It flew a British flag. Royal Mail Ship Lusitania.
"it was loaded with ammunition and explosive material,"
True.
"the Germans issued a warning before it was sunk"
True.
"It seems this was a provocation to provide an excuse to enter the war on the side of France/UK."
Non sequitor. How is sinking a ship of a belligerent country, loaded with munitions a false flag operation. It is simple warfare.
You are incorrect on there being pressure to go to war with Britain in WWI there was a large neutral push, none of any note to go to war with Britain.
The incident did work towards bringing in the US to the war, but it was not the main cause nor was it a false flag operation. Just wasn't.
I already said that you were right, what more do you want, just to argue for its own sake?
It seems I did not articulate my point properly. We can argue about how US banking interests wanted to ensure that the UK won to minimize their potential losses and wanted the US to enter on the side of Britain, but no matter.
The bottom line remains the same, you did not dispute the overall claim of my message.
Mookie:
While there's much in your post with which I agree, I beg to differ in at least a couple of respects:
A) No matter what we've done abroad, the United States did not deserve 9/11.
B) While Israel's policies in West Bank, Gaza Strip, along with their illegal settlement building and horrible treatment of Palestinian civilians on the whole is atrocious, it's also true, that, in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, both sides have contributed in no small way(s) over the years to their misery and suffering, if one looks at the whole history of the conflict.
Inotherwords, neither side is blameless.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
The question Amurkans should ask themselves is not "how did we become this pacified" but how did be become this infantile.
"If the U.S. public looked long and hard into a mirror reflecting the civilian atrocities that have occurred in Afghanistan, over the past ten months..."
The U.S. public would yawn and get back to the Playstation.
"It's worthwhile to wonder, how did we become this pacified?"
That's a simple one - We The People weren't pacified - we chose voluntary pacification because its, like, so much easier to go along, to live in ignorance and delusion, and to screech 'God Bless America and My Gun' at an evil liberal every once in a while...
Funny how Big Corporate Media has no problem showing literally piles of dead, mangled Haitians, or dozens of blown-up Russians, or hundreds of murdered Nigerians. But KIA Afghans? Iraqis? Pakistanis? US soldiers?
Prohibited. Because The Owners of The Place know it wouldn't take but a few weeks of pics and vids of KIA/WIA American soldiers and civilian kids and women to end these USA for-profit non-war wars...
If we had a checkbox of Gov. services where our tax dollars are allowed to be spent. We will have a much more affect on priorities we place on our Government services.
Using tax dollars to shed blood without our personal acceptance should be outlawed.
My adrenal glands want me to agree with this. But my brain tells me to re-read "Andersonville" by MacKinlay Kantor and relearn the lesson of what "Americans" were capable of doing to each other during the Civil War. This reading, by the way, is what I used to get me through the intense emotions caused by "The Iranian Hostage Crisis."
The optimist says: "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came".
The pessimist says: "Suppose they gave an Evolution - - - -."
Trylon
I spend a fair amount of time watching or reading the alternative press and blogs, Democracy Now, Free Speach Radio, Commondreams, Counterpunch, Antiwar.com (print and podcasts), Sibel Edmonds, Dissident Voice, etc. The information can be overwhelming as well as infuriating, "Why is nothing being done about all this shit happening?" Few, very few, are actively engaged in spreading the word and trying to raise awareness.
Some weeks ago I went back east to spend time with family and friends, most are educated and liberal minded. I didn't bring my computer so was unable to read or listen to my usual daily info. I was at the mercy of whatever everyone else was listening to or reading. Occasionally someone would watch the evening news or, while driving, half halfheartedly listen to NPR, but that was it, for two weeks. I was shocked at the paltry pits of genuine news that is out there and how corporately distorted most mainstream news is. I guess I knew that at some level but, unless living as most Americans live, it's not that obvious how in the dark they are.
I brought up the topic of Iraq with a seemingly intelligent person, his response? "Are we still there? didn't Obama pull the troops out of there?"
And really, when was the last time Iraq was mentioned in the MSM, or even the alternative press? So his ignorance about Iraq is understandable.
The wars are far way. So few really care and so very few see the connection of their dwindling wealth to the massive military machine that is sucking away at the life blood of the nation.
Even the few who do see it, don't want to talk about it. I was hushed several times by persons I thought I could talk to. "Why do you keep bringing this war up, there's nothing we can do about it anyway, you're making yourself unhappy thinking about it". "Don't be so negative".
And so the wars continue. Obama, in a spiffy leather flight jacket, in Bagram, rallying the troops, "Americans don't quit!" Rah, Rah, hear the applause.
I know some heroin addicts that don't quit either.
H.L. Mencken: "No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
P.T. Barnum: “More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much”
Barbara Ehrenreich is an expert on the relentless promotion of shallow, passive positivity in contemporary America via drug companies, psychological frauds, corporate human resource tools, phony self-improvement gurus, half-assed step programs, etc.
Here's a link to her take on this subject:
http://www.alternet.org/health/143187
METAL.....
it's uncanny how i was thinking of the HL Mencken quote just before going online - and then there it was on your post!
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H. L. Mencken
Q,
Well said--thanks for sharing. I agree with you. I know such people too--they rely on the MSM for their news.
I feel as though we're being shut out.
Chelsea
Nice post, Q.