5 Similarities That "American Sniper" Has With Nazi Propaganda

     Seth Rogen likes being controversial. It's good PR. Just weeks after almost starting WW3 with his movie "The Interview," Rogen is back in the news, for some comments made about the movie "American Sniper."
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/01/19/seth-rogen-michael-moore-blast-american-sniper/21988391/
     This is the phrase I'm going to be analyzing: "American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglorious Bastards."
     The movie he is referring to is Nazi propaganda. So he's comparing American Sniper to Nazi propaganda. Before even sitting down and researching as to whether he was right or wrong, many pro-military zealots, (who support the military no matter how many democracies they topple or how many puppet governments they install or how many civilians they kill on purpose), started bashing Rogen for being unappreciative of the military, a traitor to his country, a liberal Nazi, etc, etc.
      It's really sad that people jump down each other throats without even thinking. They deem any criticism of the military as unpatriotic and untrue automatically 100% all of the time, without even stopping, calming down, sitting down, and figuring out if it is valid criticism or not. In their eyes, the military can literally do no wrong. They are angels. As soon as you show a valid, clear example of a service member doing something wrong, they yell in your face "YOU'RE UNPATRIOTIC. YOU'RE UN-AMERICAN. YOU'RE A TRAITOR. IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR MILITARY, THEN JUST LEAVE THIS COUNTRY." Because when you really look at the facts, you actually see that Rogen is right. So let's go through this slowly, with rationality and logic, one step at a time.

     First, let's look at the similarities between the Iraq war and the wars the Nazis started to gain territory before WW2 started. In the Iraq war, we had the American government fabricating tens of thousands of pages of fake intel to mislead the American people. They claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, (which we never found), that Iraq was helping Al-Qaida, (they weren't), that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, (they weren't), that Iraq was a threat to America, (they weren't), etc, etc, I mean this was a massive effort. Hundreds of people at the head of the Bush Administration and various government agencies were in on it. The U.S. did this so that the American people would support their invasion and occupation of Iraq.
     Germany did the exact same thing in their wars of aggression and territory grabbing just prior to WW2. They lied time after time to the German people, and the world, making up lies as a pretense to invade Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc. Hitler said that German people were being persecuted and oppressed there, (they weren't), so it was okay for Germany to invade to help them, that land originally belonged to Germany in the first place so it was Germany's right to have that land, (it wasn't), that the Jews were masterminding to destroy Germany, (they weren't). I mean this was a massive effort. Hundreds of people at the head of the Hitler Administration and various government agencies were in on it. Germany did this so that the German people would support their invasion and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc.
     Okay, so that's one similarity, but one similarity is not enough to associate anything with anything. Hitler drank water, and you drink water, so that means you're a potential mass murderer!! No, that's not how it works. We need more similarities.

     The second similarity is that America invaded Iraq on false pretenses, set up an undemocratic government there that would do anything America says because America controlled it, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, stole their natural resources, most notably oil, broke dozens of different universal human rights that the Iraqi people are entitled to have, kidnapped thousands of innocent people during their occupation, raping and torturing them for seemingly no reason at all other than to brutally force the population to submit. They did all of this, while the media made America out to be the victim! That's right, the media twisted just about everything to make it look the aggressor, the liar, was the victim.
      For example, an American patrol would be on their route, and come under attack by Iraqi insurgents. Some American soldiers would die in the fight. The media would make it out to be like the Americans were doing nothing wrong, that they were just innocent victims just walking along minding their own business, and the evil savage Iraqi terrorists killed them just because they are American Christians!
      This charade of making the aggressor look like the victim is portrayed in "American Sniper." Just look at the trailer. You're supposed to feel for the wife who is listening to her husband's convoy being under attack. Chris Kyle was just a pure American hero when he came under attack by those evil savages!
      Completely devoid in the trailer, or in the movie for that matter, is any context or scenario/location information. Kyle in an occupying soldier. He is a foreigner on someone else's land. Kyle is a foot soldier in the oppression of the Iraqi people. He is the muscle that is protecting the American occupation and the puppet Iraqi government. He is a small part in the big reason why the Iraqi people are dying over lies, why their universal human rights are being repressed by the occupation and the puppet Iraqi government. His patrol, trying to control the Iraqi people, is enforcing the torture, the kidnappings, the rapes, the oppression, the denial of basic human rights. Without his presence on the streets, the Iraqi government would collapse.
      The Iraqi insurgents are portrayed as savages. They are not humanized. They are not given depth, character, reason, etc. They are one faced, one dimensional monsters that only exist to kill Americans. The movie completely leaves out the fact that it is completely logical and rational to take up arms against a fascist corrupt government and a foreign occupation that is supporting it. In fact, it is an American value. Our country was born out of our fighting a corrupt puppet government and a foreign occupation that supported it. The pro-military crowd regularly spout that it is their right to use force in self-defense or when their rights are being violated. But, exposing their double standard, they don't believe every person, regardless of race or creed, gets to enjoy that right. White Christians enjoy that right, in their mind, but brown Muslims do not. That's why they demonize the Iraqi insurgents, even though they are doing the exact same thing that they would do if America was invaded by another country, and a puppet government was set up in Washington D.C.
      Everyday Americans from all backgrounds would employ the same tactics used by the Iraqis (i.e. roadside bombs, suicide vests, urban warfare, women/children, etc...) against any foreign aggressor. Why should Iraqis tolerate American tanks rolling down their streets when the very same Americans wouldn't tolerate Iraqi (or any foreign military's) tanks rolling down theirs?
      Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests." Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence. Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.
     Compare that to Nazi propaganda. Nazi Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia on false pretenses, set up an undemocratic government there that would do anything Germany says because Germany controlled it, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process, stole their natural resources, broke dozens of different universal human rights that the Austrian and Czech people are entitled to have, kidnapped thousands of innocent people during their occupation, raping and torturing them for seemingly no reason at all other than to brutally force the population to submit. They did all of this, while the media made Germany out to be the victim! That's right, the media twisted just about everything to make it look the aggressor, the liar, was the victim.
      For example, a German patrol would be on their route, and come under attack by Austrian or Czech insurgents. Some German soldiers would die in the fight. The Nazi media would make it out to be like the Germans were doing nothing wrong, that they were just innocent victims just walking along minding their own business, and the evil savage Austrian or Czech terrorists killed them just because they are blonde and blue eyed Germans!
     See, word for word, it happened exactly the same in both cases. All I changed was the identity of the actors. But the actions were exactly the fucking same. "American Sniper" practically elevates invading US soldiers to civilian status and natives who target the armed invaders are evil terrorists. Okay, so that's two major similarities down. Let's keep going.

     Pro-military zealots often use the phrase "The military is over there, dying to protect our freedoms, which were under threat." What a load of complete and utter fucking bullshit. No one has been able to answer my question "What American freedoms did Iraq threaten or break? What oppression did Iraq lay unto us? What rights of yours were being infringed on by Iraq?"
     No one has ever been able to answer that question, because the answer is NOTHING. FUCKING NOTHING. Iraq was doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to us at all. So the zealots continue to spout lies. Lies. Lies! LIES!!
     Nazi zealots did the exact fucking thing. Hitler ranted on about how neighboring countries were oppressing Germany, and how the rights of German people in Austria were being threatened, therefore, he had an obligation to invade Austria. ALL FUCKING LIES.
     Wow, that's 3 similarities now. We're on a roll.

     The 4th similarity is that America had an overwhelmingly more powerful military than Iraq. We had tanks, jet fighters, artillery, satellites, APCs, the most powerful military in the world. What do the Iraqi insurgents have to combat this? AK47s. RPGs. Homemade bombs. Grenades. It's not even comparable firepower. It's like comparing a gnat to an elephant. And yet through this seemingly incredibly one sided fight, "American Sniper" makes it out to be that Kyle and the Iraqi insurgents are fighting on equal terms, that he is in just as much danger as the insurgents are, that he is fighting against overwhelming odds, that he is the vulnerable good guy going into danger for the greater good, etc, etc. Michael Moore called snipers cowards. He's right. It's not brave to go after people with pea shooters when you have artillery and jet fighters and stealth bombers and attack helicopters to back you up in case you get your ass whooped. The other guy doesn't have any of that to back him up. He just has the gun in his hands, maybe a grenade or two, and that's fucking it. Oh, what danger you're in! That's why we only lost less than 5,000 troops in 8 years of fighting, when we killed over 26,000 of them in the same time frame.
     Do you know what is brave though? Going against the powerful military in the world, going up against APCs and tanks and radar artillery armed with only an AK47 and an RPG. That's courage. That's dedication. It's the Iraqi insurgents that were brave, not Kyle. They didn't flinch going into battle knowing that against such overwhelming odds that they were most likely going to die. An American going into the same battle wasn't most likely going to die. Most likely he would live. 
     Guess what? Nazi Germany did the exact same thing. They had the most powerful military in Europe. They had tanks, artillery, bombers, etc, etc. What did Austrian and Czech insurgents have? Bolt action rifles. Submachine guns. And yet through this seemingly incredibly one sided fight, Nazi propaganda makes it out to be that Germans and the Austrian and Czech insurgents are fighting on equal terms, that the Germans is in just as much danger as the insurgents are, that he is fighting against overwhelming odds, that he is the vulnerable good guy going into danger for the greater good, etc, etc.   

     The 5th and last similarity is that the films conveniently omit any flaws, any negatives, any bigotry, about the soldiers that they elevate to God like status. Kyle is shown as fully human, likable, complex, multidimensional, etc. There is absolutely no negative aspects about him shown on camera at all. He is, like the pro-military zealots believe, perfect, flawless, utterly impossible to do wrong. The movie conveniently leaves all these parts out about how Kyle was:      

Substitute "Koran" for "Bible." Would you like someone who said that about your holy book?

     Likewise, no Iraqi is shown as likeable, complex, multidimensional, capable of showing anything but hate. But the Iraqi insurgents are people just like you, me, and Kyle. They have jobs, they have families, they have problems, they have lives, they have little quirks in their personality, etc. But no, the movie paints them as all, one tracked minded killers.
     The same thing happened in Nazi propaganda. The Nazi soldiers are shown as likeable, human, complex, capable of thought, opinion, etc, even though they, in reality, are murdering civilians by the millions. And the Jews? No, they're subhuman. Rats. Greedy rats. All they do is scheme and plot against the poor innocent blonde Germans. That's all they do. The French resistance? Terrorists, killers, unhuman, evil, etc. 
    Look at some of the reactions people had after the film:

 

    Now, substitute the words "ragheads", "Arabs," and "Muslims" with any other religion or any race. 

• "Teared up at the end of American Sniper. Great fucking movie and now I really want to kill some fucking Jews."
• "American Sniper makes me wanna go shoot some fucking Christians."
• "Nice to see a movie where the white people are portrayed for who they really are- vermin scum intent on destroying us."
• American Sniper made me appreciate soldiers 100x more and hate black people 1,000,000 more." 

     In conclusion, there you have it. A step by step analysis of why Rogen's comments are actually true, and that the only reason why people see them as "incendiary" or "offensive" is because they want no one to criticize the military no matter what they do. People will counter with "Well, it's the politicians who started the war, the military didn't start it at all, they were just following orders." That is true, but that simply dodging the subject. The military still committed crimes. They should've said "No, that is against my American values. I took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not the current government, administration, or president. Attacking a country based on lies is against the Constitution. Installing a puppet government is against the Constitution. Killing innocents is against the Constitution. Killing people who are simply protecting their lands against foreign occupiers is the against the Constitution."
     But they didn't. Some soldiers refused to go, but not a lot. The ones who refused to go are the heroes. But the majority of American soldiers still followed their traitorous orders without question. The politicians would not have been able to put in a puppet government if they troops didn't invade Iraq and overthrow the government.    
     The pro-military zealots will say "Not all American service members have killed innocents." True. I never said otherwise. But there were plenty of Nazis who never killed an innocent either. They were either an office worker or a soldier who got wounded before he shot anyone else. That doesn't mean the Nazi party, as an entity, is not an evil and despicable organization. 
     It's not insulting to say that the military doesn't fight to protect our freedom. The pro-military fanatics want us to believe that, as to shut down as criticism of the military's actions before the criticism can even be stated. We are not allowed to explore the topic because it is "offensive" to suggest anything otherwise. I'm not saying it to offend anyone. I researched the topic, and I can find no freedom that Iraq was taking away from us or that was even under threat from Iraq, that the American military got back for us. If it's offensive for me to simply ask the question "What freedom did the American military fight for in Iraq" then you have to seriously ask yourself what type of society we have created here. Certainly doesn't sound free to me, we can't even ask questions.

Obama needs a Foreign Policy 101

      Since my Associates and Bachelor degrees were in International Studies and Global Affairs, respectively, it's fair to say that I know a lot about the subject. No, I'm not an expert, but I have this thing that most politicians lack called "common sense." I look at Obama's foreign policy and weep. I mean this guy doesn't even try. It is a disaster for everyone in the world...except Obama and the 1%: the mainstream media, the military industrial complex, the rich Democrat CEOs, etc. So that's why he continues to do it, even though, by all standards, it sucks.  It sows destruction throughout the world while the rich overlords reap the benefits. It makes people around the world hate us, which, they have every reason to, given all of the death, oppression, torture, repression, and suffering we cause deliberately with our self-centered foreign policy.
      What would I do differently than Obama? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me count the ways.
   
     1. Push for the legalization of marijuana. 
     Wait, but this a domestic issue, right? That's what you're thinking, right? Well, it is, but it has grave foreign policy implications for all of South America, especially Mexico. By keeping marijuana illegal in the states, we give the drug cartels in Mexico more money and power, because we create a vacuum of ways people can get marijuana legally. The cartel fills that vacuum. If marijuana was legal, American consumers wouldn't need to go to a drug dealer that gets his drugs from the cartels. They would go down the street to a legal American store, that employes legal workers and pays taxes, to buy some marijuana. That marijuana would be grown legally by U.S. farmers.
     The report and evidence is all right here for anyone to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/pot-legalization-opium-mexico_n_5112869.html. Legalization in just two states have taken a significant chunk out of the cartels' profit. They hate legalization. Imagine if we made it legal everywhere in the U.S.? Bam, the cartels couldn't stay in business. They'd fold, and thousands of Mexicans would live because the cartels wouldn't be around to kill them.
     This post will not go into the domestic issues surrounding marijuana legalization, as that is a post for another time. This is solely looking at the international implications of such a decision.
     Critics of my idea would say "Oh, well, the cartels will simply shift to another way to make money, such as selling and moving cocaine, heroin, etc." Fine, make all of that legal. Where in the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot use cocaine? You're violating peoples' right to use what they want to. You think using heroin is immoral? Perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to do it. But don't expect to shove your opinion down other peoples' throats, and make them believe that using it is immoral. You are entitled to your opinions and to act on them, as long as they don't violate other peoples' human rights. You are not entitled to make your opinion the law of the land just because you think it is a good idea. This isn't Saudi Arabia.
      So this leads to #2, which is:

     2. Stop financing and training the Mexican military, as well as every other South American military.
      When we train militaries to go and kidnap people, torture them, rape them, oppress them, deny them their basic human rights, and kill them, then we are just as responsible for those crimes as the ones that commit them. If we hadn't given them the training and weapons, then they would not be able to carry out those crimes. Yes, perhaps Mexico would go to Russia or China for training and/or funding, but at least the suffering and killing would not be on our hands, on our conscience. We could say we had nothing to do with it. We would not be responsible for the crimes.
     Look at all of the reports on the Mexican military, how much they oppress and make their own people suffer. You'll never hear about this in the mainstream media, for their overlords could never allow Mexico, our "ally," to look bad.
     http://www.hrw.org/americas/mexico
     http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
     http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/4/amnesty-internationaltortureinmexico.html
     Do you want your hard earned tax money to give these thugs weapons and training? Huh? What do you say, Obama supporters? Sure seems like you all just love killing and oppressing innocent people who are just minding their own fucking God damn business. Fucking fascists.
     Look at how much money we've given those fucking fascists down in Mexico City over the years:

 

     My opinion doesn't just apply to Mexico. We give weapons and training to many Latin American countries who abuse them the same way Mexico does. Honduras, Columbia, Guatemala, fuck them all, stop all military sales and training until they stop oppressing and killing their own people.You can find dozens of reports on any South American country that we give weapons and training to, just like the reports I linked above the picture. Just type "Honduran military human rights abuses" or "Columbia military human rights abuses" etc, and you will find all the information you need. 

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/15/mexico-drugs-us-military/12535271/

     Remember, if Obama did #1 of my suggestions, the cartels would cease to exist, or, at the very least, be a shell of their former selves in terms of power. With them weak and dying, we don't need to pump money and weapons to South American countries to fight the "War on Drugs" anymore.

     But, here's the thing that the Democrats never, EVER, want to talk about. Obama doesn't want the War on Drugs to end. In fact, no one in power in the United States government wants the War on Drugs to end. It's making them too much money. It's giving them too much power. Why would they want it to stop? 

 

     3. Get the fuck out of Somalia.

     We've been in this failed state for decades now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's exactly what we've been doing in Somalia. We're just killing terrorists and protecting the crony government there. And look at where's that has gotten them. Oh yeah, we sure a big help!

      Every time we kill a "terrorist" (some insurgents may be ordinary people who are fed up with the corrupt government that oppresses them, in that case, we're fighting people who have a legitimate reason to fight the Somalian government), we just create 10 more people willing to fight the Somalian government and us. Friends and family of the deceased will be angry and take up arms. Kill 1, create 10, oh yeah, great plan. 

     There is no group we can morally back in the decades long civil war. The Somalian government is just as bad as the terrorist group it fights. Just look at any of these human rights reports done on it:

     http://www.hrw.org/africa/somalia 

     http://www.refworld.org/publisher,HRW,,SOM,,,0.html 

     http://www.progressio.org.uk/sites/progressio.org.uk/files/human-rights-in-somaliland.pdf 

     4. End all foreign aid to every single country. 

     We need that money here at home. Even if it is not a lot of money compared to our national budget, it is still money that is being used to slaughter innocents. We cannot have that on our conscience, as I talked about in #2. The U.S., by law, is not allowed to finance terrorist organizations. It's time we actually enforced that law. Plus, morally, we cannot give weapons to terrorists and fascists so they can go and kill innocent civilians. Is that where you want your tax dollars to go to?: Torturing a teenager into giving a false confession? The rape of a woman? The murder of a father? No, didn't think so. 

 

     Cut off every single one of these damn countries! They all oppress their own citizens or citizens of other nations. They kill civilians, they deny people their basic human rights. They have secret police that kidnap people in the dead of night. No fucking more!!! We could've used that $14.5 billion in 2013 for any of a hundred other better programs or causes.

     5. Send NATO into Ukraine to protect its sovereignty against Russia.
     I know, such a radical idea, right?? Since when is defending freedom and human rights against a foreign aggressor who wants to put in a puppet dictator that supports said foreign aggressor deemed "radical"? Ask yourself, how did we come to this point in our global society: Where doing such an action is considered "radical" or "extreme"? Isn't it sad that our liberal wussy society is so scared about getting into a fight with a country that could actually fight back that they label such a noble act "radical"?
     Listen, it's really quite simple. U.S. foreign policy should be based on the premise that we reward and support countries that act on our ideals and morals: democracy, human rights, etc. We should shun and oppose countries that act against our ideals and morals: dictatorships, terrorism, apartheid, wars of aggression, etc.
     We apply this logic to the Ukraine/Russia situation. The Ukrainians overthrew a leader that was oppressing them, corrupt, and a fascist. Our morals tell us that the Ukrainians had the right to do that, and that they followed in the example of our founding fathers by doing so. Russia was furious that their pro-Russian stooge was overthrown, so, rather than try and develop a close relationship with the new Ukrainian government, they would rather invade to try and put another pro-Russian stooge in power so that they can control him. Our morals tell us that Russia is in the wrong. We cannot have any interaction with a country who does that. We tried to solve this problem peacefully, but Russia has broken the cease-fire several times. They engage in "diplomacy" only to create another scenario where they can trick their opponents into getting more of what Russia wants. It has shown us that we cannot trust the Putin administration. This has nothing to do with race or religion, it has everything to do with the specific actions the Putin government has taken.
     But Ukraine isn't part of NATO, you say. Well, that is correct. They are not part of NATO. But they have applied to become part of NATO. So NATO should accept their membership and then defend them against aggressor like they do any other NATO member country.
     Critics will say that a NATO/Russia war will be devastating, and therefore, my idea is completely stupid. Well, it will be devastating, I am not denying that fact. But I will argue that it would be worth it. If this is what it takes to finally teach Russia a lesson that they can't just make up shit and invade countries based on blatant LIES, then so be it. It'll be on Russia's head, not NATO's, all of the death and destruction that would happen. Russia escalated this conflict, not Ukraine or NATO. Ukraine would've never overthrown "President" Yanukovych if he hadn't oppressed them, kidnapped them, tortured them, and killed them for simply asking for basic human rights.

    6. DO NOT BOMB ISIS!!!
    This war will be horrible for everyone except Obama, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry robber barons, which is exactly why he declared war on ISIS, (well, not formally, like, asking Congress's permission to do so. Apparently that is SO 1940's, and "not needed" in the 21st century). I will explain how it will benefit or hurt every single group involved in this conflict.

• The Iraqi people: Obama said he entered this war for "the Iraqi people." Note: aggressors and imperialists always say they are fighting "for the good of the people" to make their bloodthirsty campaign sound legitimate. But the U.S. will only make the Iraqi people suffer more. How? 1. U.S. warplanes always miss their targets a number of times during a bombing campaign. It happens to everyone, not just the U.S. But eventually, the U.S. will hit civilians, either on accident or on purpose. They will cause civilians to die because it is impossible to hit your targets 100% in a chaotic battlefield. 2. By weakening ISIS, Obama will ensure the survival of the Iraqi government, which, remember, oppresses and kills its own civilians ALL THE FUCKING GOD DAMN TIME. See my past post on how horrible the Iraqi government is, and, based on our morals, we cannot support them any longer: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-should-us-do-about-isiss-advance.html. 3. Each ISIS death at the hands of the U.S. will enrage their family and friends, causing even more recruits for ISIS. They will want to fight even harder and slay even more innocent Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust which was fueled by their friend or family member's death at the hands of U.S. bombs. 
• The U.S.: The world will see the U.S. bombing yet again more Muslims in an attempt to protect an oppressive, corrupt puppet government. This will enrage Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They will flock once again back to Iraq and Syria to fight "the good fight." As if we didn't need the Muslim world more pissed off at us. Just like the 2003 Iraq war drew in thousands of fighters from around the world to fight the imperialistic U.S. occupation, so will this conflict. We have 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq right now, and more come every month or so. How long before ISIS attacks them? ISIS has anti-air weapons in its arsenal. How long before they shoot down one of our aircraft? Nothing gives a morale booster like shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, which seems invincible by the sight of men armed with assault rifles, with a missile that cost a couple of thousand dollars. The world will continue to isolate us as a result of our imperialistic, blood spilling actions. We haven't defeated the Taliban in 13 years. What makes you think we can defeat ISIS, who is a lot stronger than the Taliban, any faster? This will just accelerate attacks on Western civilians worldwide as well as U.S. soldiers. 
• The Syrian people. Yes, ISIS commits barbaric acts of terrorism and oppression against the Syrian people. No one in denying that. But by weakening ISIS, you are strengthening another entity it is fighting: the Assad government. And the Assad government is just as bad as ISIS, despite what the mainstream media says. In fact, the Assad government has caused infinite more times death and destruction because it has been around for decades. ISIS has only been around 2 or 3 years. Assad kidnaps people, ISIS kidnaps people. Assad tortures people, ISIS tortures people. Assad beheads people, ISIS beheads people. Assad kills people simply for their religion, ISIS kills people simply for their religion. They are one in the same, and our morals tell us that we cannot support either entity. 
• The military-industrial complex: Oh they're loving this. Killing and maiming is their business, and with this newest war, business is good! (Yes I quoted Dave Mustaine, deal with it bitches). This war means more ludicrous contracts for companies producing weapons, vehicles, and hardware for the U.S. military. This means more opportunities to test their weapons. This means the politicians will push for more defense spending, because anyone who is against more defense spending is obviously a liberal terrorist (heavy sarcasm). 
• The oil industry: Pushing ISIS off the oil fields of Iraq and letting the puppet Iraq government take back control of them is perfect for the oil industry. Now they can continue to steal Iraq's natural resources and sell them for ridiculous prices so they can lavish in their unbridled wealth!

     To end, this article sums up why Obama's ISIS speech was an utter and complete load of fucking horseshit:  http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/barack-obama-islamicstatestrategyspeech.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow 

     7. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. 

     We have been in Afghanistan for 13 YEARS. That's since I was in 6th grade for crying out loud. More than half of my life we have been in this stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary war. Al-Qaeda wanted us to get stuck in Afghanistan for years, and guess what, our stupid incompetent leaders fell for it. They did 9/11 so we'd get stuck fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, (btw, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two completely different organizations. Contrary to the mainstream media, the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11). In the meantime, Al-Qaeda spread to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The Afghanistan War was one of the best things to happen to Al-Qaeda.

     We're wasting billions and billions of dollars every year by staying in Afghanistan, while all of our efforts are making Americans less safe, not more safe. The war has tarnished our international image, making us the laughing stock of the world because our military cannot defeat men hiding in caves with AK-47s and goats. The war has been a gathering point for jihadists all over the world to hone in their skills so they can create more mayhem and death in other parts of the world. The military-industrial complex is loving the war though. 13 years of solid business with the military and related government agencies. 13 years to test out all their various weapons. 13 years of happy senators passing big "defense" bills. 

     If we really wanted to defeat Al-Qaeda, we would have to do it a completely different way that neither Obama nor Bush has done. But instead, we sought out to put in a puppet government in Afghanistan, that is corrupt and oppressive, so we can control it, and, in the process, control it's vast mineral wealth for ourselves, as well as control a strategic point in Asia.

     So there you have it, Obama's foreign policy 101 that he will never do because that would actually help spread freedom and stop suffering throughout the world. No, he'd rather kill people and plunder countries so he can line his already fat pockets with even more money. No one is going to stop him. The Democrats cheer him on as he continues to slaughter thousands, and the Republicans would do the same thing if they were in charge, (they proved that with Reagen and Bush). America feeds off chaos and death around the world. Because, who would sell weapons to terrorists, put in puppet governments, and steal resources if we didn't do it?!       

         

    

   

     
      

What should the U.S. do about ISIS's advance in Iraq? Absolutely nothing.

     The hot topic of the month is how Iraq is falling to Al-Qaida, but even that headline isn't exactly correct and is problematic at best. Everyone, including several people who no one should pay attention to, (we'll get that), is giving their opinion about what the U.S. should do in Iraq. You know my answer is?
      Absolutely nothing. Here's why.
      First of all, let's get something out of the way. Do not listen to any advice given by the likes of Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Sean Hannity, etc, about what we should do in Iraq now. Given how utterly disastrous the Iraq war was, why the fuck would anyone listen to the same people who orchestrated it and supported it? It's like watching a drunk person crash a car, them get right out, and say "Okay let me teach you how to drive a car."
      Okay, so now that we're done with that tangent, let's go onto the actual reasons.

     1. There is no one that, morally, we can back in this fight. Both sides are awful, disgusting, terrible, bloodthirsty, and power hungry organizations that do not care about how many people they have to oppress or kill to get what they want. Both ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), and the Maliki government have committed acts of terrorism, oppression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. ISIS has killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, oppressed the people they rule with a harsh and brutal mockery of Sharia law, oh, and they share the same ideology as Al-Qaida, as if you didn't need more reason to hate these people.
     Contrary to what the media implies by its sheer silence on this, the Maliki government is not any better than ISIS. That's right: the government we put into power and have wasted billions of dollars on is just as bad as Al-Qaida. Now you wonder why people hate us, and don't want us to "help" anywhere else in the world with our money and guns? I mean, imagine if another country kept on overthrowing distant and weak governments to put in Al-Qaida puppet governments.
       See what some human rights organizations have to say about this wonderful Maliki government we've imposed on the Iraqi people in the name of "freedom and democracy":
      "30,000 Iraqis are held without trial or charge. Some are denied access to doctors and medications, and many are tortured. The Iraqi government has yet to investigate allegations of torture, especially in the cases forced confessions which led to death sentences." http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iraq
     "Methods included suspension by the limbs for long periods, beatings with cables and hosepipes, the infliction of electric shocks, breaking of limbs, partial asphyxiation with plastic bags, and sexual abuse including threats of rape. Torture was used to extract information from detainees and “confessions” that could be used as evidence against them at trial." http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-iraq-2013?page=2
    "Iraqi authorities are detaining thousands of Iraqi women illegally and subjecting many to torture and ill-treatment, including the threat of sexual abuse. Iraq’s weak judiciary, plagued by corruption, frequently bases convictions on coerced confessions, and trial proceedings fall far short of international standards. Many women were detained for months or even years without charge before seeing a judge." http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/06/iraq-security-forces-abusing-women-detention
      Does this seem like the type of government you want your tax money to be going to? Too bad, we already give them millions of dollars every year.

     Critics will say "Well, the Iraqi government and ISIS may be bad, but the Iraqi government doesn't have evil world domination on it's agenda, so it's less of a threat than ISIS, so it's okay to support them." That doesn't mean anything. To the Iraqi citizen being brutalized by either side, it doesn't make a difference to his/her suffering whether their tormentor has world domination on their mind or not. North Korea and Syria don't want world domination, but they are still evil, sadistic tyrannical regimes that we cannot morally support. 

     2. Anything we try to do would just increase suffering. No matter whatever noble intentions the U.S. may or may not have, whatever they have done to Iraq in the past has just screwed up the country even more. Take a look at the country's history of interactions with Iraq:

•      1980-1988: Iran-Iraq war, in which the U.S. government gave and sold millions of dollars worth in military hardware and weapons to Iraq. Iraq used all of this not only to fight Iran, but to oppress and kill its own citizens. This is a prime example of the U.S. financing the suffering and oppression of foreign civilians. 
• 1990-1991: Gulf War. We bombed the shit out of them. 
• 2003-2011? Iraq War: Do I even need to say anything about this? This war fucked over Iraqis for decades to come. Over what? Over a bunch of lies that evil rich men made up so they could get more power and money.  

    Think about it. All of the options that the war-mongers and naive liberals are advocating for would only make the situation worse, and contribute to #1 of this list.

• Aerial bombing to support Iraqi ground troops: This is the most discussed about option, considering how well it worked in Libya. But this option is rife with negatives. We'll mostly likely hit civilians/friendly armed irregulars/Iraqi soldiers, either because ISIS is embedded in civilian areas, or our pilots can't aim worth shit. That's bad. It's going to cost a bunch of money that we don't have. Aerial bombings means we're going to have to have bases where the planes come back after a run. That's a target for ISIS. Bombing requires eyes on the ground to identify targets, that means more boots on the ground. Aerial bombing is directly attacking ISIS, which gives them the right to attack us back in legitimate self-defense. You cannot bomb the fuck outta people, and then when they hit back, cry "Oh terrorism!" They can attack us in Iraq, or they can attack us anywhere over the globe. Do we really need to piss off more violent extremists?
•  Military advisors to Iraq still puts our troops in harms way. Iraq can use the tactics and strategies we teach them in counter-insurgency against their population. They already use our money, weapons, and facilities to oppress their population without repercussion, so why wouldn't they use our knowledge?  
• Military aid. Already said why that was a bad idea in #1. 

      3. If we attack ISIS, then ISIS will attack us back. This expands on a point made in the 4th bullet point of #2.  You can't say "oh cuz they're terrorists they don't have rights, and certainly not the right to self-defense." Sorry, just because you call someone a terrorist, doesn't mean that suddenly logic doesn't apply to them and they don't have any rights. If it was that way, then a country could start any war with any country, call that country a terrorist, and then proceed to do whatever it wants to it. Oh wait, the U.S. already does that, and it makes no fucking sense.
     9/11/12 Benghazi was a direct consequence of us bombing Libya in 2011. Some Libyans who were still loyal to the Gaddafi regime saw an opportunity to get back at us for our role in overthrowing Gaddafi. So if we bomb ISIS, guess what they're going to do? Probably the same thing, only it'll be on a much bigger scale because ISIS is a lot more powerful than the remnants of Gaddafi's army.

     4. It'll be expensive. Bombing Libya cost us, on average, $2 billion a day, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/03/28/the-real-cost-of-u-s-in-libya-two-billion-dollars-per-day/. Since we did that for 220 days, guess what, that is an estimated cost of $440 billion. Do we fucking look like we have $440 billion to support a fascist government's death grip on power? With our economy still wrecked, infrastructure crumbling, education system in shambles, border open to thousands of illegal immigrant crossings every year, I can think of 10 good places I'd rather put that $440 billion than in a bombing campaign against ISIS.     

     5. It won't hurt us if the Iraq state breaks apart, or if ISIS takes over. Contrary to the fear mongering of the warmongers, the world will not freeze over if ISIS takes control of Iraq. Nations that have hated us have existed for decades without bothering us, or, at the most, a mild annoyance, like North Korea, Vietnam doesn't particularly like us, Sudan, Pakistan, etc. If the new Iraq hates us, who the fuck cares? For the average Iraqi, their situation won't change. They'll go from being under the boot of radical fascists to being under the boot of radical religious extremists. Feels exactly the same. If ISIS wants to attack us, they'll attack us. Having a country won't change a thing. You don't need a country to launch an attack, you need one house, or one cave. And if you expect U.S. troops to be everywhere in the world to avoid terrorists from using one room to plan a terrorist attack, then you might be a fascist, (Jeff Foxworthy accent).

      6. ISIS isn't Al-Qaida. News flash: not every Muslim guy with a beard and an AK-47 is Al-Qaida. I know that breaks your fragile little way of looking at the world, but there's these pesky things called facts and reality. ISIS is only inspired by certain pieces of Al-Qaida ideology. That's it. That's the only link. But the media will never, ever say what this inspiration exactly is. My guess is that they're not saying because it's probably next to nothing. It's like saying Neo-Nazis are the Nazis that we actually fought in the 1940's. ISIS actually broke away from Al-Qaida over certain undisclosed reasons that again no one feels like telling us. 

      In conclusion, people who will say that this opinion is "isolationist" clearly don't know what the word means. Please tell me how not picking and actively assisting a side between a terrorist group and a fascist government is "isolationist." That's like saying that not getting into a fist fight with every third person you see is being a "coward." Give me a fucking break people. It's not being an isolationist, it's called minding your own fucking God damn business and not actively killing thousands of people every fucking year.

          

Why does Australia want to punish it's citizens for fighting against despotism?

     The Australian government is seeking to pass a law that would strip their citizens of their citizenship if they go to Syria and fight against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

http://muslimvillage.com/2014/01/22/48932/australians-fighting-in-syria-risk-loosing-citizenship/

     There are already Australian laws making fighting in Syria, (for any side), illegal for Australian citizens or dual Australian/Syrian citizens as well.

http://muslimvillage.com/2012/08/29/27701/australian-citizens-fighting-in-syrian-conflict-illegal-australian-government/

      There are a number of things wrong with these laws/proposals.
      1. This conflict does not concern Australia or the Australian government, so why do they feel like they have the right to regulate it? What gives them the right to tell their citizens "You don't have the right to fight to protect people who just want basic human rights"?

      2. By doing this, they are telling their citizens that the ideal of fighting to protect other people is not the correct thing to do. This reeks of neo-liberalism because it the regulation of morality, and that the liberals in government know what's best for us, even better than we do.

      3. By doing this, the Australian government is establishing the norm that violence is an 100% automatic "radical and extreme act," (except when the Australian government and/or military does it, of course). How did I come to this conclusion? A logical path following the government's statements on this. The Australian government said that the reason they already have these laws, and why they seek this new proposal, is because they are worried about "Australians becoming extremist and returning home." If they were truly worried about this, they had better come up with something else, because this law will not address that worry at all.
      Just because an Australian goes over to Syria to fight, does not mean that they will become radicalized. Violence, in of itself,  is not an extreme or radical action. On the contrary, it is rational, logical, and in line with human psychology, (which is why you have to train or be indoctrinated to be a pacifist, because non-violence is against the primal psychology of humans). Risking yourself to save another person has historically been seen as selfless, brave, and noble. Now, the Australian government seeks to turn that norm upside down. Now, risking yourself to save someone else is seen as "radical" and "extreme," not to mention illegal.     

      4. The laws and proposal insinuate that ALL Syrian rebels are extremists, and that by simply fighting alongside them, you will be brainwashed by their radicalism, and become extreme.
      One only need to do a simple Google search to see that not all of the Syrian rebels are religious extremists. The rebels are not one monotonous group, as many racist and bigoted Americans would want you to believe. There are religious radicals under the ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), umbrella, who are linked to Al-Qaida. The other rebel umbrella is the FSA, (Free Syrian Army), which is a secular and moderate organization. Saying that all Syrian rebels are terrorists is a simpleton's cop-out of looking at the conflict, and not reflective of reality at all. Saying so is an insult to the FSA, as they make a point to distinguish themselves from the ISIS in ideology and fighting tactics. It is also an insult because hundreds of FSA combatants have given their lives fighting against the ISIS, to prevent the radicals from hijacking the revolution, killing civilians, imposing a twisted version of Islam upon a population who doesn't want it, etc, etc. For more on this, you can do a simple Google search or visit the Institute for the Study of War's blog entry:

http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2014/01/syrian-rebels-attack-isis.html

      5. The Australian government, by doing this, is pushing another disturbing neo-liberalist norm: That dictatorships, oligarchies, and fascism is okay, but democracy, universal human rights, and freedom is not. By not allowing people to fight as rebels against Assad, (whose government is all three of those descriptions: a dictatorship, an oligarchy, and a fascist regime), the Australian government is saying "Assad's way of government is acceptable to us."

      So there you have it, 5 reasons why these Australians laws and proposal are stupid all the way around. It only ends up hurting the Syrian people, who need every combatant they can get to protect themselves, and gives the Australian government Not only that, it is against traditional Australian values, which is all the more reason why we should disapprove of these laws. Australians are a people that pride ourselves in ideals like freedom and democracy, and also helping our fellow man. The country has a history of individual Australians traveling to fight in foreign wars that they believed were justified. All of a sudden, the current Australian government is calling that historical tradition wrong, illegal, and not noble. Australians serving in the British Army volunteered to fight in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1919, Australian citizens volunteered in fighting in the Spanish Civil War, (mostly on the Republic's side but there were some on the fascist's side as well), the Boer War, and the Rhodesian military, just to name a few. These volunteers were regarded as heroes and patriots. Now suddenly the same action gets you branded a terrorist and a traitor to your country! How does fighting in a war that your government is not involved in considered a traitorous act?! It has nothing to do with Australia! Which is the exact reason why the Australian government should just BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF THIS AND FUCKING MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING GOD DAMN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING!            

Russia and Iran are hypocrites on the issue of intervention

     Syria's revolution is a very complicated one, so I'm going to just lay out the basics on it, so we don't waste a lot time before getting to the main idea of this post. There is a 3 way battle going in the country right now.
     1. Syria's dictatorship is putting down a revolution that has been waging since 2011. They are backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
     2. The moderate, secular rebels, under the umbrella group called the Free Syrian Army, (FSA), are fighting against the dictator and the extremist rebels, (next group down). They have very few backers, only the US for non-lethal aid and individual foreign volunteers.
     3. The extremist rebels are also fighting against the dictator and the moderate rebels. They are backed by Al-Qaida and many of the Gulf states, (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc).

     The main point of this post, in one sentence, is that Russia and Iran cry all the time that the West cannot intervene in Syria, yet they're intervening in it themselves. It's hypocrisy at it's best. It's an attempt to try and seem impartial and fair to the Syrian people, but really they're just doing it to better themselves in the political/military realm. Iran has at least 4,000 troops in there right now, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/17/syrian-activists-say-al-qaida-linked-militants-blow-up-shiite-mosque-in-hatla/ and Russia has sold at least 50% of the arms Syria has, including $1 billion in 2011 alone, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-arms-insight-idUSBRE97S0WW20130829.

     To be fair, Russia and Iran are operating as the same as virtually every other country does: They have 2 sets of rules: one that they say that everyone else has to follow, and one set for themselves. The thing is, the rule set for themselves is blank; they don't have to abide by any rules, even those they expect other countries to follow. It's how the US can say to other Al-Qaida "Don't kill civilians," and then turn around and bomb Iraqi civilians dead. It's how Pakistan can whine to the US about drone strikes killing its citizens, and then it turns around and kills Pakistani civilians in broad daylight.  
     But just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. In Russia's mind, other countries cannot intervene in Syria. Except Russia. It can, because it's special, and doesn't have to follow any rules. Iran believes the exact same for Iran, Hezbollah thinks the exact same thing for Hezbollah. So we have all these countries and organizations running around with weapons, thinking that they are so fucking special that they don't have to follow any rules. Is it any surprise as to why these leads to never ending war in the world?

      I'm not saying on whether the US, Russia, etc, should or should not intervene in Syria. That's not what this post is about. All I'm saying is that do not follow the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. Don't ask a country to do something that you won't do yourself.
     Ironically, a Russian statement on this bears some truth:

A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry this morning warned of "catastrophic consequences" for Syria and the region if the United States and its allies intervene.

 http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-us-meddles-syria/story?id=20081747

     He's right, there are catastrophic consequences for foreign intervention. Syria's civil war started off as a purely domestic war between the dictatorship and rebels. But now, it seems all the major countries in the world are picking a side and getting their hands dirty to sway the war one way or another to benefit themselves. The US and Israel are supporting the rebels because they want Assad gone. Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are supporting Assad because they want Assad in power. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want the extremist rebels to win because they want a hard-line Islamic government in power. This has increased the number of soldiers and arms in the battlefield tenfold, which only dishes out more death, more destruction, more refugees, more seriously injured civilians, etc, etc. 

     It's like a fistfight at a soccer game: what started off as a fight between two players has turned out into a full field brawl, with both teams at it, plus the referees, players, police, etc.

     Suddenly, the war is not about what the Syrian people want anymore. It's all about what other countries want. And that's the tragedy of the whole thing. What started off as a legitimate revolution has now been hijacked by foreign and extremist elements.

     What can we ordinary Americans do about this? Unfortunately, not much, as usual. But at least, when this war is over, we can be on the right side of history. We can say "I supported the moderate, secular rebels, and I did not support the dictatorship or the radical rebels." We can talk talk talk. Post on facebook, twitter, tumblr, write a letter to the editor for a newspaper, etc. Explain that not all of the rebels are extremists, that the Syrian people have a fundamental right to basic human rights, and the right to fight anyone who takes them away from them, that using violence is acceptable if you use it to defend yourself or someone else who is under attack. Challenge the racists, the bigots, explain that Islam is not the cause of this conflict, that this conflict is purely political and this type of conflict has occurred plenty of times in non-Islamic countries.
     That's all we can do for now.    

  

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.       

Why the hell are we still in Afghanistan? Let's get the fuck out!

     With Syria and Egypt dominating the headlines in recent weeks, it's easy to forget that we're still fighting the war in Afghanistan. I mean, it's only the longest war in U.S. history. It's been going on for so long that people just take it for granted that it will always be there. It's been going on for the majority of my lifetime. I remember when it started, when I was in 6th grade. It seems like an eternity ago. And yet we're still there, wasting American lives and money, for what?!

Afghan kids killed by a NATO airstrike

      Osama Bin Laden has been dead for over two years. Al-Qaeda has mostly moved on from Afghanistan and into Pakistan, Yemen, and Northern Africa. It makes no sense that we still have tens of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries in Afghanistan, and thousands of civilian workers risking their lives for the rich American oligarchy that has America in it's greedy vice. In fact, this whole war has NEVER made any sense. It's not like it was a good idea at the beginning and then turned bad, no, it was rotten from the very core, the very beginning. I will make this argument by listing the reasons the U.S. government gave for invading Afghanistan back in 2001, and go into each reason individually and say why each one of them is complete bullshit.

1. To go after Al-Qaeda: You don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers halfway across the world to go after a couple of dozen of people. Wait, what's that you asked? Al-Qaeda was only several dozen people at the time of 9/11? Yep, that's right: http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/09/16/how-many-al-qaeda-can-you-live-with/  Al-Qaeda was only 200 members at the time of 9/11. That's 200 worldwide, total. Who knows how many of those 200 were in Afghanistan, but even it was the majority, like 101, you don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight 101 people. Anyone who knows anything the military, policing tactics, counter-insurgency, would know that is a HORRIBLE idea. You would be much more effective if you did small scale counter-insurgency operations with a small force of elite units like a SEAL team or the Army Rangers. They would do home invasions, disrupting operations, infiltration, drone strikes, etc. If you send a whole bunch of troops over, they end up dealing and wasting time with other people that are not Al-Qaeda. Which is exactly what happened. The insurgency against the US is not an Al-Qaeda insurgency, it's a Taliban one. We ended up fighting the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and who offered to give us Bin Laden, but we rejected that offer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm Why did we reject that offer? Because we wanted to go to war!!!!
2. To deny Al-Qaeda the space needed to plan another attack against us: That's an impossible task to deny any group, because you only need one house to have the resources and space needed to pull off an attack like 9/11. Remember, 9/11 was committed by only 19 people. To deny people that such a small amount of space, you would need to have a soldier in every house in the world, and we have an Constitutional amendment against that, motherfuckers. 
3. The Taliban, by allowing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to be in Afghanistan, were guilty of the crimes of 9/11 just as much: No, just because you know someone, or have someone over to your house, does not mean you are guilty of all the crimes they may have done. That's like if a radical French group attacked the US, so then we respond by invading and occupying France. It wasn't the French people's fault, they aren't responsible for the crimes of a few. It wasn't the French government's fault, they didn't do anything. So it makes absolutely no sense to invade and occupy Afghanistan for the crimes of a couple of dozen people. 

     So if it wasn't for any of those reasons, then why did we invade Afghanistan?

• To establish a base of operations that is strategically located in Central Asia, i.e. to better run operations in Iran, Pakistan, etc. That's right, we invaded an innocent country to better our military and political standing in the world. This is something that we should leave back in the 18th and 19th centuries. That's something straight out of a video game or a board game, not real life. To be civilized people, we don't invade other countries just to strengthen ourselves. The government and its media lackeys made up this whole narration listed above to make our invasion sound legitimate, when in fact it was only launched to benefit the military-industrial complex.
• To get the vast amount of mineral resources that are in Afghanistan, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  Again, we only did it to better ourselves, our own fat pockets. The government didn't care about protecting us or saving Afghan women. No, they did it for wealth.

        So there you have it. The entire Afghan war narrative that we have been fed, some from childhood, has been ONE ENTIRE STINKING FUCKING BULLSHIT LIE. Every person in the Bush Administration who was for the Afghan war should be hanged for launching a terrorist war against a people who were minding their own fucking business. So, 12 years later, what can the average American citizen do to try and bring this phony war to an end?

1. Write to the president and your elected officials, saying, in more politer terms of course: "BRING THE FUCKING TROOPS HOME."
2. Look at the voting record of any elected official running for office that you can vote for. If he/she voted to go to war or voted at any time to keep being in the war, do not vote for that candidate. That will send a message to the government that the American people are sick and tired of going to war to benefit the 1% and the military industrial complex. 
3. Explore the platform of the Libertarian party. Both Republicans and Democrats are addicted to starting long wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn't do a single damn thing, just to line their pockets with more money and power. But Libertarians offer an alternative to the "two party" system that is ruining our country, primarily because it is no longer a two party system, but rather an elitist oligarchy. Their official website is:  http://www.lp.org/  
4. Speak out against the war, just like I'm doing now. It can be over social media, it can be a protest in front of the White House, it can be a petition, etc. Get the word out, start people talking about this, because silence is compliance. If we're silent, that gives our jackass government the red light to continue this illegal, immoral, terrorist war.