Palestine's Resistance shows adaptability

     The everlasting war between Palestine and Israel reached a high point during the summer, then it simmered back down for several months. It's hit a small spike the last couple of weeks, with several deaths in Jerusalem and the West Bank, where violence has been considerably lower than in Gaza in the last decade.

     I've noticed a trend over this year in the way Palestinians are fighting their cruel occupiers. Whenever Israel finds a way to negate the way they fight, they simply adapt and maneuver. They find a new way to fight back, ways that are creative and totally unrelated to the way they previously thought, so the Israelis have a harder time predicating how to combat the resistance. They think outside the box. 

     The first way the Palestinians fought this year was with rockets. They did this because this was one of the few long range weapons they have. Unlike the Israelis, they do not have artillery and jet fighters to kill their enemies from miles away. They have whatever small arms they can smuggle into Gaza or whatever they can make at home. These rockets were not particularly effective, as they are impossible to aim at the distances the Palestinians had to fire them at, but, at least they were a weapon. 

    The Israelis found a way to counter these rockets and bring down causalities from them almost 99%. Basically they hardly killed anyone with rockets during the 2014 summer war. The Israeli Iron Dome shot down the rockets before they could hit their targets. 

     But the Palestinians adapted. They switched from shooting rockets to doing raids from tunnels. They would dig under Gaza, through the border, and up into Israel, where they would launch sneak attacks against Israeli military targets. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, Hamas did not use a single tunnel to launch attacks against Israeli civilians, they only targeted military units. This is contrasted with Israel, whose killings were 75%-90% civilians. Hamas killed 66 Israeli soldiers during the war, and a big chunk of those deaths were from tunnel raids. The other deaths came from classic guerrilla warfare operations in Gaza as Israeli ground troops rolled in.  

     These tunnels caught the Israelis by surprise. They didn't anticipate that Hamas had built as many tunnels as they did. They couldn't negate them with their superior airpower. Jet fighters can do nothing against tunnels that are as deep as the Hamas tunnels were. So, they had to send in ground troops and bulldozers into Gaza to destroy the tunnels. This is how Israel negated the tunnel method of fighting. Although this cost them some ground troops, Israel succeeded in destroying the Hamas tunnels.  

     By the fall of 2014, after the war had ended, the Palestinians had to come up with a new way to fight. They are not allowed to possess firearms in the West Bank, apparently, Palestinians are not humans, therefore, they are not supposed to enjoy the universal human right of self defense. Jews, however, are allowed to own any firearm that they want. So, Palestinians find an ingenious way to fight with what they've got: cars.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11211675/Israel-on-brink-of-third-intifada-after-new-car-attack.html

      It's an interesting tactic, something that you could never predict judging by their past tactic, which was tunnels. The two bear no resemblance. And unlike guns, Israel cannot ban Palestinians from driving cars, otherwise, they'd be just like Saudi Arabia in that regard, who bans women from driving. It's politically and economically not viable, which makes it a good tactic.
     Same thing with this last tactic that Palestinians are using at the same time as the cars: knives. Yep, regular pocket and kitchen knives. Nothing super high tech here. But Israel can't do anything about it before an attack happens. You can't ban knives.
     It will be interesting to see if this resistance fizzes out and dies down like many other times, or if it will actually culminate into another Intifada. It's simply too early to tell. Anyone who tells you it's a third Intifada doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. But there is one guarantee: Palestinian resistance will never die. You cannot kill an idea, and you cannot take away peoples' basic human rights and them just sit there and not do anything about it.  
 

     

     

  

Both America and Russia play double standards

      Even fiercer than the physical fighting between Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists is the propaganda war between the United States and Russia. News media is so bloated with fucking stupid statements from both sides that is near impossible to verify anything going on in the conflict. If you aren't sure of anything going on in the conflict, then you can't form an opinion on it. It has taken me weeks and weeks to sift through all of the bullshit on the Internet to actually figure out what is going on there. Despite the fact that my major in college was Global Affairs, I still had a hard time figuring this one out. The difficulty is 90% propaganda, and only 10% the actual conflict. Meaning, if news media WOULD JUST STOP POSTING COMPLETELY FALSE STUPID SHIT, it would a hell of a lot easier to form an opinion on this conflict. I could write a whole 'nother post just on the negative influences shitty reporting has on viewers, but I digress; that is a topic for another time.

       Pro-Russians go on and on about how the U.S. is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
     "You're absolutely right. The United States is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the U.S. does these things, does not mean that Russia gets to do those same things and you pro-Russians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when the U.S. does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when Russia does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
     The same thing can be said about pro-Ukrainians who are just blindly anti-Russian without even knowing specific reasons why, other than "Well, they're communists!" Pro-Ukrainians go on and on about how Russia is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
     "You're absolutely right. Russia is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Russia does these things, does not mean that the U.S. or Ukraine gets to do those same things and you pro-Ukrainians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when Russia does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when the U.S. or Ukraine does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
     Bam. No comeback is possible. I am simply observing statements from both sides of the conflict.  What people fail to realize is that evil people who are wrong most of the time can say something completely correct other times. Just because a person is evil does mean they are evil all the time. There have been men who have been disgusting terrorists who kill women and children, and then turn around the next day and run a food pantry for poor people.

     Okay, so now that we've cleared through the choking aura of propaganda, let's go through a few universal truths in the conflict to establish ground zero on understanding it.

1. People have the right to defend themselves against government attacks. They have the right to overthrow their government if the government will not stop oppressing them and violating their human rights. Seem radical? Seem anarchist? Actually, it is in line with traditional American values, logic and reason, and human psychology. The Founding Fathers believed in this truth, because they believed they were justified in overthrowing the British rule of the American colonies because of their repression. Logic says that if person A, (the government), attacks person B, (the citizens), without provocation, to only gain an advantage over him, or to steal something from him, etc, then person B has the right to use force to defend himself against person A. He is not a radical or terrorist for doing so. Psychologically speaking, if you do not believe in this, then you are giving person A the green light, and everyone else like him, to mug and kill as many person Bs as they want, and person B can't do anything about it, otherwise, he's a terrorist. This is against human psychology, because we have a primal instinct to defend ourselves if being attacked by an aggressor. 

          So what does this have to do with Ukraine? Because the first universal truth is that the  Ukrainian people had the right to overthrow the government of Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych committed a number of crimes that would make overthrowing him legitimate. Some of them include massive corruption throughout all levels of his "administration," stealing taxpayers' money for himself, taking away critics' freedom of speech, disbanding the Constitution, and killing protesters simply for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.
         The Russian narrative would say that no, the Ukrainian people did not have the right to overthrow him. They say that the Ukrainians would have to deal with Yanukovych's corruption and theft and murder. Do you see why their narrative is bullshit: "You deal with your leader, even though his oppresses and murders you. Why? Because he's our ally, and that's all that matters."

     2.  Countries do not have a right to invade other countries based on the pretext on protecting a minority from the invading country. First of all, there is no evidence that Russian minorities in Crimea were ever being persecuted by anyone. That demolishes that piece of Russian propaganda. If Russia truly believed this concept, then they would have to accept it universally, i.e. it doesn't matter who the actors are, the rule stays the same: If your minority is being persecuted in another country, you have a right to invade that country. That's how real laws work: it doesn't matter if a white person, black person, Asian, etc, commits theft. Theft is a crime no matter who does it.
     But we know Russia, specifically Putin, would never, ever, accept this rule universally. He only accepts it when it benefits Russia. Say Turkey says "Hey, Russia is persecuting our Muslim brothers and sisters in Chechnya, (which by all accounts, except Russian, Russia is. Fucking look up all of the shit these brave people have to go through every God damn day before you call them terrorists). So we will invade Russia to protect them." Can you picture Putin saying "Yep, Turkey has that right. Go ahead, I won't do anything." FUCK NO HE WOULDN'T.

       3.  Ukraine has the right to use force to take back its territory from pro-Russian separatists. Russia cries that the Ukraine are "fascists who are using violence against un-armed protesters." I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or what weapons/lack of weapons you have. If you forcefully take over government buildings, you have become a combatant against the government. The minute you use force against something, you have authorized that something to use force against you in response. You cannot attack and then call foul when that something you attacked attacks you back. Can you imagine someone using that in any other situation? Like on the playground at school: Billy starts beating the shit out of Andrew for no reason, saying the entire time "Oh, you can't fight back Andrew, otherwise, you're a bully!"
     I MEAN C'MON PEOPLE, WAKE THE FUCK UP AND FUCKING THINK! USE LOGIC! You have to be pretty God damn stupid, or stupidly pro-Russia to think that only pro-Russian people have the right to take over government buildings, shoot down helicopters, and ambush Ukrainian troops, and the Ukrainian people SHOULD JUST SIT THERE AND TAKE IT.
     Imagine if a similar situation happened to Russia. Let's say the Chechen people started another revolt, took over Russian government buildings in Chechnya, shot down Russian helicopters, and ambushed Russian soldiers. Do you think Putin would say "Yep, the Chechens have the right to do that. I'm not going to do anything."

      4.   Countries do not have the right to make up a bunch of lies against a country, and then invade it, based on those lies. This goes in line with what I said earlier. The U.S. cannot make up a bunch of "intelligence" saying that Iraq has nuclear weapons, lie and say Saddam Hussein is working with al-Qaida, etc, and then invade the country on those false premises, and then set up a puppet government, stealing their natural resources, using it to flame a war it benefits from, etc, etc.
      And just because the U.S. did that does NOT give Russia the right to make up "intelligence" that says Russian Crimeans are being persecuted, exaggerate the political views of the new Kiev government to benefit Russia, and then invade Crimea and send mercenaries into eastern Ukraine on those false premises.
     Two wrongs don't make a right. Both are wrong, fascist acts of state terrorism.

     5.    The Kiev government is not automatically "illegitimate" just because it came to power in a coup. If you go by that rule, then that means George Washington's government was illegitimate because it came to power through force. That means any government that has ever come into being through a revolution, coup, rebellion, etc, is automatically and without question, illegitimate. The Kiev government will become legitimate if it has free and fair elections, which it is going to do in 2 days, despite all the pro-Russian separatists are trying to derail them.
      Of course, Putin doesn't believe in this rule universally. If a government comes to power that happens to be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is legitimate and that the people had the right to overthrow the previous government, etc. But if a government comes to power that happens to not be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can't benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is illegitimate and that the people did NOT have the right to overthrow the previous government.

 
      In conclusion, this shows that world leaders rarely, if ever, stand for any of the positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, that they say they stand for. They only stand for those positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, ONLY if it benefits them. If it doesn't, then you see an incredible 180 degree spin on their view on it. This is not the right way to govern. People must stand for ideals, no matter who is involved. For example, I believe that every person, regardless of their race or their creed, has the right to defend themselves from an aggressive attacker in self-defense. World leaders only support that right to certain people when it benefits them; when it doesn't, they suddenly don't believe in that right for a certain people.
     Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagen, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, both George Bushs, Gordon Brown, Francois Hollande, Xi Jinping, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Hu Jintao, and many more, they're all FUCKING LIARS.         

     
         

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!            

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.       

"Defense" Contractors are Legitimate Targets of War

         The American government and military use “contractors” in many of their operations, from everything to intelligence gathering to weapons designing to direct combat. I put the word “contractors” in quotations because the American government and military like to call them that. It’s a nice, cute, sophisticated, professional term that doesn’t signify anything bad at all. Contractors can be hired to do anything from yard work to construction, so calling these people contractors doesn’t give away the fact that they are doing functions that had been reserved for either a government or a military for most of human history. They are civilians hired by the American government to do their dirty work: spy on other civilians around the world, “extract information” from them, (a.k.a. torture them, but Americans don’t torture, remember? They simply “extract”), and “enhance mission success”, (a.k.a. kill people).

          In recent times, the question have come up “If two countries are fighting each other, obviously each other militaries are legitimate targets for the other one to attack, but are their contractors, their spies, their weapon manufacturers, who are legally civilians by the way, are they legitimate targets of war?”

          If it’s a hypothetical situation, almost everyone, including Americans, will say “yeah, they’re legitimate targets. They’re helping the war effort. They’re enforcing state oppression, they’re engineering weapons that are killing people,” etc, etc, whatever the case may be. But when it’s Americans that we’re talking about, suddenly a lot of Americans jump on their big superiority complex, and start calling every attack against their spies, their torturers, their kidnappers, their weapon manufacturers, even their own soldiers, a terrorist attack. Americans, (and their Western allies), are just so fucking special that they honestly believe that ordinary rules and logic doesn’t apply to them.

          Let me give you scenarios in which this arrogance is displayed:

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban spy. Americans view that as a legitimate kill. After all, we’re at war. But as soon as the Taliban kill an American spy, they go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban soldier that was torturing an American for information. Americans view that as a legitimate kill. But as soon as the Taliban stage a night raid on an American base, and kill an American who was a torturer, they go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban insurgent in a combat operation, an ambush, whatever the case may be. Americans rightly view that as a legitimate kill. That is what war is supposed to be: soldiers killing soldiers, (not soldiers killing civilians, that’s fucking terrorism). But when a Taliban soldier kills an American soldier in a covert sneak attack, or as some people like to call it “blue on green” attacks, Americans go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

          You can’t agree with a statement when it doesn’t involve your countrymen, and then suddenly not agree with the exact same statement when it does involve your countrymen. Either you view that contractors are legitimate targets of war, or not. That’s it. What country they are from should not influence your decision at all, because if you do that, you create an alternative reality where Americans can do anything and do nothing wrong, and their enemies aren’t allowed to do the exact same things and everything they do is wrong.

          Furthermore, you can’t dish out pain and death, and then cry foul when someone fights back. You cannot be a contractor who is furthering the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and then cry “terrorist attack!” when the Taliban attack you. It doesn’t work that way. If you’re designing a Predator drone to give to the Israelis to attack unarmed men, women and children in schools and mosques, you can’t say “Oh, those Palestinians just hate Americans because of who we are” when Palestinians and other peoples protest the sale of drones to Israel. It doesn’t work that way.

          In conclusion, even though contractors are still legally civilians, they perform many functions that make them legitimate targets of war. What implications does it have for us? Well, for people like in the New York City area, or Washington Metro area, or near Los Angeles, etc, there are a lot of contractor buildings near your homes, your businesses, your schools, etc. That means there are legitimate targets of war right next to where you live, go shopping, etc. Are you okay with that? Do you feel safe? After all, if someone wanted to attack the U.S. legitimately, that means there could possibly be attacks right next to you. Are you okay with the fact that the arrogant, selfish U.S. foreign policy is putting you and your family at risk? After all, if the defense contractors acted legitimately and in accordance with international law and the laws of war, they would be doing nothing wrong, so there would be no reason for anyone to attack them. Are you okay with your neighbors going to work to design weapons to give to dictators, or designing new torture methods to skirt around international laws, and then coming home and acting like a normal person around you and your family? After all, they’re legitimate targets of war. They’re pretty damn close to you. Do you feel safe?    

 (picture is of private security contractors in Afghanistan, and is from foreignpolicyblogs.com).