People ignore crimes for political reasons

     So I'm going go through this back story really quick so I can get straight to the point. ISIS murders one of Jordan's pilots, and Jordan retaliates, executing 2 of their prisoners and starting a bombing campaign against ISIS.
     http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/jordan-hits-islamic-state-with-airstrikes-as-king-visits-family-of-pilot-burned-alive/2015/02/05/22ea3af0-acad-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html
     Many people around the world, including many Americans, applauded Jordan without any knowledge of its history, its political systems, its list of crimes that it has committed every since it came into existence, etc, etc, basically they are straight up ignorant people, commenting on things that they have no knowledge about.
     What else is new, right?
     The problem is that this support of Jordan is a truly offensive thing to do, reprehensible, disgusting, against American values, and is actually the same action that Americans get mad at citizens from other countries for doing.
     Wait, what am I saying? You ask? Don't worry, all will be explained. I know my statements seem "revolutionary, extreme, radical," etc, but only because our society and culture as a whole has been extremely radicalized and twisted for decades, leaving once rational, logical, and moderate statements seemingly way out there because it is so different from what we experience day to day. What we consider "normal" is actually extremely radical, leaving normal statements looking like they are radical.
      So to start off, let's go through some of the endorsements that Americans have been giving the government of Jordan, and specifically the dictator of Jordan, Abdullah, recently:

• "For anyone that doesn't know King Abdullah's story, you should definitely read about it. Truly awesome. They don't really make leaders like him anymore" -Scott Carlisle. 
• "King Jordan for our Defense Secretary!!!"-Dave Broadbent. 
• "at LAST!!! ... a real leader has emerged in the world!!!"-Jasper Stupart. 
• " Proud of King Abdullah II , well done Jordanian Air Force , God bless you"-Rabie Annab. 
• " Way to go Jordan....finally a country with backbone"-Lorraine White.  
• "Obama should look at Jordan to see how a REAL leader handles terrorism"-Sara Jean. 
• "NOW, here is a MAN that backs up his word, not a wimp like somebody else we are stuck with"-Gus Brown. 

     Etc, etc, etc, you get the point. These are not by far the only comments made on Facebook about Abdullah, I just picked the first 7 that I could find. The consensus is that Abdullah is a good leader, and that America would be great if we had a leader like him, and that Obama should be more like Abdullah. These people either 1. Have no idea how many innocent people Abdullah has killed, raped, tortured, kidnapped, and oppressed, or 2. They simply don't care because they want to make a jab at Obama. Either way, it is completely sickening that a man that has done all that gets PRAISE from the American people. 
     What crimes has Abdullah committed, you ask? You haven't heard the mainstream media, (MSM), say anything about it, you say? Well of course you haven't. The MSM would never report crimes done by our allies. That would make them look bad, and America NEVER makes friends with bad guys, right? The MSM is the mouthpiece of the state. The state wants Jordan to look good for political reasons, so that's what the MSM spews out. 
     Here are some human rights reports that you would NEVER see on the MSM about Jordan: 

•   http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/jordan "Jordanian law criminalizes speech deemed critical of the king, government officials, and institutions." Oh no freedom of speech for Jordanians.  "prosecutors continued to charge protesters with participating in “unlawful gatherings” under article 165 of the penal code." Oh no freedom of assembly for Jordanians.
• http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/jordan "Amnesty International continues to be concerned about torture and ill-treatment in detention in Jordan, as well as the link between torture, unfair trials, and the death penalty."
• http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220572.pdf "The most significant human rights problems were citizens' inability to change their government peacefully." "Oh so no freedom to free and fair elections for Jordanians. "Other human rights problems include denial of due process, prolonged detention, (no right to a fair and speedy trial for Jordanians). 

    Wow, that's a good chunk of the Bill of Rights that Jordanians flat out don't have, and that's only the first 3 sources I could find! Does this sound like the type of leader that you want to rule the U.S.? Does this sound like the type of country that you want to live in? Does this sounds like the leader that our president should take pointers from?
    FUCK NO!!!
    "King" Abdullah was not elected in free and fair elections by his people to rule the country, he simply got the throne through the chance of being the son of the previous king, "King" Hussein. Do you know what that makes him? A dictator? When his people call for free and fair elections, so that they can choose their own leaders, you know, the right that all Americans have, do you know what he does? Kidnaps them, tortures them, jails them, kills them. Oh what a good leader, right?!
      Okay, so he might be a bad leader, you say, but he is still striking against ISIS, a terrorist group, so we can praise him for this one deed, right? Okay, you can, because a bad man can do the right thing for the wrong reason, after all. But, in order to not have a double standard, that means you have to praise every bad guy who did something good. So, are you going to praise HAMAS for crushing an Al-Qaida uprising in 2009?
     http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3762017,00.html
     Remember, no double standards! If "King" Abdullah can be praised despite his tyranny for attacking ISIS, then HAMAS can be praised despite their crimes for attacking al-Qaida? C'mon, where's your praise for HAMAS, Americans? Huh? Are you going to praise Iran for helping the side that is fighting ISIS? Huh? Remember, no double standards!
     SEE HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU LOOK!!!! 

     The people above literally had no idea about the man they were praising. They are so fucking God damn ignorant that they are praising a tyrant, that, if he ruled them, they would hate and despise and take up arms against in a second. Oh, but if they see a chance for a political pandering, then let's throw logic out the window, they say, all hail dictator, oh, I mean, KING Abdullah!
     I did respond to several of the comments in the above bullets on Facebook, basically summarizing what I've written here in this post. Most of my comments got deleted, even though I used no curse words and did not insult anyone at all. It's pretty sad that the internet has come down to: Oh, he responded so well that I can't think how to counter him, so I'm going to flag his comment for abuse, even though he did no abuse, just so I don't look like a freaking idiot unable to respond. The few people who did not delete my comments and who did respond either insulted me without countering any of my points, they just called me stupid and told me to shut up, and deemed that a sufficient response. Or, they said some bullshit like "Your comment is so dumb I'm not even going to validate it with a response. But oh, if I ever did respond, you'd be sorry! You can't match wit with me!"
     No seriously, this was actually one of the comments:

     "Normally, I don't respond or try to match wits with defenseless people like you, because I'm twice your age and have been around lots longer than you and have seen more than you in my lifetime. You're young, idealistic, and think you know everything so I will just leave it at this. Don't you ever attempt to match wits with me because you'll lose. Have a good day and don't reply again because I won't look at it. Your comment is irrational and uninformed."

     Doesn't that sound like someone who knows they're wrong but is too much of a stubborn bitch to admit it?? 

    In conclusion, this support by Americans have real life consequences for the Jordanian people, and the Palestinians living in Jordan. Our political and military support for Jordan is a lifeline for the Jordanian regime. In short, we are financing the Jordanians' suffering. It's on our fucking heads. Praise isn't just harmless words. No, our support for Jordan is financing millions of peoples' oppression and denial of basic human rights that we take for granted.  The millions of dollars we give them allows them to have the police cars that they use to kidnap people in the dead of night. The millions of dollars we give them allows them to torture a woman for simply saying that she wants to vote for her leader.

       If you're going to comment on something, FUCKING KNOW WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT. Ignorance kills people. Ignorance causes acute, mind numbing suffering.  

   

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?!       

         

    

   

     
      

Disproving the media's blatant lies about Israel and Palestine

      With Israel continuing its slaughter of Palestinian civilians, (with the occasional Hamas fighter here and there), the war between the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel supporters in the media and on social media is also getting extremely nasty. Any hope for a rational, logical discussion on this issue is soon thrown out the window in any confrontation because one side calls for the death of the entire other side, or calls each other terrorists, or completely rewrites history to blot out deeds done by the side they support, etc, etc, and all the other usual political bullshit. People no longer wish for the truth, but for the information that makes their side look right and the other side wrong. Who cares about reality when you have a political agenda at hand?!
      What will happen in this post is that I will lay out the bullshit claims, one by one, and clearly explain why each claim is wrong, using logic and facts.

       1. Israel was forced to launch this invasion in self-defense.
       Reality: Israel started this current flare up in hostilities by breaking the 2012 ceasefire in three ways: One: Restricting the fishing waters of Gaza to three nautical miles when they had agreed to put it at six nautical miles. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/israel-violates-ceasefire-attacks-gaza-fishermen-who-is-holding-israel-accountable.html
       (This is all the while international standards put it at 12 miles and in the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed to put it at 20 nautical miles, so that's another Accord Israel broke). Two: By lying, saying Hamas murdered three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, while providing no proof that Hamas did so. When asked for proof, Israel said the information was a "matter of national security," and therefore, could not be released. This is while Israeli authorities knew the teenagers were already dead, but they didn't say so, prevented the media from reporting so, so they could whip up public hatred of Hamas. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/israel-hamas-palestiniansconflictunitedstatesinternationallaw.html
     Also, this is while Hamas has denied killing the teenagers, and a Egyptian group has claimed responsibility. http://www.vocativ.com/world/israel-world/egyptian-group-claims-killed-3-israeli-teens/?utm_campaign=June1&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain
     Notice how mainstream media sources are reporting none of these three actions committed by Israel, nor have they reported about the Egyptian group claiming responsibility for the murders. Why? Because that would show Israel is responsible for instigating this latest round of violence, and that Hamas is innocent of killing the three teenagers.
      I get hate messages all the time simply for writing what I wrote above. Apparently, I am a "anti-Semite, a Jew hater, (even though some of my family is Jewish), and radical Islamist terrorist, (even though I'm not Muslim)," simply for reporting what has been documented by American, Israeli, Palestinian, U.N., and other international organizations. A great case of shoot the messenger, not the message. They are trying to frame the discussion to be that any criticism of any Israeli action is not actual criticism of that action, but because that critic hates Jews. Suddenly, in the world of pro-Israelis, Israel can literally do no wrong, because any criticism of it is automatically and without question anti-Semitism.

      2. Hamas uses human shields, and therefore, they are to blame for each and every Palestinian civilian death.
     Reality: There is no evidence that Hamas uses human shields. This was not said by a radical Islamist organization, but a liberal, mainstream U.S. media outlet, the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-hamas-is-using-civilians-as-shields-in-gaza.html?_r=0 But according to the pro-Israelis, the New York Times did not report this because this is what their reporters found out, they published it because they are radical Jew haters.
     All I'm saying, is that if Hamas uses human shields, which they must do pretty often because Israel is killing an average of 40 Palestinian civilians a day, then show me the evidence. Where's the evidence? Back up your claim. Show me the facts. Because the only fact I have is that "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law." (from NYT article).
      On the contrary, the only side that I've seen documented using human shields...is Israel. That's right, the very side that is constantly lying saying that Hamas is using human shields, is actually the side that is fucking using human shields. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/survivors-massacre-palestinians.html
     Quote from Palestinian survivor Ayman Abu Toaimah “As Israeli invading troops advanced to the village they besieged it and used residents as human shields. When the Israeli army arrested people and then released some of them, they were told they are free to go back to the village, but as they were fleeing they came under fire and some of them shot dead. These people were used as human shields.”
      How fucking fucked up is that?! Doesn't that make your blood FUCKING BOIL?! This isn't the only time Israeli forces have done this, this is only the most recent time they have done so, hence, why I choose that particular source. There are countless other instances of Israel doing so, you only have to type "Israel using human shields" in a Google search, and you will get all the examples you could possibly want.

     3. Fighting in civilians areas is the same as using human shields.
     Reality: Guerrilla groups, like Hamas, by nature, HAVE to fight in civilian areas. They have no other choice because they do not have the funds nor the infrastructure to have a conventional country's military like the U.S. and Israel do. By saying that fighting in civilian areas is using human shields and/or terrorism, you are taking away the poor peoples' of the world right to self-defense, because that is the only way that they can fight. If Hamas had the money and the territory to have military bases totally separate from civilian areas, then they would do it. But they don't. 1.7 million people are squished in a 26x6 piece of coastline. There is no room for that.
     Throughout history, guerrilla groups have fought in civilian areas, because if they were to meet their state enemy on the open battlefield, then they would be annihilated in two seconds because they don't have jet fighters, artillery, tanks, APCS, the likes. So they are doing the logical, rational thing. The Republican rebels during the Spanish Civil War, the French under Nazi occupation, the Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War, the Finnish during the Russian invasion during WW2, the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, and the American Patriots during the American Revolutionary War all fought using civilian disguises because that was the only way they could fight their enemies. They operated in the shadows of towns, in the underground of cities, in the fields of farmland, etc, etc, because that was the only way they could fight.
      Were they terrorists for doing so? Of course not, you wouldn't call George Washington a terrorist, but at the time, the British certainly did. Were they using human shields? Of course not, you would never say George Washington did that, but at the time, a British officer said something that pro-Israelis say all the time about Hamas: "The Americans are the most absolute cowards on the face of the Earth," "The Americans do not fight us like a regular army, only like savages behind trees and stone walls, out of the woods and fields," "The Americans never engage us properly," "We are enraged at the suffering from an unseen enemy," (Invisible Armies by Max Boot, page 66).

     4. Hamas doesn't get to enjoy the right to self-defense.  
     Reality: Every people, regardless of race or creed, has the right to self-defense. There's no negotiations on this right. I've already explained in a previous post why it is logical and rational to use force to defend yourself when you are physically being attacked, and that if you believe that a certain group doesn't have the right to self-defense, then you are condemning that entire group to death, solely for belonging to that group: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/07/every-person-has-right-to-life-and-self.html But the U.S. government does not believe that the Palestinians have the right to self defense, in fact, they call the idea "offensive": http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm      
     Critics of this idea will say "Oh, because Hamas is a terrorist organization, they don't get the right to self-defense." There are two things wrong with that statement. One: If you believe that, then you must believe it for every other terrorist organization. You have to apply the rule fairly to everyone, otherwise, there is the double standard in your logic. Using this logic, then the American military and the IDF do not enjoy the right to self-defense, because they are, by all standards, terrorists. Well, of course pro-Americans and pro-Israelis do not want their own logic applied to themselves the same way they apply it to the Palestinians! Oh no! They certainly couldn't have that! The problem is, anyone can call anyone a terrorist. So that's no criteria for having the right to self-defense.
     Two: Just because someone is a terrorist doesn't mean that suddenly they're not human, and therefore, do not enjoy all the human rights that each and every person is born with. I know everyone likes to dehumanize their enemy, but of course, that is an application of a double standard. The truth is, a person can be a terrorist in the morning, and then in the afternoon, run a soup kitchen for the homeless, and then in the evening, go back to his loving family and be a good father, and then at night, go back on another terrorist raid. Enemies are people, and people have human rights, simple as that. If we used the dehumanized logic, then all someone would have to do is to call a certain group a terrorist organization, and then proceed to slaughter them all. If anyone tried to stop them, the person could say "Oh they're terrorists, so it's okay for me to kill them all." This dehumanization tactic was used in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in Syria today, etc, etc, and is not something that I want my country to use.

      5. Israel only targets Hamas soldiers and Hamas targets Israeli civilians.
     Reality: Let's look at actions, not statements, because anyone can say they do anything. Judge a person by their actions, and not their words. That way, we can tell who is lying in this case.
     Israel has killed around 1,200 Palestinians at the time of this writing. 80% of those are civilians http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10967279/UN-80-per-cent-of-Palestinians-killed-in-Israeli-offensive-are-civilians.html
    So, that is:
    Israel has killed 960 civilians and 240 fighters.
    Hamas has killed 3 civilians and 53 Israeli soldiers.
    Those are the numbers, plain and simple. You be the judge as who is to targeting combatants and who is targeting civilians. 

      6. Israel isn't occupying Gaza anymore.
      Reality: If a team of thugs step one inch from your property, guns pointed at your house, and prevent you and your family from leaving, no, they're not on your property, but they're still occupying your house. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8807/is-gaza-still-occupied-and-why-does-it-matter. The same goes for the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israel controls all movement around the Strip. Israel prevents building materials for homes and hospitals. Israel prevents potato chips and chocolate from entering the Strip on security conditions, can't have the terrorist children having a snack! Israel prevents fuel, medicine, and food from entering the Strip. Israel shoots anyone who gets "too near" to their "security fence."
      Sounds like occupation to me.  

     7. Hamas's tunnels are only used for terrorism against Jewish civilians.
     Reality: First of all, we've already debunked the first part of this statement in #5. Hamas targets Israeli soldiers, not Israeli civilians. Look at this video: Hamas dug a tunnel specifically to attack an Israeli army outpost. Not a Jewish neighborhood, not a synagogue. AN ARMY OUTPOST:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAhozItSq0
     Second of all, the tunnels have a lot of other practical, rational, logical uses due to the Israeli blockade. They bring in goods banned by Israel. They provide jobs for Palestinians in Gaza, which they desperately need, as the unemployment is around 50% http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/07/26/335332220/the-long-history-of-the-gaza-tunnels. They allow for Palestinians to actually enter and leave Gaza, since it is next to impossible for them to complete all the requirements needed to leave. And yes, Hamas uses them for sneak attacks. ON ISRAELI SOLDIERS. A guerrilla group has to be adaptive. Hamas changes its tactics. There's nothing wrong with that. It is rational and logical to use tunnels for sneak attacks because Israel hasn't adapted to counter them yet. They're a good way to fight.

     There you have it. All bullshit arguments, laid out one by one, and each one logically picked apart. I have these opinions, not because I hate Jews, not because I'm an Islamic terrorists, but because my opinion is the result I have reached through the analysis of all of the facts.
     
     

Every person has the right to life and self-defense

     It's really sad that I have to write this post in the 21st century. You think that mankind would evolve and figure out that just because a person belongs to a certain ethnic group/ religious group, that doesn't mean that they, automatically and without question, deserve to die. But no, that would be asking WAY too much for humanity.
     The logic is really quite simple. If a person doesn't have the right to self-defense, then that invites anyone to just go up and kill them, and they can't fight back at all. They just have to sit there and take it, and die in the process. Even the Nazis had the right to self-defense. If the American soldiers are attacking them, I'm not going to cry and call the Nazis terrorists when they start fighting back, (they're terrorists for other reasons). Because fighting back is a natural and logical response, it is psychologically engraved in animals and in us as well. Just because a person is your enemy, does not mean they are not human, and therefore, should not enjoy human rights.  
     These are the reasons why every person, regardless of race or religion, (or any other group identity for that matter), have the right to life.
     1. A person is not responsible for the actions done by other people of his/her same religion or ethnicity. Every day, dozens of white people murder innocents in America and Europe, steal from people, kill people in car crashes, commit vandalism, rape people, etc, etc. Just pick up any local newspaper and you'll see examples. Now, imagine how absurd it would be if all the minorities in America and Europe demanded that all white people apologize every single time a white person did any of those things. That's right, you'd be thinking "Hey, I didn't do this crime xyz, why should I apologize for it?"
      You can substitute white people for any other ethnicity and the scenario would be the same. People dehumanize groups they hate, thinking they are all one monotonous group. But of course, they never apply the same logic to the groups they are apart of. A person is only responsible for the actions done by himself/herself, AND THAT'S FUCKING IT. In the Central African Republic, for example, when a group of radical Christians kill Muslim civilians on purpose, it is not "getting back at them" if Muslims go and kill random Christians in a retaliatory attack. Why? Because those aren't the Christians who killed the civilians. DUH!! All the Muslims have done is the exact same thing back to the Christians. They've both committed terrorism now.
     2. If a human being has committed no crime, then they shouldn't be put to death. Again, common sense, which is never common these days. Simply existing is not a crime.
     3. Thinking that because some members of xyz commit a crime, therefore, all members of xyz should die is a double standard, because people never think that about their own race. See this example to illustrate it:
      Racist Jew: A Muslim killed a Jewish civilian today, so all Muslims should die!
      Me (showing the fallacy): A Jew killed a Muslim civilian today, so all Jews should die!
      Racist Jew: What?! You can't take the crimes of one person and apply it to all Jews! I didn't do anything wrong! I shouldn't die!
      See what I mean? They never apply the same logic to the groups they hate and their own group. If they did, then they would think that literally everyone on the Earth should die, because all religions and races have had their share of people who have murdered innocent people throughout history.
      4. All religions and races are equal. Again, so sad that I have still have to write this. For every Asian terrorists I can find a South American terrorist to match, and vice versa. Substitute for any other religion or ethnic group and the statement is still the same. Besides, I'm sure there are more terrorists in one religion than another, for example, more Muslims than Jews, because there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. So even if percentage wise they're same, numerically, there will be more Muslim terrorists than Jewish terrorist. Does that mean Islam supports terrorism and Judaism doesn't? Of course not. Since when it is a rule than if your religion has more terrorists than my religion, then that means your religion supports terrorism and mine doesn't?
      Let's just say, for argument's sake, there are 40 million Islamic terrorists, and 34 million Christian terrorists in the world. What moral high ground can Christians have on Muslims? "Ha, you have 40 million terrorists and I only have 34 million! So that means you support terrorism and I don't!" Yeah, it makes no sense.
      5. Self-defense is logical. If you're a Palestinian, just walking through Gaza, minding your own business, and then, your house gets bombed by Israeli warplanes when there are no missiles or militants nearby, killing your family. What is your natural, logical reaction? You go join the group that is fighting Israel. Does that make you a terrorist? No, but unfortunately the only group fighting Israel is a terrorist organization, so technically, yes, you are now in a terrorist organization, and Israel has the right to kill you. But you haven't launched any rockets at civilians. You want to fight Israeli soldiers that killed your family.
     See how real life is more complicated than children stories of "good guys vs evil guys"?

     6. People have the right to self-defense in the best way that they can. If America is attacked, they attack with jet fighters, artillery, marines, etc. If you are attacked in your home by criminals, you attack with a gun. Is your actions automatically terrorism because you aren't a official state military using big expensive equipment? Of course not. But some people act like that's how it is. For example, they think the Free Syrian Army is a terrorist organization because it uses guerrilla warfare, with AK-47's and car bombs, against the Assad dictatorship. But they don't think Assad is, even though he is using jet fighters and artillery against civilians. Why don't they think Assad is a terrorist? Because he is a government, using machines to fight, so therefore, he couldn't possibly be a terrorist. 
      You store your gun in your home, because, that's the legal and rational thing to do, because it is on your property. But if you were a Palestinian in Gaza, Israel would drone strike your house, saying that you're using human shields because you're hiding arms in a civilian building. See how easy it is to twist things to make a normal action look like a terrorist action?  If your best weapon are homemade rockets, then that's what you have to use. If Hamas had jet fighters and cruise ships and artillery, believe me, they'd much rather use those then homemade rockets than cannot be aimed very well. But saying that all methods of warfare except expensive state of the art warfare that only rich countries can afford is "terrorism" is taking away the poor men of the world's fight to self-defense. You'd be condemning millions of people to death just because they can't afford laser guided missiles that your government can conveniently afford.
      In conclusion, this is a quick summary of my post, using again, an example:

• Israel has the right to fight against Palestinian militants, because they are both combatants who are at war with one another. 
• Israel DOES NOT have the right to kill Palestinian civilians, just because they are living in Gaza, or are Arab, or are Muslim etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.
• Palestine has the right to fight against Israeli military forces, because they are both combatants who are war with one another.    
• Palestine DOES NOT have the right to kill Israeli civilians, just because they are living in Israel, or are Jewish, etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.

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.