Why pacifists are selfish, and why violence is not inherently a good or bad thing

     This weeks post is going to be on a touchy subject, and it's going to be kind of different, because it's not about a single event in the news. It's coming from a position that is usually described as barbaric at worst, and unrefined at best. So I'm going to be very careful in my wording, because I want my opinion to be seen as exactly the opposite as those adjectives.
      If it can be related to a single event, it would be about Malala Yousafzai being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, her book coming out this week, etc. For the record, I believe 99% of what she has said. She is very brave and we should all support her because she is going to need all the support she can get, because she's going against a very sick and twisted organization, the Taliban. She is a good role model for young people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, girl or boy. However, just because I support her doesn't mean I'm going to look over the things that we are in disagreement with. That 1% that I didn't agree with really disturbed me, which compelled me to write about this topic.

     Pacifism, in liberal societies, is often seen as having the moral high ground, or being ideological superior to any other thought process that thinks violence is acceptable in at least one situation. I cannot disagree with that opinion more. I believe that violence in pure self-defense against aggressive combatants, and violence in defense of others against aggressive combatants, is the superior thought process. This opinion on violence does not support:

•  violence against non-combatants, (i.e. women, children, the elderly), 
• violence against combatants who did not start any fight, 
• violence where non-violence could've be used to achieve the same result,   
• violence against someone who just so happens to be in the social group as an aggressive person, (either religious, racial, political, etc). 

     Pacifists see all violence as abhorrent. I do not believe that fighting to protect civilians, or fighting against a tyrannical, murderous government, or fighting to protect yourself against a criminal who wants to murder you, is barbaric or vile in any way. On the contrary, pacifists are selfish because they refuse to put their life or health on the line to protect innocents. A person who has the same opinion on violence that I do, would gladly fight, and possibly die, if that meant saving his/her family from home invaders, for example. But a pacifist would just sit there and not fight back all, making it the easiest thing in the world for home invaders to kill everyone in the house. How is that morally superior?

   
     Let's think about the above picture. If a murderer invades a pacifist's house and proceeds to attack the pacifist, what's the first thing the pacifist, having absolutely no weapons in his house, does? That's right, he calls 911. He calls for a person, with a weapon, to come and help him. This police officer believes that a person is allowed to use violence in defense of others in the face of an aggressor. A person who believes in a "barbaric way of thinking" is the only thing standing between the pacifist and death. The pacifist is selfish. He won't put his life or health on the line to even protect himself, but he'll gladly let someone else do it.  
     The pacifist is like the dodo bird. Even in the face of aggressors killing pacifists on a mass scale, they would still just sit there, refusing to budge on their "moral high ground principles."

    Okay, enough bashing pacifists. Let's move onto the second part of the post. The media, and much of any liberal society, views violence as "100% always bad," without a doubt. It is never acceptable. Well, let's look at some of history's most evil villians:

• Hilter
• Osama Bin Laden
• Talat Pasha (responsible for the Armenian genocide)
• Reinhard Heydrich (2nd in command of SS, architect of the "Final Solution)
• Maximilien Robespierre
• Ivan the Terrible
• Vlad the Impaler

     Guess how they all died? I'll tell you, it wasn't peaceful protests that did them in. Right, it was violence. Good guys killing the bad guys. In Hitler's case, he killed himself, but only because loads of good guys, the Allies, were beating the crap out of his totalitarian state by, guess what, killing Nazis by the thousands.
      The point I'm making here is that sometimes, peaceful means will not get rid of a bad guy, or solve a problem. Sometimes, the only option left is violence. It should be used as a last resort. In some cases, it can be a good thing, because nothing short of killing Vlad the Impaler was going to stop Vlad the Impaler from killing innocent people. By killing him, the people who did so saved countless innocent lives that would've been taken away, had Vlad the Impaler continued to reign.
     Sometimes, there is nothing that will stop a bully from beating the shit out of you, except beating the shit outta him. When I was a freshman in high school, I got picked on and beat up relentlessly because I was short and small, because of my race, because I wasn't one of the cool kids, etc. I tried every method of non-violence to solve this problem.

1. Talked to the bullies themselves, told them to stop. That didn't work. 
2. Went to the school administrators. They didn't do anything; they didn't care.
3. Told my parents. They didn't care.
4. Went to the police officer at school. He didn't care.

     At this point I was out of options. Over the months, I started working out a lot. I grew half a foot. Throughout all my fights with the bullies, I learned how to fight well. I took some cheap shots, but due to my size, it was the only way I could win, so I did so. So by the end of the year, I was the one that was winning the fights, not the bullies. Sophomore year I got into a few fights but not nearly as much as freshman year. Junior and Senior year I didn't get into any fights at all. People learned not to mess with me, and that was that.
     I'm not saying to love violence. I'm not saying to go out into the street and start beating up random people for the fun of it. Violence can just as easily be used for evil means as it can be used for good means. I'm only saying to admit that violence can be used for good means. Don't label it as 100% evil, all of them time.

     Malala was asked what she would do if another Taliban goon approached her to kill her. She replied:
 "I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me. But then I said, 'If he comes, what would you do Malala?' then I would reply to myself, 'Malala, just take a shoe and hit him.' But then I said, 'If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib."

     Absolutely incorrect. Malala could not be more wrong on this. Killing a girl because she wants to go to school is absolutely nothing like a girl defending herself from a religious extremist. The two actions could not be farther apart on the moral scale. Malala is right on many things, but she has some growing up to do.    

Is it insane to protest against the Russian government?

A man who was protesting against the Russian government last year, and found guilty of beating a policeman during that incident, was sentenced to forced psychiatric treatment.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57606559/russian-activist-mikhail-kosenko-sentenced-to-forced-psychiatric-treatment/

There are several issues I have with this story. Let's deal with the police beating part of it, since that is the more serious of the two "crimes."
1. There's evidence that shows that Kosenko never even touched the police officer who was beaten.
"The majority of the evidence, including from the police officer himself, indicates that Kosenko never touched him," Tanya Lokshina, the rights group's Russia program director, said in the statement.

Sounds like the autocratic Russian government just wanted to punish Kosenko for his activist activities, and just made up this charge so they could stick him with something.

2. But let's say Kosenko did beat the police officer. Is it a crime to defend yourself against a government goon who is going to beat you up, simply because you are using your freedom of expression?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Russian government is militant, repressive, and theocratic. One must only look at places such as Freedom House or Human Rights Watch to see their long list of crimes.
Every human is entitled to certain rights, regardless of whether the government of the country they're living in, says it's legal or not. Therefore, when the Russian government thugs, a.k.a, cops, came to break up that protest in May of 2012, Kosenko, along with everyone else that was with him, still had their unalienable right to freedom of expression. If that police officer attacked Kosenko, he had the right to defend himself. Therefore, even if Kosenko beat up that police officer, he was still justified. I think you guys would agree that Kosenko shouldn't have just sat there and get his ass handed to him. If you believe that Konsenko was not justified, then you believe that, due to Kosenko political beliefs, he is a legitimate target of genocide, because the police officer, in his beating of Kosenko, could easily kill him. And that, sir and madams, is fascism.

3. It is not insane to protest and/or use force to defend yourself from a violent, corrupt, autocratic, non-legitimate regime.
As I have said in many past posts, it is logical and rational to fight against an entity that is taking away your human rights. For centuries, men and women have taken up arms against oppressive governments. People have a primeval yearning to control their own affairs; it is against nature to want to control them. Do not believe the mainstream media, (MSM), which brainwashes people into thinking that using force in self-defense is barbaric and terrorism. They are doing that to soften people up so that they will not resist the government when it slowly, bit by bit, takes away our human rights.
There is reason why protest groups, who want to be committed to a policy of non-violence, have to train their members to be non-violent even in the face of police breaking up their rally. It is because non-violence is contrary to the vast majority of peoples' instincts. It is normal, mainstream, to fight to protect yourself. But the MSM is trying to tell everyone that it's exactly the opposite! They're trying to say that non-violence is the norm, and that people have to be exposed to "extremist ideology" or "radical thought" in order for them to use force in self-defense! 
Therefore, the punishment of forced psychiatric treatment for Kosenko, who did a logical and rational action, is totally illogical. It's Russia's way of saying "resistance against us is insane. The only rational thing is doing everything we say." It seems Russia has changed little from when it was the Soviet Union.   

What can we ordinary Americans do to help Kosenko and other people who are opposed to Russian fascism? Well, very little, unfortunately. That's the sad truth. America has little to no control over what Russia does, especially in internal affairs. But what we can do is this:

• Spread the word about this story. Have you seen this in any MSM newspaper or website? (Besides CBS obviously). Didn't think so. Simply sharing the CBS story on FB, Twitter, heck even Tumblr, whatever social media you use, will let people read this story who may have otherwise never came across it. 
• Follow Human Right Watch's campaign for Mikhail Kosenko, as well as news from Amnesty International. If you can afford to and agree with these group's values, consider donating to them.
• Present a counter-argument against people who say along the lines of "Only governments can use violence, if a person does it, it's terrorism." This is what I did here in this post, is present a counter-argument and defense for Kosenko. Go ahead, you can do it as well. Use my points if you want to, I don't care, it's not like I copyright any of this shit. 
• Demand that the United States government not conduct any business with Russia. Our American values tell us that we cannot do business with freedom hating governments, because the money we give them can be used to stifle dissent and destroy liberty. I, for one, do not want that on my conscious. On principle, we must isolate Russia until they change their ways, or weaken them enough that a more freedom loving group comes into power. The fact that America does so much business with Russia makes us guilty in the oppression of the Russian people. We are financing their suffering. IT'S GOT TO FUCKING STOP!!  

   

Maybe this government shutdown will wake people the hell up

I don't even need to put a link for this story. Everyone knows the U.S. government shut down, and now doesn't have any money for anything except for "essential personal," (Like all those soldiers overseas and NSA pricks are "essential," but hey, that's another story.)

By itself, this shutdown wouldn't be an incredibly big issue, because hey, people run outta money every once in a while. If this was the one thing the government fucked up at, I'd forgive 'em.

But that's not even remotely the case, isn't it? This fuck up is only the last in an incredibly long and painful list of things our government does wrong. My argument today is that this shutdown should be the breaking point for people, because it is personally affecting their wallets.

The government is killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq? What do I care? I'm not in Iraq. My life is fine. 

I'm not getting my paycheck because of a government shutdown? AW FUCK NO MAN!! We gotta do something about this!

^^^Unfortunately, this is how most people think. It's psychological, but that doesn't make it right. Whatever, I'll take contempt against the government any way I can. The point is, our government has failed us. It's failed us a long time ago. Not just the people currently in office, but the system itself is busted. It doesn't care about us, the common people, the people struggling to pay our bills, to put food on the table. It only cares about the 1%, the unimaginable rich that line the politicians' pockets full to the brim with money.

Yes, there is a bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats, but at the end of the day, both parties want to tyrannize us with minimal rights and poverty, while they get to have all the wealth and power they want. Republicans and neo-Liberals want corporations to rule America. They want us to go back to the way things were in the 1930's, with sweat shops, no federally mandated safety laws, 12 hour shifts, no paid vacation, getting fired for no reason, no workman's comp if you've been injured on the job, etc. They want constant wars with 12+ countries at one time, killing civilians, stealing resources, and setting up illegitimate puppet governments.

Democrats and neo-Conservatives want the government to rule America. They want us to be like Italy and Japan in the 1940's, with no privacy, secret police and NSA spies knowing everything you're doing 24/7, no right to bear arms to defend yourself and your loved ones, no freedom of speech, Constitution be damned, (fuck that old piece of irrelevant shit!!!).

 At the end of the day, tyranny is tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the person shoving a gun against your temple is liberal or conservative, a government thug or a corporation thug. Both parties don't give a shit about us. The fact that so many people still vote for them stands as a testament to how good those parties are at brainwashing and dolling out propaganda. The parties don't even try to hide their agenda. It's out for everyone to see. They openly say they're going to do all these harmful things to people, and then those same people turn around and vote for them.

This article clearly states what I want to happen to Congress as a result of their extreme incompetence:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ways-to-punish-congress-for-threatening-a-shutdown/2013/09/30/4778f724-29ed-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

I'm surprised a government controlled media source openly said that people said "Off with their heads," and “Line ’em up and shoot ’em. I consider what they’re doing treason.” They might be exaggerating or half joking, but the words clearly show the extreme anger many people have with the government. People that don't normally get pissed off at the government, now are really pissed off at the government.

Okay, so what's the point of this entire rant? If you take one thing away from all this, it's this:

•   Do not vote for a Republican or Democrat for any office. 

 These parties have treated us like shit for decades. It's time to throw. them. out. Every single one of them. A massing purging of government. Now you might ask "I happen to like many of the stances the Republican Party has," for example, "So why should I vote for another party whose stances I don't agree with?"

That's a valid question. I'm not asking for anyone to vote for a party that they don't believe in. I would ask that you research all of the third parties out there in America. There are a lot more of them then you might think. Research them, find out their opinions on important issues. I think you'll be thoroughly surprised that you'll find a couple that have the same opinions that you do. You just haven't heard of them yet because the main stream media puts a tight clamp over them when they're trying to get their message out. Here is a tentative list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29   

      

Why do people care so much about having the latest version of everything?!

The I-phone 5s recently went out on sale, and Apple reported they sold 9 million of them in 3 days.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/23/iphone-5s-5c-apple-record-nine-million

Today is going to be a rant against people's wasteful and self-hurting spending habits that hold them back from moving up in the economic ladder. I'm using the I-phone as an example, but it can be used in a variety of situations where people habitually, routinely spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on luxuries a year, which adds up over time.

Let's see what I'm talking about. The I-phone 5s is currently selling for anywhere between $400 and $800, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=shop&q=iphone+5&oq=i&gs_l=products-cc.1.2.0l10.1574.1574.0.4757.1.1.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.QerQhbyll6k#hl=en&q=iphone+5s&safe=off&tbm=shop

Apple comes out with a new I-phone or improved platform for an I-phone every 6 months to a year. But there are many people, many poor people, who are obsessed with having the latest version of the I-phone as soon as they can possibly get it. They HAVE to have it ASAP, otherwise they aren't "hip" and their whole world is shattered. So every year, they blow $800-$1200 on a new phone. Every year. That is a huge chunk of their earnings, a huge chunk that could be used for much better purposes.

First of all, they can flat out just save that money. Put it in a bank. Save it for an emergency. Currently, 67% of Americans have little to no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2013/09/18/majority-of-americans-still-living.html
That is partly due to the crappy economy, but it is also augmented by peoples' incredibly poor spending habits. It wouldn't be a problem if someone splurged and got a new phone as soon as they could get it just once. But I know many people, whose finances are not so good, who do this every time a new I-phone or upgrade comes out. Just over 3 years that could be $2400-$3600 they spend. And that's not even counting the early contract termination fee, or data plan per month, etc. Do you really need a new phone every 6 months? Can you not wait for your two year contract to expire? Is there really that much of a difference between the I-phone 4 and I-phone 4S to warrant such an outrageous expense??

You could use that money to pay for a college class at community college. You can make a much needed car repair. There's a whole list of things your money could be better spent on.

Now, this wouldn't be a huge financial burden on people, if this was the only thing they put a lot of money down on. Like, if they were financially smart in all other areas of their life, to make up for this big splurge. That's not a problem. What's a problem is when this is coupled with several other constant luxury spending binges. Again, I know many people who do this. They're mostly young people, anywhere from 17-upper 20's. In addition to spending that much money on a new phone every 6 months, they spend dozens of dollars on alcohol, every week, and dozens of dollars on cigarettes, every week, dozens of dollars on gas for their car on trips that are not necessary, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. At the end of the month, they've spent all the money that they've earned, so they save nothing, and they stay being poor.
Several months and/or years of smart spending and saving can yield thousands of dollars in your bank, that can help you make purchases to move you up on the economic ladder. You know can qualify for a loan to get a new car, because you have enough money to make the down payment. You can afford to move to a nicer apartment, you can pay medical bills, buy school supplies, etc.
That's all I'm advocating. I'm not advocating not buying any luxuries, I'm advocating spending your money wisely. Indulge a bit, but not to the extreme where you're blowing hundreds of dollars every month on luxuries. I like to party hard as much as the next guy, probably even more. The more craziness there is, the better. But I'm also not an idiot. (Aren't those two sentences an oxymoron lmao?!) I know I can only afford to do this once a month. So that's how often I do it. I don't do it every weekend like some of my idiotic friends do, because then I would be even more poorer than I already am. You'd be amazed on how much you can save by limiting a few luxurious expenses.      

The one thing that will lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees

By now, the top story in every national media across the country is about the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C., in which Aaron Alexis killed 12 people before being killed in a shootout with police.Of course, the usual solutions are thrown around by all sorts of politicians and media pundits: more access to mental health services, better security, better background checks, stricter gun control, stricter access to violent video games and movies, etc, etc. These may change the number and severity of mass shooting sprees by 2, maybe 3%, (gun control is the only one out of the group that won't do anything). So we're not going to talk about those concepts, because their effect would be minimal. We're going to talk about the elephant in the room that people just don't want to talk about, because their liberal brainwashing demands that they look at this concept as a violent, right-wing nut job concept that is evil and would never work, statistics, examples, and logic be damned. The one rule that would lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees more than all the other ideas combined would be:

If all adult Americans, who can legally get their carry conceal permit, be allowed to carry conceal anywhere in the U.S., excluding obvious places like places of worship and the White House.

(Liberal butthurt haters coming in 3..2..1..)

There is a reason why most of these mass shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones." The shooters are not stupid. They know that at those locations, the vast majority of people will be helpless to stop them. The only people who can fight back are people that stand out: policemen, guards, etc. The shooter knows exactly what and where his threat is. This allows him to kill faster.

On the flip-side, let's say everyone at the Navy Yard was allowed to carry conceal. Alexis wouldn't know who is a threat and who isn't. At any moment when he is firing, someone could whip out their pistol and shoot him before he would know that he/she is there. Consider this statistic:  

There are less deaths in shooting rampages stopped by civilians because 1. They are closer, 2. The shooter cannot identify who is a threat and who isn't.  

When you do not allow someone to carry and conceal, you are taking away their right to life by taking away their right to defend themselves. You are making them near helpless and a target for any crazy person to just walk in and start shooting fish in a barrel. I work at a theater. They do not allow anyone to carry a gun in the building. If a shooter walked into the theater and started shooting up the place, I would have to take him out with my pocket knife, which would be very hard to do. Why? Because I would have to get up into him before he saw me and shoot me. Even though I am very fast, that's still next to impossible to do in a wide area such as a theater. Having a pistol on me would make it a lot easier, and, in turn, make it easier and faster for me to save lives. Even though I do not agree with the rule the theater has in place, I am a law-abiding citizen, (like the vast majority of carry conceal permit holders), and therefore, I follow it anyway. 

The notion that carry conceal makes people more aggressive, more prone to killing, or that they're just itching for a fight, is simply untrue. When I carry conceal, I don't bother anyone. I don't want to fight anyone. If a shooting occurs, you better believe that I'll fight to protect myself and other people, but if there isn't one, then I continue throughout my day as normal. How is the want to protect other innocent people viewed as itching for a fight? Are security guards itching for a fight when they carry their weapons on them? Why is it that as soon as it is a civilian carrying a weapon, suddenly our views on their intents change 180 degrees?

The notion that letting people carry conceal in a mall, for example, would make it easier for psychos to commit a mass shooting spree there is also simply untrue. If a psycho wants to bring a weapon in, he's going to, whether the law says he can or not. The law is the last thing on his mind. The only thing that permitting carry conceal will change is whether someone like me will bring one in or not, because I, unlike the criminal, follow the laws. 

In conclusion, if people were allowed to carry conceal in 99% of places around the country, that would be a real deterrent to psychos who want to commit a mass shooting spree, because it will deny them the thing that they want: to kill a bunch of people in a blaze of "glory" and be all over the newspapers. But instead, he'll think "Wow, the last 3 attempted shooting sprees have been stopped at 3, 1, and 2 victims. That might happen to me too. I guess I won't do that if there's a high chance I won't get what I want!" This will stop some of the criminals, others will still attempt no matter how many shooting sprees have been stopped quickly. But that is the reason for carry conceal; the statistic above speaks for itself: for the shooting sprees that still will happen, carry conceal drastically lowers the number of deaths.     

  

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

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

Afghan kids killed by a NATO airstrike

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

We Should Not Attack Syria

     One can go through my past posts and see how much I support the Syrian rebels and their fight against a dictator for freedom and liberty. These rebels are some of the most bravest and most steadfast fighters I have seen in years. They're taking on not only the Syrian dictatorship, (who is being supplied and financed by Russia, <--- fascist assholes,) but Hezbollah and Iran also, as well as fighting against extremist rebels who wish to turn Syrian into an al-Qaida playground. That's a lot to go up against, especially when they are receiving minimal support from anyone else.

     So if I want the rebels to win, why would I not support a U.S. strike against the Syrian dictatorship? At first glance that would see counter-intuitive. In a sentence, a U.S. strike in the manner that President Obama described would not help the Syrian rebels, it would actually hinder them in the long run by emboldening Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship.

      Obama wants to launch a limited cruise missile attack from our Navy against Syrian government installations. Here are the things wrong with that:

1. Since he already announced he was going to do it, (like the blundering idiot that he is. Who publicly the exact time they're going to attack? Honestly?), the Syrian government has already moved lots of its personnel out of government and military installations and into civilian areas, http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N34/long1.html. So any attack on those installations would cause minimal causalities. That defeats the whole purpose of attacking. And if we wanted to cause massive causalities, we would have to bomb civilian areas, which defeats the whole point of wading into this civil war to save civilians' lives in the first place.   
2. Obama says he wants to bomb Syria to punish them for using chemical weapons against their own people and to deter them from doing it again. But if a limited cruise missile attack is all that's going to happen to Assad for doing that, that's not going to deter him at all. It will only hurt him in the slightest bit; it'll just be like a fly momentarily annoying him. There's no incentive for him to not do it again.
3. If Congress doesn't approve and nothing happens, it'll embolden Assad even more. He'll think "The Americans said they were going to punish me, but yet they ended up doing nothing. Oh, better gas civilians again then!"
4.  An American strike would strengthen Assad's narrative that he is fighting against Western imperialism and their NATO-trained rebel death squads. 
5. As bad as Syria has been for decades, they still have not attacked us. So why should we attack them? They didn't do anything to us. We're already like in 10 different wars, do we really want to get involved in another one? When will we stop wanting to kill so many people around the world who aren't even doing anything to us?!
6. The US is in no position to be the enforcer of using no chemical weapons. The US used depleted uranium in Iraq that is just as harmful as the chemical weapons Assad used, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html and continuously gives billions of dollars to the apartheid regime known as Israel, who has used chemical weapons against the Palestinians, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/israel-army-white-phosphorous_n_3157604.html. How can we have the moral high ground if we do the exact same thing Assad does? It's like a murderer trying to stop a murderer from murdering. It doesn't work.  

     Instead, the Obama administration should do these steps. These steps would help the rebels out a lot more and quicken Assad's downfall:   

• Give the moderate secular rebels weapons and medical supplies. It really is that simple. Our intelligence gatherers can determine which brigades are moderate and which ones are religious extremists. Contrary to what some racist, bigoted Americans say, not all the rebels fighting against Assad are al-Qaida. They think if they repeat that lie enough times, it'll become true. Sadly, reality does not work that way. Our intelligence analysts, CIA, etc, are good enough that they can determine which brigades are in line with our American values, and who truly want a free and fair Syria.  
• Politically prop up these moderate rebels and their political counterparts, while politically isolating the extremist rebels. The fact that the government controls most of the big media corporations makes it all the more easier for them to get these facts out.   

These two steps is all we would need to do to ensure the moderate rebels would overthrow Assad. Really, that's all. The rebels are already a very effective guerrilla fighting force with the small amount of firepower they already have. If we multiply their firepower, that multiplication would result in more government soldiers' deaths and more territory claimed by the rebels.
If that's all we need to do to overthrow Assad, then why hasn't Obama done that yet? Because, contrary to what he says, Obama wants Assad in power. Why? Because Assad is a coward who talks a big talk but when it comes to walk, he doesn't. Obama wants Assad in power because he knows Assad is too much of a pussy to attack Israel, even in self-defense. When Israel bombed Syria's nuclear facility in 2007, Assad railed on and on how he was going to attack Israel and he was the great champion of the Arabs, etc, etc. What did he do?
Nothing.
Obama loves to support dictatorships and fascist oligarchies around the world, (see 8/30/12 article). Syria is no different. Obama wants Assad in power. If a democratically elected government came to power in Syria, and truly wanted what was best for their people, that would be a much harder government to deal with. They would stand up for themselves more often. Assad just bends over and lets anyone attack him and doesn't lift a finger. America can't have an Arab country who looks after it's peoples' rights, so they would rather deal with a dictatorship.

The world's really fucked up, isn't it?

Nidal Hasan Is Not a Terrorist, He Is an Enemy Combatant

Nidal Hassan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and wounded 32 others at Ft. Hood, Texas, in November 2009, was convicted of all charges last week. This week, the jurors decide what his sentence will be.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/nidal-hasan-sentencing/

I have no problem with this whole trial thing, or anything else related to this, for that matter. The only problem I have with this is that the vast majority of Americans are calling Hassan a terrorist, when in fact, he is not. He is an enemy combatant. He attacked soldiers in war-time, on a military base. His victims were overwhelmingly soldiers, (12 soldiers and 1 civilian). That's certainly better than the ratio of combatants/civilians the US has killed in all the wars after WW2. 

It would help illustrate my point if we had a textbook definition of terrorism, because that word has been thrown around so much the last dozen years that it basically has lost all meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Okay, now, compare the definition to what Hasan did.
THEY'RE NOTHING SIMILIAR!!!!

This shows the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of America in general, but specifically it's media. It shows the extreme lengths that America will go to, to de-legitimaize any type of resistance to it's imperialistic terrorist policies. They're trying to make it look like ANY person who opposes America is automatically a terrorist, no question asked. This is a typical fascist technique to gather support from it's citizens. After all, who wants to be called a terrorist? So, they brainwash people into supporting America blindly, in the fear that if they don't, they will be called terrorists, and shunned from ordinary society, and/or face criminal charges, imprisonment, etc.

Okay, some people say, but Hasan killed un-armed Americans. He was in contact with a radical Muslim cleric. He's obviously a terrorist, right???
Ahhh, but you have to look deeper than that to find the truth.
 In war, soldiers, police officers, and government personal are legitimate targets to attack. They are the ones doing the attacking, so it only makes logical sense that you can defend yourself from them. Otherwise, you'd just have to sit there and get killed, saying "I can't defend myself because that's being a terrorist." Yeah fucking right, give me a fucking break. So, who did Hasan shoot at?
That's right, soldiers! Hassan shot soldiers! Soldiers who were getting ready to deploy to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Hassan acted in a totally rational manner as an enemy soldier would. Police reports verify that Hassan "specifically targeted soldiers in his attack. There were several times where he aimed at a civilian, realized that he/she was a civilian, and passed by them."

The fact that they're un-armed makes no difference, they are still soldiers. If you saw Osama Bin Laden walking down the street, you would kill him, right? You wouldn't rush towards him, and notice he has no weapon, and say "Oh, I know you're a mass murderer and all, but since you have no gun, I can't touch you."
Of course not! A soldier is a soldier, whether he is armed or not. That's why sneak attacks are so effective in war. It catches your enemy off-guard and un-armed. Which is exactly what this was, not a terrorist attack, but a simple sneak attack. It's a center piece of guerrilla warfare. American patriots did it all the time to British forces in the American Revolution. Are you calling them terrorists? They didn't do it because they were terrorists, they did it because that's the only way they could afford to fight. They couldn't afford the big fancy armies and cannons like the British could. Lumping guerrilla warfare with terrorism de-legitimizes any non-governmental group's fighting cause, effectively taking away the poor man of the world's way to defend himself.

Just because he was in contact with a so called radical Muslim cleric doesn't mean he's a terrorist. Let's say your best childhood friend turned out to a terrorist, and you honestly had no idea he was. The police can't call you a terrorist, simply by association. It doesn't work that way. But of course, the police could spin the story to make it look like you are. They could say "This guy spent a lot of time with this terrorist, they went to parties together, he even played air-soft with him!" Of course, that would be true, you did do those things with your best childhood friend, but with no terrorist ties at all, just simple friendship.

 Bottom line I'm trying to make here is: we are overusing the word terrorist by a shitload. The discussions flew out the fucking windows of the house of rationality. People are acting like paranoid delusional crazies right now. It has got to stop, otherwise, this country is gonna end up like Tea Time with the Mad Hatter. The media has got to tone it down a few thousand notches. If America has the notion that any resistance to it's policies will be seen as terrorism, they will do anything they want to, without fear of consequences, because no one will try and stop them, on the fears of being called a terrorist, (1984 anyone?!?!?!)

You may not agree with the enemy or it's policies, but you have to admit that they have the inalienable right to fight against us in accordance with the laws of war and human rights.
Nidal Hasan is not a terrorist, he is a enemy soldier who tried to operate a sneak attack deep in our territory, and was captured after being wounded. Simple as that.  

Turns Out "Tamarod" Coup Was to Restore Dictatorship in Egypt

Things are getting real interesting in Egypt right now, and by interesting I mean going down the fucking tube. Let's set some summaries out before we dive into it, shall we?

• Morsi was not a good president. He wasn't helping the already pathetic economy, his policies were creating an even more divisive and polarized society, he wasn't doing much to protect women and minorities from harassment and attacks, and all he did was talk but no walk when it came to the Palestinians. (There are a few more things but these are the main ones).

But did he deserve to be overthrown? That's debatable. When a president is completely horrible in a democracy, the military doesn't overthrow him and put in an oligarchical authoritarian regime instead. The people are supposed to petition him to do/not do certain things, impeach him, or vote him and his party out in the next elections. Morsi, even though he wasn't a good president, was the first and only legitimately elected ruler in all of Egypt's history. His term was for 3 more years. How much good can you expect someone to do in only a year's time? Maybe Egyptians should've put more legal and legitimate pressure on him for a longer period of time and see how he would've done, instead of overthrowing him.

• No matter Morsi's politics, the military's killings of unarmed protesters right after the coup is state terrorism, and gives the Egyptians the right to use violence to defend themselves from said state terrorism. 

Contrary to what a lot of bigoted, racist Americans are saying, if you go back to the news reports to June 30th and the next couple of days, you will see that the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters were entirely peaceful in their protests against the coup. And what did they get for being peaceful? The military and pro-dictatorship thugs slaughtered them by the hundreds, detained some and killed them in police custody, (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013818175824286257.html), raped hundreds of women, and attacked and burned dozens of MB offices.
 I don't care even if you hate the MB, you're perfectly allowed to have that opinion. But that doesn't mean you should support killing and torturing them just because you disagree with their politics. The thing is, not everyone who was protesting is a MB member. They might've just voted for Morsi, that doesn't mean they belong to the MB, anymore than voting for Obama once makes someone a Democrat. Other people who were protesting had nothing to do with the MB, they were just against the coup. Killing a non-combatant for political reasons is terrorism.
The very moment the military opened fire on protesters, the protesters now had the right to use violence to defend themselves. If you say no to that, that means you're saying the government can kill any citizen they want at any time, and the citizen has to sit there and do nothing and get killed. That's fascist bullshit. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, race, or religion, has the right to defend themselves against anyone who attacks them first.

The "interim" government is acting just like the Mubarak regime: persecuting Egyptians because of their political affiliation and kidnapping civilians out of their homes in nightly raids. Showing their love for a military dictatorship even more, now they're going to free Mubarak, the previous dictator in prison for all the hundreds of crimes he's done over the decades:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This shows that that military dictatorship does not want to return to democracy in the least bit. Like Morsi or hate Morsi, you gotta admit that his election was fair and democratic. You can't claim you want democracy, saying "Oh yeah we can have elections, just these certain people can't run for office."

In conclusion, this has shown that peaceful protests will not work against the authoritarian regime, because they'll just shoot you. This has shown that participating in democratic elections against the authoritarian regime will not work because they'll just overthrow you if you win. Some Egyptians have realized this and have started doing the only thing that can get the corrupt authoritarian out of Egypt's political system:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/egypt-attack_n_3778106.html

The funeral for 25 police officers killed in an ambush in the Sinai Penisula

The Egyptian revolution of 2011 did not fully get rid of the authoritarian officials from the Egyptian government, it only got rid of Mubarak. This is the limitations of a peaceful revolution. It left the corrupt system intact. All it did was wait two years and then it seized upon anti-Morsi sentiment and took back the country. So how to solve this problem?

The Egyptian people must launch an armed revolution that will purge Egypt of the authoritarian regime. It's beyond saving; they must burn it to the ground and start again from scratch. It must be a legitimate armed struggle that is solely aimed at Egyptian police and military forces. Attacks on civilians, especially women and minorities, should not be tolerated and anyone who is found guilty of such attacks should be put to death. Once the government is defeated, an interim government should be set up. This interim government must have a counter-insurgency plan enacted, because surely there will be a pro-authoritarian insurgency, leftovers from the dictatorship. Elections can be held 8-10 months from victory date. For more details on how this revolution should be waged, see my July 31st entry on how the Palestinians should wage the 3rd Intifada.    
    

It Is Not Extreme to Rebel Against a Tyrannical Government

Yemeni tribesmen killed 5 soldiers guarding a gas plant in south-western Yemen.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/11/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html

Now why would these tribesmen kill those soldiers? I mean, the only people who kill are psycho extremists, right? I mean, that's what the main stream media says, so it MUST be true.

To find out the answer to this question, we must look at Yemen's government.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/yemen

To summarize it in a sentence, Yemen's government is a corrupt, violent oligarchy that doesn't give a fuck about its people.
It's rating, from a 1-7, 1 being completely free and 7 being fascist asshole land, is a 6. Even before the Arab Spring hit it in the spring of 2011, the government did the standard horrible things to its people: secret police kidnappings, torturing, killings, rapes, corrupt officials, no free elections for government officials, no basic human rights like freedom of expression or freedom to gather.
After the Arab Spring hit, the government went into violent panic mode, like many Arab governments did when they were hit with waves of protests. They slaughtered unarmed protesters by the hundreds. Then, some Yemenis thought, logically, "Hey, I, like every other person in the world, have the right to defend myself, even against a government." So, they put down their cute protest signs and picked up some rifles, and started defending themselves from government attacks. A government should not get special treatment when it comes to judging it in killing people.

Yemeni protesters running after the police attacked them.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the average Yemeni, to help better understand why it is rational, logical, and within human nature to rebel against a violent oligarchical government. Let's say you are a husband and a father of two, living in an apartment in downtown Sanaa, the capital. Let's say you absolutely had nothing to do with opposition politics whatsoever. You literally did not care what the government did as long as they physically didn't hurt you.

But then the protests of 2011 started. Now the government is striking your neighborhood with artillery and tank shells. Government troops are moving in. You're put in a horrible situation. You either fight to protect your family, or do nothing, and you all die. That's how a government crackdown whips up people to fight against them that normally wouldn't do anything.

Let's take another situation. Let's say you are into opposition politics. You petition the government to allow for political gatherings, and instead of granting it, they kidnap you and bunch of other people in the dead of night. They break down the front door, and throw flash bangs and smoke grenades as they enter. They shoot your son, because, well, they can and get away with it, beat the crap out of your wife, and then kidnap you, putting a black bag over your head and cart you to God knows where, where they proceed to torture you for days and weeks, all for what? For simply peacefully petitioning the government to allow for a basic human right. Well, you're not peaceful anymore. You're out for bloody justice, and if peaceful means won't do anything, the minute you get your hands on a gun you're gonna kill some of dem gommverment troops, (Blood Diamond reference. If you haven't seen it you should. Damn good movie). 

The point of these examples is to show that under certain government conditions, it is rational and logical to fight against said government. It is not extreme, bloodthirsty, or a terrorist act to do so. History has shown that the human psychology does not like being conformed or restricted to a large degree. It is natural for a human to want to be free to make his/her own decisions.When it is chained by fascist rules or a corrupt government, psychologically the human gets mad, and wants to do something about it. First he would try peaceful means, because if you can solve a problem without bloodshed, that is better. But if peaceful means don't work, then you're left with no choice but to use violence.

A Yemeni man injured by government artillery shelling

This is what happens with a good chunk of the human population, however this is not the case 100% of the time. For example, there are some people who are pacifists, who under any circumstances, will not fight back. Even if they are being physically attacked, they will just sit there and get the shit beat outta them. However these are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm. You have to consciously be a pacifist because it is human instinct, (primal instinct that we obtained when our ancestors were cavemen and relied a lot on the fight or flight response to survive), to fight to defend yourself.

Revolution against tyrannical governments is rooted in our nation's culture because that is how our nation was born: out of the ashes of the American Revolution against the British. Therefore, as Americans, we must support any people's rightful revolution against any power that is oppressing them. Just take a look at all of the revolutions that have happened throughout history. It shows that humans do not like dictatorships and oligarchies; they want to be in control of their own destinies:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

What has the American government done in relation to this revolution? Well, as usual, it has not acted in accordance with our American values and morals, only more reason to kick this violent tyranny support government out of power, (but that's for another time). The American government has supported and even fought in support of the Yemeni government. That makes us, as is in many cases, guilty of all the crimes that Yemen does that we support: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/yemen-reported-us-covert-actions-2013/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20894
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/09/the_us_is_buying_even_more_hardware_for_yemens_military

So what can we do, as Americans, to help the Yemenis achieve the same freedom and dignity that we enjoy everyday?
1. Call for the U.S. government to cut off all aid to the Yemeni government. We absolutely cannot be giving aid to terrorists. The Yemeni government is a terrorist organization that kills unarmed civilians on purpose to scare them into submission. Is that where you want your hard earned tax dollars to go to?!
2. Support moderate rebels while denouncing extremist ones. There are a myriad of organizations fighting against the Yemeni government. Many include extremists and Al-Qaeda that are against both our American values and Islamic values. They kill civilians and shove their interpretation of Islam down peoples' throats. The Yemeni and American propaganda machine want you to believe that those are the ONLY organizations against the Yemeni government, to support their narrative that the Yemeni government is a good government that is just trying to survive terrorist attacks. These are the people that we must identify and denounce. Call them out on their bullshit ideology, make 'em look like idiots in the public and international arena, and make sure they don't get any American money or weapons.
But there are many moderate organizations, soldiers, and people who are fighting for the same aspirations that our ancestors fought for in the American Revolution. They want democracy and equal rights for all. They only fight against Yemeni soldiers; they do not attack civilians. These are the people we must identify and support, make sure their voices are heard, and make sure that the Yemeni American propaganda machine does not drown out their legitimate aspirations and goals.   

Anti-government demonstrators carry a Yemeni army officer as he joins demonstrations demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh during a demonstration in Sana'a