statistsgonnastate:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s A Time to Break Silence. 

[For those of you who can’t be bothered to read the speech, I’ve found a video for you.]

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people.

Lupe Fiasco thrown off stage at pre-inauguration event Sunday.

Mid-set famous Chicago rapper Lupe Fiasco was thrown off stage for ranting against Obama and his wars.

In previous interviews, Lupe Fiasco had stated:

My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama and the United States of America. I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism.

You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.

It is unclear why the event’s organizers invited him to perform in celebration of Obama’s second inauguration.

Lupe Fiasco played one anti-war, anti-Obama song for thirty minutes, which included mention that he hadn’t voted for the president. When event organizers asked him to move on to the next song, he refused and was then asked to leave.

Lupe Fiasco thrown off stage at pre-inauguration event Sunday.

Mid-set famous Chicago rapper Lupe Fiasco was thrown off stage for ranting against Obama and his wars.

In previous interviews, Lupe Fiasco had stated:

My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama and the United States of America. I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism.

You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.

It is unclear why the event’s organizers invited him to perform in celebration of Obama’s second inauguration.

Lupe Fiasco played one anti-war, anti-Obama song for thirty minutes, which included mention that he hadn’t voted for the president. When event organizers asked him to move on to the next song, he refused and was then asked to leave.

Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a 'huge number' for Obama

thevocalibertarian:

While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.

Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn’t all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation’s biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America’s ongoing drone missions aren’t really all that bad.

If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.

Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. “For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we’re already engaging in,” the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.

Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don’t do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had “not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s “important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they’ll tell you it is in the hundreds.

But what’s a few hundred civilian deaths, right?

Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.

If you don’t take the word of foreign reporter’s, even American intelligence can confirm that the “not a huge number” statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with. In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Islamabad. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.

When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

Which, if you ask President Obama, is not a huge number.

If 775 isn’t a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That’s the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.

“Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many,” responded Unicef to the news at the time.

In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. “There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes,” Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.

In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.

Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that “for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”

In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.

“My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008,” said Khan. “They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban.”

A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. “When we intervene in people’s countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us,” counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.

Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians. “We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists,” 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. “Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext.”

Under the Pentagon’s new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States’ not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It’s not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.

Don’t worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone’s, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the “signature” strikes that account for most of the CIA’s drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.

Which really isn’t that big of a number either.

Ideas society needs to get rid of before any freedom can occur

  • corporations are people
  • government is here to help
  • cops protect and serve
  • hoarding wealth is cool
  • you don’t have to worry about your own healthy or safety because the government will
  • minorities can’t enact political change
  • the only two real options are the candidates for major political parties
  • if you vote for someone who loses you didn’t accomplish anything
  • anarchy is chaos
  • communism is inherently evil
  • capitalism is inherently good
  • some forms of government spending are good/acceptable/necessary
  • there are things we need only the government can provide
  • initiation of force is acceptable under some conditions
  • we aren’t morally involved in situations we can’t see but know exist
  • war is acceptable under the right circumstances
  • people in other countries matter less than people in our country
  • collateral damage is an acceptable term even when it refers to human life
  • one man can unilaterally decide to kill others.

wutevrz:

Holy shit, that’s fucking scary!!!

First of all, how many of those 11,766 were killed because their husband or boyfriend woke up that morning and went “Gosh darn it, I hate women and now consider myself at war with them!” I bet none.Second, wives and girlfriends kill people too. You aren’t the victims as a gender. These 11,766 people were victims of heinous crimes as individual human beings.Third, this completely ignores civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number is right around a million. Not to say 11,766 isn’t a lot, or those people aren’t important,but that’s hardly legitimate war numbers.

wutevrz:

Holy shit, that’s fucking scary!!!

First of all, how many of those 11,766 were killed because their husband or boyfriend woke up that morning and went “Gosh darn it, I hate women and now consider myself at war with them!” I bet none.

Second, wives and girlfriends kill people too. You aren’t the victims as a gender. These 11,766 people were victims of heinous crimes as individual human beings.

Third, this completely ignores civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number is right around a million. Not to say 11,766 isn’t a lot, or those people aren’t important,but that’s hardly legitimate war numbers.

If you think gay marriage is immoral because you believe the word of the bible to be perfectly literal, but then support Barack Obama or supported George Bush, you’re a hypocrite. The Ten Commandments are pretty clear about the “Thou shalt not kill” thing, and it doesn’t really qualify that at all. Now, if you want to say “it’s not meant to be taken perfectly literally” then the Ten Commandments seems an odd place to start making addendums. Even if you support Mitt Romney, clearly you just haven’t paid enough attention to see that he isn’t exactly a dove of peace.

mashkwi:

whatshallwedo:

11 Things We Could Buy With 1 Month Of War Funding

thepeoplesrecord:

progressivefriends:

“Our communities are depressingly polluted, social services are being cut left and right and hunger is very real right here in America. So hearing that the United States government spends $20 billion in Afghanistan each year on air conditioning alone stings just a little. When it comes to war, the U.S. Treasury is hemorrhaging cash, yet Congress demanded that President Obama cut things like high-speed rail, United Nations support and funds for the Environmental Protection Agency from the 2012 fiscal year budget.”

1. Domestic hunger relief

2. High-speed rail transportation in the U.S.

3. Public health programs

4. Protecting the environment

5. Cleanup projects

6. Education

7. Jobs

8. Housing for low-income families & homeless

9. Scientific research

10. Organic farming

11. Wind energy

War, what is it good for?

OR…we could just stop printing money, inflating our currency, driving up our debt, and stealing money from our population.

Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult.

Andre Marrou (via libertariancontrarian)