Listen to a reading of this article: ISIS has reportedly claimed credit for an explosion near Kabul's Hamid Karzai International Airport. As of this writing there are around 90 dead including 13 US military personnel, though to read western mainstream media reports
In a lucidly argued paper, legal scholar Roberta Harding offers several examples from the deep South during Jim Crow where judge, jury, and prosecutor well knew that the accused black man was innocent of the charge of raping a white woman. However, because the white supremacist social order was threatened by consensual interracial intercourse, they executed the accused anyway; if they failed to do so promptly he was lynched. Partly this was to set an example and terrify the black population, but partly it was because something had to be done.
By the same token, it mattered little that Afghan villagers or Iraqi politicians had no culpability for 9/11; nor did it matter that bombing them would have no practical effect on future terrorism (except to further inflame it). Obviously, the United States was using 9/11 as a pretext to accomplish larger geopolitical aims. Yet it worked as a pretext only because of broad public agreement that “something must be done.” And, enacting the age-old pattern, we knew what to do: find some target of unifying violence that cannot effectively retaliate. I was dismayed in 2001 when, at Quaker Meeting of all places, one of the Quakers said, “Of course, a forceful response of some kind is necessary.” What, I wondered, does “forceful” mean? It means bombing someone. In other words, we must find someone upon whom to visit violence. He may also have mentioned addressing the imperialist causes of terrorism, but those were not the subject of “of course.” Nearly everyone instinctively took for granted the necessity of finding sacrificial victims. We were definitely going to bomb someone – the only question was whom.
I have my doubts that this latest attack was the work of ISIS. A disgruntled Afghan warlord or even a false flag event seems just as likely. In any case, the War Machine and its MSM vassals are eager to promote the ISIS angle in an effort to trigger the American public’s pathologic fear of terrorists and rekindle its waning support for the War On Terror.
The best way to avoid American casualties is to remove all U.S. personnel from conflict areas, which also happens to be the best way to stop producing more terrorists who want to kill Americans. As for ISIS in Afghanistan, I say let them duke it out with the Taliban. My money is on the latter.
War, removed and profitable, has allure. War, close to home, is abominable. That's about as succinct as I can make it.
Just as our politics has drifted completely away from the real needs of the governed, our infliction of pain, suffering, and death for political ends has been successfully removed from policy-makers and media darlings, who only engage with it in a performative way.
The reporter Robert Fisk wrote in the smoldering aftermath of 9/11 that we were never allowed to ask the question, "Why?" We were told instead it was because they hate our freedom, which we lavishly dispense in 500 pound containers.
We, but most directly the world, still pay the price for the inability to get honest answers to simple questions.
The Christian Terrorists who man the thousands of US military bases worldwide and man US weapons of mass destruction and their leaders , we need to be concerned about ...
We need to be concerned more about US , mostly Christian Leaders and Soldiers perpetuating their own brand of terrorism worldwide.
I would like to draw your attention to a piece that addresses the inane response to COVID-19, because it applies to the rhetoric used by Mitch McConnel. See: Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed - https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/mob-morality-and-the-unvaxxed.
"Something Must be Done
In a lucidly argued paper, legal scholar Roberta Harding offers several examples from the deep South during Jim Crow where judge, jury, and prosecutor well knew that the accused black man was innocent of the charge of raping a white woman. However, because the white supremacist social order was threatened by consensual interracial intercourse, they executed the accused anyway; if they failed to do so promptly he was lynched. Partly this was to set an example and terrify the black population, but partly it was because something had to be done.
By the same token, it mattered little that Afghan villagers or Iraqi politicians had no culpability for 9/11; nor did it matter that bombing them would have no practical effect on future terrorism (except to further inflame it). Obviously, the United States was using 9/11 as a pretext to accomplish larger geopolitical aims. Yet it worked as a pretext only because of broad public agreement that “something must be done.” And, enacting the age-old pattern, we knew what to do: find some target of unifying violence that cannot effectively retaliate. I was dismayed in 2001 when, at Quaker Meeting of all places, one of the Quakers said, “Of course, a forceful response of some kind is necessary.” What, I wondered, does “forceful” mean? It means bombing someone. In other words, we must find someone upon whom to visit violence. He may also have mentioned addressing the imperialist causes of terrorism, but those were not the subject of “of course.” Nearly everyone instinctively took for granted the necessity of finding sacrificial victims. We were definitely going to bomb someone – the only question was whom.
I have my doubts that this latest attack was the work of ISIS. A disgruntled Afghan warlord or even a false flag event seems just as likely. In any case, the War Machine and its MSM vassals are eager to promote the ISIS angle in an effort to trigger the American public’s pathologic fear of terrorists and rekindle its waning support for the War On Terror.
The best way to avoid American casualties is to remove all U.S. personnel from conflict areas, which also happens to be the best way to stop producing more terrorists who want to kill Americans. As for ISIS in Afghanistan, I say let them duke it out with the Taliban. My money is on the latter.
Cannon fodder of imperialist war.
War, removed and profitable, has allure. War, close to home, is abominable. That's about as succinct as I can make it.
Just as our politics has drifted completely away from the real needs of the governed, our infliction of pain, suffering, and death for political ends has been successfully removed from policy-makers and media darlings, who only engage with it in a performative way.
The reporter Robert Fisk wrote in the smoldering aftermath of 9/11 that we were never allowed to ask the question, "Why?" We were told instead it was because they hate our freedom, which we lavishly dispense in 500 pound containers.
We, but most directly the world, still pay the price for the inability to get honest answers to simple questions.
Religion is a bigger scam but good article.
The Christian Terrorists who man the thousands of US military bases worldwide and man US weapons of mass destruction and their leaders , we need to be concerned about ...
The War on Terror is actually the second greatest scam ever invented. First prize has to go to the Scamdemic!
I dunno, I sort of buy the official story, simply because it didn't provide a good opportunity reflexively blame Iran and/or Syria.