War: The Health of the State, not so Healthy for Human Beings

by Thomas L. Knapp

At more than ten years into the US government's never-ending "war on terror," that government's excuses for atrocity after atrocity keep getting less and less convincing.

"A few bad apples."

"An isolated incident."

"The video doesn't tell the whole story, and when we find out who leaked it he's going to jail."

"It appears that you had a lone gunman who acted on his own in just a tragic, tragic way."

That last direct from the lips of US President Barack Obama, now serving out George W. Bush's third term in office, concerning the March 9, 2012 murders of 16 Afghans, including nine children, by a US Army staff sergeant.

The idea that these are "isolated incidents" which do not reflect on the overall character of war is, frankly, absurd.

Make no mistake about it: War is killing on a mass scale, in service to and for the benefit of the state, and that's all it is. It's not a natural human activity. The desire for it has to be inculcated in soldiers. They must be thoroughly indoctrinated, and "the enemy" -- soldier and civilian alike -- must be thoroughly dehumanized in order to move them to their "duty."

Political warmongers have become quite adept at that dehumanization: I know better now, of course, but I recall the effect of the (false and manufactured) tales of Iraqi soldiers ransacking hospitals and dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators told to myself and my fellow US Marines as we prepared for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. We were out for blood against an inhuman enemy. We were brainwashed, because brainwashing is what it takes to get men to kill other men (and, yes, women and children) en masse without compunction.

Sooner or later, though -- unfortunately it seems to be later in most cases -- the brainwashing just isn't enough. The human conscience will out, or it will shatter.

In the first case, the result is something like this (I quote William Tecumseh Sherman, because I simply have not the words for it):

"I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting -- its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

In the second case, it's Abu Ghraib, Collateral Murder, and what happened outside Kandahar last weekend.

From this end of a decade of unremitting violence, it's not these atrocities which I find surprising -- it's that we don't hear about more of them. And I must say that I suspect that there would be more of them to hear about if not for substantial de facto censorship of the news coming out of combat zones around the world.

The atrocities, shocking as they are, pale next to the "big picture." Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, have died at American hands since 2001. The soldier lying dead beneath a cairn topped with rifle and helmet is no more dead, and no more or less personally outraged by it, than the baby murdered in his crib or the dead Taliban fighter urinated upon by troops not quite as at the end of their tethers as the killer staff sergeant.

And what is it for? Not to "end terrorism," surely -- for terrorism is what it is.

Nor to "protect America," which has descended so quickly and thoroughly into banana republicanism that it's scarcely identifiable as the same country we lived in as recently as, say, 1990. Al Qaeda didn't have to destroy America. Uncle Sam did it for them.

In truth, the true and fundamental purpose of war is to aggrandize the egos and power-hunger of America's Joe Liebermans and John McCains, and to keep wealth flowing from you (with those politicians as conduits) to the politically connected corporate players. To wit, the stockholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, KBR, Halliburton, et. al. As former Marine general Smedley put it, "war is a racket."

Is that purpose -- cannibalism on behalf of the corporati -- worthy of so much as a drop of Afghan or Iraqi or Libyan or Syrian or British or Australian or American blood?

If so, hang your gold stars in your windows, turn on your TVs, and lose yourselves in the latest sitcom.

If not, understand: So long as you tolerate the state, this is the price Moloch will demand of you and yours.

At more than ten years into the US government?s never-ending ?war on terror,? that government?s excuses for atrocity after atrocity keep getting less and less convincing.

?A few bad apples.?

?An isolated incident.?

?The video doesn?t tell the whole story, and when we find out who leaked it he?s going to jail.?

?It appears that you had a lone gunman who acted on his own in just a tragic, tragic way.?

That last direct from the lips of US President Barack Obama, now serving out George W. Bush?s third term in office, concerning the March 9, 2012 murders of 16 Afghans, including nine children, by a US Army staff sergeant.

The idea that these are ?isolated incidents? which do not reflect on the overall character of war is, frankly, absurd.

Make no mistake about it: War is killing on a mass scale, in service to and for the benefit of the state, and that?s all it is. It?s not a natural human activity. The desire for it has to be inculcated in soldiers. They must be thoroughly indoctrinated, and ?the enemy? ? soldier and civilian alike ? must be thoroughly dehumanized in order to move them to their ?duty.?

Political warmongers have become quite adept at that dehumanization: I know better now, of course, but I recall the effect of the (false and manufactured) tales of Iraqi soldiers ransacking hospitals and dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators told to myself and my fellow US Marines as we prepared for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. We were out for blood against an inhuman enemy. We were brainwashed, because brainwashing is what it takes to get men to kill other men (and, yes, women and children) en masse without compunction.

Sooner or later, though ? unfortunately it seems to be later in most cases ? the brainwashing just isn?t enough. The human conscience will out, or it will shatter.

In the first case, the result is something like this (I quote William Tecumseh Sherman, because I simply have not the words for it):

?I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting ? its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ? it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ? that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.?

In the second case, it?s Abu Ghraib, Collateral Murder, and what happened outside Kandahar last weekend.

From this end of a decade of unremitting violence, it?s not these atrocities which I find surprising ? it?s that we don?t hear about more of them. And I must say that I suspect that there would be more of them to hear about if not for substantial de facto censorship of the news coming out of combat zones around the world.

The atrocities, shocking as they are, pale next to the ?big picture.? Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, have died at American hands since 2001. The soldier lying dead beneath a cairn topped with rifle and helmet is no more dead, and no more or less personally outraged by it, than the baby murdered in his crib or the dead Taliban fighter urinated upon by troops not quite as at the end of their tethers as the killer staff sergeant.

And what is it for? Not to ?end terrorism,? surely ? for terrorism is what it is.

Nor to ?protect America,? which has descended so quickly and thoroughly into banana republicanism that it?s scarcely identifiable as the same country we lived in as recently as, say, 1990. Al Qaeda didn?t have to destroy America. Uncle Sam did it for them.

In truth, the true and fundamental purpose of war is to aggrandize the egos and power-hunger of America?s Joe Liebermans and John McCains, and to keep wealth flowing from you (with those politicians as conduits) to the politically connected corporate players. To wit, the stockholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, KBR, Halliburton, et. al. As former Marine general Smedley put it, ?war is a racket.?

Is that purpose ? cannibalism on behalf of the corporati ? worthy of so much as a drop of Afghan or Iraqi or Libyan or Syrian or British or Australian or American blood?

If so, hang your gold stars in your windows, turn on your TVs, and lose yourselves in the latest sitcom.

If not, understand: So long as you tolerate the state, this is the price Moloch will demand of you and yours.
__
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).

View the original article here

Human Rights Abused, As 62% Arrested Over The British Riots Are Now In Prison

Press TV

Around 62% of those arrested over involvement in Britain’s recent unrest have been imprisoned while only 10% of them allegedly have committed serious offences.

The rest of the arrested people who have not committed any serious offences are to be kept behind bars for an unknown period of time. Human rights organizations have announced that the British government has decided to keep all arrested people in custody until trial.

The British Police have ordered Britain’s courts to refuse to bail the arrested even after they have been charged. The arrested people are to stay behind bars for a longer time as the British government has taken such an “iron fist” approach.

However, as the arrested people’s solicitors have asserted, 62% of the arrested have been imprisoned while they have not been arraigned. What has caused great concern among human rights activists is that only 10% of these people have been charged with serious offences and the rest can be released either on bail or without having to pay bail.

Nonetheless, the British government has refused to free them. Moreover, the British Police have supported the government’s “iron fist” policy describing it as an initiative that would prevent the spread of unrest across Britain in the future.

Meanwhile, the coalition government’s officials have clashed over taking such strict approaches toward the protesters. Former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, rejected the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s remarks that what he called “twisting and misrepresenting of human rights” have led to the unprecedented unrest across Britain.

Campbell warned Cameron against any measures that would question Britain’s commitment to human rights issues. He asserted that tackling Britain’s unrest should not pave the way for Cameron’s interference in the principles of the Human Rights Act, which preserves the European Convention of Human Rights in British law.

These conflicts and concerns come as human rights organizations have stated that keeping those arrested over the recent unrest behind bars for an unknown period of time without arraigning them constitutes an example of human rights violation as they have called on the government to inform the arrested of their charges and rights.

View the original article here

Voilent Riots, Wild Markets & Human Anger, Have We All Gone Mad? Or Are The Space Storms To Blame?

Rosalba O’Brien
Reuters

Rollercoaster financial markets and the worst riots Britain has seen in decades have made it quite a week for a time of year that is usually so dead the newspapers are filled with “silly season” tales of amusing pet antics.

Everyone is pointing fingers — at blundering politicians, hooded thugs, disaffected youths, bumbling police and greedy bankers — but could the cause for all the madness really be the star at the centre of our solar system?

There isn’t a lot of evidence pointing to little green men involving themselves in Earthly affairs, but the sun has been throwing bursts of highly charged particles into space in a phenomenon known as coronal mass ejections or CMEs.

Three large CMEs prompted U.S. government scientists to warn of solar storms that can cause power blackouts and the aurora borealis, or northern lights, caused by disturbances in the Earth’s atmosphere, have been spotted as far south as England and Colorado, NASA said. “Earth’s magnetic field is still reverberating from a CME strike on August 5th that sparked one of the strongest geomagnetic storms in years”, website SpaceWeather said.

Some academics have claimed that such geomagnetic storms can affect humans, altering moods and leading people into negative behaviour through effects on their biochemistry. Some studies have found evidence that hospital admissions for depression rise during geomagnetic storms and that incidents of suicide increase.

A 2003 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that such storms could affect the stock market, as traders were more likely to make pessimistic choices. “Unusually high levels of geomagnetic activity have a negative, statistically and economically significant effect on the following week’s stock returns for all US stock market indices,” the authors found in their report.

It could of course be mere coincidence that this has been a rollercoaster week on the markets, and that Britain was rocked by a wave of ferocious rioting and looting.

But market watchers may take comfort from the fact that the space weather forecast for Friday has gone quiet again.

They shouldn’t be too complacent though. The solar cycle is on an upswing due to peak in 2013 and there are likely to be more geomagnetic storms heading Earth’s way in the months to come.

(Editing by Paul Casciato)

View the original article here