Flag Counter End the terror war
September 18, 2014
This Proposed Qatar Pipeline Has Nothing to Do with America’s Anti-Assad Stance

voluntaryexchange:

Zerohedge included the map below is a great article about Qatar’s hand in the US gun-running operation in Syria on behalf of those “moderate” rebels. Now what ever could Qatar’s rich oil families gain from a Assad-less Syria?

The picture above is a proposed pipeline project by the oil-rich Middle East nation of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and most importantly, The United States and its European allies.…

View On WordPress

September 18, 2014

micdotcom:

Your bottled water habit is sucking California dry

If you’re reading this, chances are very high that your home has at least one - and maybe more! - magic appliance that produces clean water suitable for drinking. That’s one reason to avoid paying for bottled water. Another reason? There’s a good chance the water you’re buying at the supermarket was bottled in California, a state currently enduring a severe drought.

Turn on the tap insteadFollow micdotcom

(Images via MotherJones)

(via bringiton911)

8:14pm
  
Filed under: water 
September 18, 2014
Globalization, terrorism, and Democracy: 9/11 and its aftermath by Douglas Kellner

Globalization has been one of the most hotly contested phenomena of the past two decades. It has been a primary attractor of books, articles, and heated debate, just as postmodernism was the most fashionable and debated topic of the 1980s. A wide and diverse range of social theorists have argued that today’s world is organized by accelerating globalization, which is strengthening the dominance of a world capitalist economic system, supplanting the primacy of the nation-state by transnational corporations and organizations, and eroding local cultures and traditions through a global culture. Contemporary theorists from a wide range of political and theoretical positions are converging on the position that globalization is a distinguishing trend of the present moment, but there are hot debates concerning its nature, effects, and future.

Moreover, advocates of a postmodern break in history argue that developments in transnational capitalism are producing a new global historical configuration of post-Fordism, or postmodernism as an emergent cultural logic of capitalism. Others define the emergent global economy and culture as a “network society" grounded in new communications and information technology. For its defenders, globalization marks the triumph of capitalism and its market economy, while its critics portray globalization as negative. Some theorists see the emergence of a new transnational ruling elite and the universalization of consumerism, while others stress global fragmentation of "the class of civilizations”. Driving “post" discourses into novel realms of theory and politics, Hardt and Negri present the emergence of "Empire" as producing evolving forms of sovereignty, economy, culture, and political struggle that unleash an unforeseeable and unpredictable flow of novelties, surprises, and upheavals.

Discourses of globalization intially were polarized into pro or con celebrations or attacks. For critics, it provides a cover concept for global capitalism and imperialism, and is accordingly condemned as another form of the imposition of the logic of capital and the market on ever more regions of the world and spheres of life. For defenders, it is the continuation of modernization and a force of progress, increased wealth, freedom, democracy, and happiness. Its champions present globalization as beneficial, generating fresh economic opportunities, political democratization, cultural diversity, and the opening to an exciting new world. Its detractors see globalization as harmful, bringing about increased domination and control by the wealthier overdeveloped nations over the poor underdeveloped countries, thus increasing the hegemony of the “haves" over the "have nots.” In addition, supplementing the negative view, globalization critics assert that globalization produces an undermining of democracy, a cultural homogenization, and increased destruction of natural species and the environment. Some imagine the globalization project - whether viewed positively or negatively - as inevitable and beyond human control and intervention, whereas others view globalization as generating new conflicts and new spaces for struggle, distinguishing between globalization from above and globalization from below (Brecher, Costello, Smith 2000).

I wish the sketch aspects of a critical theory of globalization that will discuss the fundamental transformations int he world economy, politics, and culture in a dialectical framework that distinguishes between progressive and emancipatory features and oppressive and negative attributes. This requires articulations of the contradictions and ambiguities of globalization and the ways that globalization is both imposed from above and yet can be contested and reconfigured from below in ways that promote democracy and social justice. I argue that key to understanding globalization critically is theorizing it at once as a product of technological revolution and the global restructuring of capitalism in which economic, technological, political, and cultural features are intertwined. From this perspective, one should avoid both technological and economic determinism and all one-sided optics of globalization in favor of a view that theorizes globalization as a highly complex, contradictory, and thus ambiguous set of institutions and social relations, as well as involving flows of goods, services, ideas, technologies, cultural forms, and people (Appadurai 1996).

To illustrate my approach, I argue that the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq put on display contradictions and ambiguities embedded in globalization that demand critical and dialectic perpsectives to clarify and illuminate these events and globalization itself. Showing the ways that globalization and a networked society were involved in the 9/11 events and subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I argue that the terror attacks and ensuing Terror War show contradictions in the nature of globalization that requires dialectical analysis and critique. I conclude with some reflections on the implications of September 11 and the subsequent Terror War for critical social theory and democratic politics, envisagining a new global movement against terrorism and militarism and for democracy, peace, environmentalism, and social justice.

September 18, 2014
Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent

thinksquad: The “war on terror” cannot and will not end on its own for two reasons: (1) it is designed by its very terms to be permanent, incapable of ending, since the war itself ironically ensures that there will never come a time when people stop wanting to bring violence back to the U.S. (the operational definition of “terrorism”), and (2) the nation’s most powerful political and economic factions reap a bonanza of benefits from its continuation.

September 18, 2014

cartoonpolitics: 
“If you were a U.S. leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.” (Glenn Greenwald, The “war on terror" by design - can never end, January 4, 2013).

The military industrial complex has grown into the terror industrial complex.

cartoonpolitics

If you were a U.S. leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.” (Glenn Greenwald, The “war on terror" by design - can never end, January 4, 2013).

The military industrial complex has grown into the terror industrial complex.

(Source: davegranlund.com, via bringiton911)

September 17, 2014

america-wakiewakie: Occupy abolishes $4 million in other people’s student loan debt | CNN
After forgiving millions of dollars in medical debt, Occupy Wall Street is tackling a new beast: student loans.
Marking the third anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the group’s Strike Debt initiative announced Wednesday it has abolished $3.8 million worth of private student loan debt since January. It said it has been buying the debts for pennies on the dollar from debt collectors, and then simply forgiving that money rather than trying to collect it. In total, the group spent a little more than $100,000 to purchase the $3.8 million in debt. While the group is unable to purchase the majority of the country’s $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt because it is backed by the federal government, private student debt is fair game. This debt Occupy bought belonged to 2,700 people who had taken out private student loans to attend Everest College, which is run by Corinthian Colleges. Occupy zeroed in on Everest because Corinthian Colleges is one of the country’s largest for-profit education companies and has been in serious legal hot water lately. Following a number of federal investigations, the college told investors this summer that it plans to sell or close its 107 campuses due to financial problems - potentially leaving its 74,000 students in a lurch.
(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: US Uncut)

america-wakiewakieOccupy abolishes $4 million in other people’s student loan debt | CNN

After forgiving millions of dollars in medical debt, Occupy Wall Street is tackling a new beast: student loans.

Marking the third anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the group’s Strike Debt initiative announced Wednesday it has abolished $3.8 million worth of private student loan debt since January. It said it has been buying the debts for pennies on the dollar from debt collectors, and then simply forgiving that money rather than trying to collect it. In total, the group spent a little more than $100,000 to purchase the $3.8 million in debt. While the group is unable to purchase the majority of the country’s $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt because it is backed by the federal government, private student debt is fair game. This debt Occupy bought belonged to 2,700 people who had taken out private student loans to attend Everest College, which is run by Corinthian Colleges. Occupy zeroed in on Everest because Corinthian Colleges is one of the country’s largest for-profit education companies and has been in serious legal hot water lately. Following a number of federal investigations, the college told investors this summer that it plans to sell or close its 107 campuses due to financial problems - potentially leaving its 74,000 students in a lurch.

(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: US Uncut)

(via descentintotyranny)

September 17, 2014
Feds Says Cannabis Is Not Medicine While Holding The Patent On Cannabis As Medicine (Video)

(Source: newstome1, via newstome1)

September 17, 2014
The Atheist Movement Needs to Disown Richard Dawkins

I’m not a “Dawkins atheist”, I’m not a “Hitchens atheist”, I’m not a “Harris atheist,” etc. 

(Source: rocketman1984)

September 17, 2014

He is about to attempt a rescue of Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy. As you can see, everyone seemed perfectly willing to go along with this breach of orders. However, I felt differently.

(Source: enterprising-enterprises)

September 17, 2014

“Last November the Activist Post ran a story about the propensity of police officers killing civilians. Stated was the following: "Since 9/11, and the subsequent militarization of the police by the Department of Homeland Security, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers. The civilian death rate is nearly equal to the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. In fact, you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.” That statistic is alarming enough considering if the 4,489 American soldiers killed in combat in Iraq constitute a condition of war, then the killing of 5,000 American civilians by United States police departments ought to be viewed as a war on we the People by our very own government. [The fact is] acop is far more likely to kill you than you are to kill a cop. Stated another way, when an officer comes into contact with you, you are far less of a threat to them than the perception our culture proliferates. The police are, in fact, more of a threat to YOU. The idea that police have an incredibly dangerous job is what we Southerners call a tall-tale, a stretch of the truth to bolster an ego unwilling to accept mediocrity. Not to take away from what many fair-minded officers do every day, but as those stubborn things called facts would have it, policing is less dangerous than farming, fishing, logging, and trash collecting, as well as six other professions. Now is the time to burst the cop myth and to stop giving them the deference to murder our friends and family in the street.”
Cops: The Myth of the Most Dangerous Job | AmericaWakieWakie 
(Photo Credit: 08/20/14, Oakland marches in solidarity with Ferguson, MO after police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18 yr old Mike Brown | AmericaWakieWakie)


Auditing shooting rampage statistics - July 31, 2012.

Last November the Activist Post ran a story about the propensity of police officers killing civilians. Stated was the following: "Since 9/11, and the subsequent militarization of the police by the Department of Homeland Security, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers. The civilian death rate is nearly equal to the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. In fact, you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.” That statistic is alarming enough considering if the 4,489 American soldiers killed in combat in Iraq constitute a condition of war, then the killing of 5,000 American civilians by United States police departments ought to be viewed as a war on we the People by our very own government. [The fact is] acop is far more likely to kill you than you are to kill a cop. Stated another way, when an officer comes into contact with you, you are far less of a threat to them than the perception our culture proliferates. The police are, in fact, more of a threat to YOU. The idea that police have an incredibly dangerous job is what we Southerners call a tall-tale, a stretch of the truth to bolster an ego unwilling to accept mediocrity. Not to take away from what many fair-minded officers do every day, but as those stubborn things called facts would have it, policing is less dangerous than farming, fishing, logging, and trash collecting, as well as six other professions. Now is the time to burst the cop myth and to stop giving them the deference to murder our friends and family in the street.”

Cops: The Myth of the Most Dangerous Job | AmericaWakieWakie 

(Photo Credit: 08/20/14, Oakland marches in solidarity with Ferguson, MO after police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18 yr old Mike Brown | AmericaWakieWakie)

Auditing shooting rampage statistics - July 31, 2012.

(via america-wakiewakie)

September 17, 2014
David Cole: Obama's Unauthorized War | New York Review of Books

Of course, ISIS has made clear, through its own barbaric actions and statements, that it poses a threat to American lives abroad, even if it does not threaten American soil. Does that threat authorize the president to make a unilateral decision to use military force? A truly imminent threat of that nature conceivably could justify a short-term strike to thwart a specific risk. No one doubts that if a terrorist group has a U.S. citizen hostage and threatens to kill him, the president has the constitutional authority to deploy military force if necessary to counter the threat. But that’s not what Obama is proposing. He is talking about a large-scale, long-term military offensive to “destroy” a group that now holds significant territory in two countries - a campaign that will involve a sustained series of airstrikes, not only in Iraq, a country that has requested our help, but in Syria, a country that has not and will not. Such a lengthy military intervention amounts to war, the very sort of engagement that the framers felt should be undertaken only if approved by the legislative branch. According to an unnamed senior administration official, the Obama administration maintains that Congress’s authorization to use military force against those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, somehow empowers the president to wage war against ISIS. But this is a legal sleight of hand. While ISIS once had ties with al-Qaeda in Iraq, it has long since broken from al-Qaeda, and certainly cannot be said either to have attacked us on September 11, or to be a co-belligerent with al-Qaeda in that ongoing conflict. Nor does Congress’s 2002 authorization to use military force against Iraq constitute any sort of approval for this conflict, which is not against Iraq at all, but against ISIS, which is itself fighting Iraq. That the administration would advance such far-fetched interpretations of decade-old authorizations plainly intended for different purposes makes evident that it lacks any legitimate authority today.

muh nine eleven

Terrorism and counterterrorism are unbilically connected. (..) Both the War on Terror and radical Islamism tend to demonize the messy cosmopolitanism of cities, construting them as intrinsically amoral, sinful and unnatural places. (..) The Manichaean mirrors of the two polarized fundamentalists inevitably produce a duplication and reduplication of violence. What results is a convergence between state terror and non-state terror. (..) ‘By formally adopting the terrorists’ own game - one that by definition lacks rules of engagement, definite endings, clear alignments between enemies and friends, or formal arrangements of any sort, military, political, legal, or ethical - the inevitable danger lies in reproducing endlessly.’ (..) The real danger of the War on Terror, then, is that it has closely paralleled Al Qaeda in invoking homogeneous, exclusionary notions of community as a way of legitimatizing masive violence agaisnt civilians.”-Stephen Graham, Cities Under Siege.

The depopulation strategem continues unabated.

(Source: circlingtheroundabout)

September 17, 2014

(Source: libertariantimes)

September 17, 2014
"Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between peoples, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them."

H. L. Mencken, “Its State Today,” Treatise on Right and Wrong, 1934 (via priceofliberty)

(Source: ordnungsokonomik, via oswaldofguadalupe)

September 17, 2014

Anonymous said: Is obama a pacifist?

datablossom:

endtheterrorwar:

datablossom:

southern-conservatism:

do pacifists order air strikes on people?

endtheterrorwar: 

image

Nihilists who decapitate prisoners, rape women, starve cities, eviscerate the guts of men, and otherwise mutilate and destroy human beings really ought not be considered ‘people’. Not in my moral code anyways. If that idea isn’t pacifist, I guess I’m not a pacifist. I don’t know how a pacifist can look at the world and say abstaining from war in anyway contributes to the fruition of peace.

Three years of neglect and look who has power now..

image

image

image

image

image

You’ve really got me at a loss for words sometimes. Our moral codes aren’t all that different, however, it seems to me you’ve changed the subject of discussion. Anon asked about Obama, not ISIS.

Unless you’re willing to concede that Price of Liberty and Based Heisenberg were correct in that last discussion about Obama having a quite strong foreign policy of intereference? I can hardly see the relevance. I don’t know about you, but dropping weapon caches in volitatile areas without ensuring the intended folks (other than ISIS) had them, and that they remained in those trusted hands is a huge foreign policy responsibility - and short of filling the deep pockets of war profiteers - I don’t see how that’s supposed to “stabilize" neighboring countries or ease the suffering of innocents, much less bring peace to the forefront of global relations. 

Would anyone argue ISIS is a pacifist or peace-loving entity? I doubt it. To the contrary, there is a solid consensus against their authoritarian rubbish, and I stand strongly with that consensus. On my April 20th post, I made it publicly clear that I feel nothing but disgust for ISIS’ terrorism, and especially a Tumblr user’s apologetics and sympathies towards them. I’ve already made my stance clear and definitive, repetitively, on Assad’s state terror as well.

I’ll repeat myself: “Just because a centralized authority has named itself doesn’t guarantee peace for Iraq (or anywhere else). Violently-imposedorder," most certainly, but never peace.” I don’t cheer for seeing women raped, starving communities, or sadistic acts of terror - never. I don’t play favorites when it comes to terrorism, it’s always an inhumane tactic, no matter who uses it.

All I saw was the question, and that is was recently asked. I assumed it was regarding Iraq and Syria at present. That was the only thing I thought relevant to the question.

And I’ve gotten tired to this notion that the USAF is flying airbuses over the mideast and dropping assault rifles onto the unsuspecting heads of ISIS. We armed Iraq. ISIS overtook them and stole the weapons. I don’t really see how that can be construed as anything other than a military failure. And the notion that ISIS is the child of the FSA just boggles my mind. I think it’s a fair assertion to say that if moderate revolutionaries in Syria had support from the rest of the world early on (when, you know, regime officers were defecting to fight against Assad and had a chance of overthrowing the dictator they thought had failed them, and whom subsequently started bombing civilians [something easy enough to condemn when it’s the IDF doing it, yet another government military that should be reduced {as if the West would ever think of disarming an ‘ally’ that frequently massacres civilians by the thousands}]) then the chance that extremists would have gained power would have been reduced greatly, and the conflict might be over already.

I was discussing with a coworker the other day that extremists gain power through ideology and desperation. I think when half your country’s populous is displaced, one in one hundred of your fellow citizens have died in conflict, and your children are now refugees in foreign countries and have to work to pay rent to landlords, you’re likely to feel a bit desperate.

Did ISIS exist three years ago? I don’t know. But they’re here now. If we’re not going to stake an air campaign against them, what are we supposed to do? If the Kurds and Iraqis can fight them on one front, and the FSA can fight them on the other (which they’ve been doing for months and months now) if that’s enough, fine. But it would seem to me, a speedy end to ISIS’s power in the region (with support from regional partners or from the US or EU or whoever, it makes no difference to me, if they need help, give them help) would be prudent. I’m not a military strategist, I don’t know who’s capable of what. But what I do know, is that if the world was a bit more proactive about this instead of reactive, things would be different.

But what’s the point in speculating about the past?

What makes pacifism prudent in the face of ISIS (or any other group so vicious and destructive) and how is pacifism to bring peace?

  • I assumed it was regarding Iraq and Syria at present.

The question gives no indication of requiring an answer on present events, it’s a question of Obama’s character or public record on war or peace. It’s more like asking for a personal opinion than anything else, which could be given either a factual or opinionated answer.

  • I think it’s a fair assertion to say that if moderate revolutionaries in Syria had support from the rest of the world early on then the chance that extremists would have gained power would have been reduced greatly, and the conflict might be over already.”

We agree with each other on that point. The use of the words “moderate" and "extremist" have changed places constantly depending on the geopolitical environment. Did you know nationalist fervor was considered an unaccepted "extreme" (confused with Communism) in place of funding, arming and supporting so-called “moderate" Islamic fundamentalists (mujahideen) during the Cold War? We should be very careful, and precise, about who we consider “moderate.

  • I think when half your country’s populous is displaced, one in one hundred of your fellow citizens have died in conflict, and your children are now refugees in foreign countries and have to work to pay rent to landlords, you’re likely to feel a bit desperate.

Right. I still stand by my previous statement that Syria itself is the “victor’s spoils.” ISIS pretty much solidifies that point: Violently redrawing the bloody borders to it’s own malevolent ends.

  • Did ISIS exist three years ago?

Yes, they’ve been around for 12 yrs now (since 03’).

  • If we’re not going to stake an air campaign against them, what are we supposed to do?..how is pacifism to bring peace?

I’ve agreed with you, repetitively, that “something must be done.” Why you keep treating me like I’m arguing otherwise is strange. Pacifism isn’t passivism, it’s seeking a peaceful resolution to a conflict, NOT bowing your head in unquestioning compliance with the Nihilists/Authoritiarian ISIS or encouraging that others do the same. It’s best to differentiate between the two. Either way, we shouldn’t just brush blowback off our shoulders like it’s impossible to happen again - that would be reckless ignorance.

  • What’s the point in speculating about the past?

Something isn’t “speculation" when it’s documented evidence.

September 17, 2014

The Unknown Known by Errol Morris.