Never Forget, It Wasn’t Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Libya, or Syria, or Iran,…
#WhenInOceania, do as the Oceanians do.
“You know, we don’t do body counts,” Gen. Tommy R. Franks
~3,000 Initial Victims
~1,400 First Responders
~6,700 U.S. Troops
~90,000 Veteran Suicides since ’03
~U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights
~?,!00,000 Middle Easterners
Because it is
not a war ON terror,
but a war OF terror.
I had surprising trouble finding that number since the government seems to only release veteran suicides as a daily average. I estimated this number based off of this report, http://www.va.gov/opa/docs/suicide-data-report-2012-final.pdf. I used those listed averages (19-22/day) for 2003-2010, kept 22/day for 2011-2014, and found this big cumulative total. It’s remarkable how much better “22 suicides a day” can sound than “8,030 suicides a year”.
I’m NOT necessarily criticizing the police — since I don’t know what they know — and I honestly don’t know what level of response is proportionate to the threat being faced right now, but I have to be honest in saying that I can’t help but feel at least somewhat uncomfortable about the scenes coming out of Watertown. Door to door home searches. Forcing people to completely strip their clothes in the street, etc. What are your thoughts? Is it too soon to start hashing this out? Probably. But I have feelings right now and you probably do too. It’s OK for us to discuss, no?
Friend #1 of my Friend, leaves comment (after dozens of other comments):
The entire history of the FBI via COINTELPRO, etc. is waging war on their own people. It’s corrupt at the very top, and we should not be viewing them as saviours, and *definitely* should not be cheering on martial law. I have friends in Boston, and it’s a total police state right now. Meanwhile, we have no evidence shown that these guys are actually the bombers, and looking at the profile of the second guy and what people are saying about him, it seems pretty unlikely. Yet people believe whatever the fuck the media tells them. Naive.
Friend #2 of my Friend, leaves next comment:
No evidence to show? Thanks! I haven’t laughed like that in a while? R u bein sarcastic? With the No evidence bid? Lets pray ur just joshin around
My response to this network, and anyone else interested:
Thank you good friend! My heart goes out to victims and their microcosms everywhere, and to all of my friends in or from Massachusetts, and continue to condemn violence everywhere. <3
I apologize for the length and intensity of the following window to my mind, but wish to share the best of my current understanding. I find the following aspects of this case much more relevant and important than questions of such suspects being enemy combatants or criminals? In my humble logic, we should not treat any citizen as an enemy combatant unless we have declared some kind of civil war. The label of Enemy Combatants is another tool of violence just like the newest unnecessary weapons used by governments and citizens alike. With so many such tools at their disposal, I believe the reaction to these kinds of events must begin to focus much more on better root solutions.
The very framing of your comment show’s how unfortunately painful, awkward, and fear-based our collective situation is. I don’t think it’s just a scary level of clampdown. It’s so scary that you were nervous to even ask the question. Too soon? It’s probably much more constructive and productive to respectfully discuss tragic events as they are happening (to the degree we have credible info). If we wait too long, the government’s escalatory reactions can’t be minimized in real time by our people power.
Your initial framing was more in terms of police actions, but they are generally only following orders (and hOpefully often NOT -~ OathKeepers.org), so I do not see your questions or opinions as too critical of police in general. Police orders over the past dozen years are increasingly militarized (also due to the overlapping $1 trillion+, three decade War On Drugs), centralized, and standardized more seemingly by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security side of map. The majority of these organizations are also mostly filled with culturonormatively well-intentioned people, also mostly compartmentalized, following orders and standard procedures…similar to police and military hierarchies. Information sharing tools like Fusion Centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_centers) have also been greatly expanded over the past ten years aiding centralized systems.
But the terrorizing enemy is still largely smoke in mirrors. Unfortunately, there are horrific events that get publicized 24/7 for weeks, and others that are just one side-note. Not just the terror our government directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally finances abroad, but at home too. Both the instigating media-pimped violence and ignored violence can get very bizarre a scratch or two below the surface.
Unfortunately, Friend #1’s above comment doesn’t seem too off the mark to me in this case, and many events we’ve lived through. Hello Friend #2 and some weird network of networks. It’s impossible to both succinctly sum up and document the entire history of COINTELPRO, but here’s a few starting sources listings Wikipedia, Mother Jones, The New York Times, and The Corbett Report. There’s also the European recent history of Operation Gladio, state-sponsored but covert domestic campaigns of false flag terror. Starter documentation: Wikipedia and The Corbett Report.
Sorry for the depressing but hopefully informative info bomb. Take Everything Everywhere with moderate salt, as we might have decades until state secrets expire. I’m not saying every terrorist event is a tool of some FBI informant or some agent/tool used and sacrificed, but it should pretty much Always be assumed at least one realistic possibility. Without intent to offend anyone, it honestly makes me nervous how many people find these historically likely realities to be laughable.
For a change, the mainstream media must publicly admit my kind of dissent exists and is apparently doing so a bit more for this case than in the past…though surely still blanket labeling as ‘conspiracy theories’. But two confused young extremists planning, then acting to blow up and shoot people would be a conspiracy, and is therefore simply the ‘official conspiracy theory’ until enough hard evidence can really prove any side. And if ‘our’ government cannot produce such hypothetical solid evidence due to national security (eg. 9/11 investigations), and yet we are subject to the new emergency laws resulting from the post-panic of such horror (eg. USA Patriot Act), then our form of representative government has the furthest thing from an informed and empowered populace (eg. stripped of most rights on as-needed basis). Remember, the Associated Press told us there was a video of them dropping a bag, but it nor any other real evidence has been shared [yet].
That would make the alternative narrative something closer to: impressionable young ~immigrant radicals coaxed by FBI to do something horrific whether it got a bit out of hand or not. Pure side-conjecture: perhaps the kids realized they were being used and felt an instinctive and/or culturally conditioned need to fight back against the small army hunting them. Then the local and national governments briefly and experimentally implementing martial law on a US city.
Should the alternative narrative be closer to reality than whatever current narratives are being woven for the world propaganda cycles, then interpreting this entire situation changes dramatically. Does this police state experiment, false flag initiated or not, also set a precedent? Do we the people find this acceptable? I most certainly do not. I also do not fully know how to stop them, but perhaps bombarding public offices with phone calls of protest from our homes would be a worthy first step (if those tools are shut down during a declared ’emergency’).
Our government and it’s overlapping corporate-interest conglomerate MSM happily feed us so many harmful lies with short and long-term consequences from day to day. Why should we believe them any more during a time of crisis? Without adequate open source information from the public, they just pass us statements from the state and it’s protected mutual corporate interests.
So during the panic of a Problem, a true life-or-death crisis, we must strive to at least partially stay calm enough to think and act soundly during our Reaction. Otherwise, the Solution desired from the initial aggressor is likely to play out as they have plan…as we have not personally planned for such a scenario.
‘Our’ Reaction within mainstream narrative: Martial Law terrorizes major city, adding to initial fear of ~radical ~religious ~groups or ~lone~wolf-style terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ meaning mostly radical religious ‘enemy’ of the year/century.
‘Our’ Reaction from ~currently ~likely alternative analysis: Martial Law experiment on major city successfully practices control and imposes fear, following state-sponsored covert poor sap partial-victim/patsy terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ here meaning covert and rogue government operatives and their military-industrial friends and interests, (and at least some of their assets win).
Terror ‘real’ or ‘manipulated’, this populace programming helps mentally prepare and train the wider populace for the — I truly hope not eventual — nation-wide version of such emergency law. Without protesting a police state, do we not passively consent? If something much larger happens (which the MSM constantly fear-mongers about), what stops Obama or any future President from running a larger experiment before we even have access to any of the information of the hypothetical situation. Such performances akin to real-life Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds are possible, ‘entitling’ yet another advancement in Orwell’s real-life Eastasia, foreign or domestic.
I know it is somewhat different with the apparent IEDs in this Boston incident, but I was still living just outside of Washington DC during the ‘Beltway sniper attacks’ of 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks . Some of those took place where I used to bike around as a kid, and one just three blocks from my house where my parents still live. Martial law was not implemented as far as I know, so it’s an interesting comparison for me to think about. Now ten years more radical, perhaps I should do some research on those events some time.
Please keep this in mind too, beautiful brothers and sisters. Without considering any alternative narratives during times of public/violence crisis, it is impossible to test each theory against new information as it develops. It is more accurate to compare all the most credible facts to as many credible possible narratives as possible. This is much easier to do by always considering all possibilities and methodically checking what adds up most rationally. I like to check the most credible alternative news sources, at first ignore their content only reading their sources, come to my own initial conclusion, then consider hearing out their take on the whole narrative. My favorite, well documented alternative sources are PeaceRevolution.org and CorbettReport.com .
To get some positive light in the rabbit holes, enter one more overlap with recent events: Big Pharma’s mood-altering medication and shootings. 30 years of mass shootings data collected by Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) shows only 15 of 62 terrorists/victims showed no prior signs of mental health and many are confirmed to be on medications. It also shows only one was a female. Not only do distressed mental states seem instrumental in self-made terrorists, but makes tools or patsies that much more impressionable and pliable. So I find this related topic pretty applicable to both mainstream and alternative narratives.
MY PREFERRED SOLUTIONS…a heavy, depressing rant this long deserves my preferred light directions.
‘Terrorism’ will not end alone by controlling various scales of various weapons or tools in the hands of citizens or police. Most terrorism is directly or indirectly state-sponsored. Martial Law is not a reasonable solution, and like the strategy of counterinsurgency, only creates blow-back and escalates violence. Our military occupies countries and, by definition, must impose some level of martial law there, surely creating inspired radicals there. Does anyone know how pissed informed anarchists in Boston are right now?
Real Solutions Options: Stop terrorizing, invading, conquering, and occupying sovereign nations. It creates more terrorists, is violent, and is wrong. To me, this minimally means pulling all troops out of all countries and de-militarizing the military (and police) only capable of preventing invasion on are soil (if that is a possible compromise). I think this would help reduce the overall gun size and count in the country with less theoretical need to protect one’s self and family from a government gone tyrannical (how many/most right-wing extremists and myself largely interpret the 2nd amendment). I am not sure all the votes in the world will be able to accomplish those solutions. So disbanding the state and peacefully asserting ourselves as sovereign citizens free to create and self-manage our communities and lives might also more purely accomplish this solution. Either way, we must remedy the injustices which create terror.
‘Freak Mass Violence’ will not end by different scales of different weapons or police tools. I imagine the rare mind on a murderous rampage with the most primitive of instincts and adrenaline functioning can usually find methods for violence and the weapons available (eg. massive cars are everywhere). The stupid weapons are controlled by the current legal state of some weird type of arms race, and I do support deescalating such races. But it would not affect the root issues, and is not worth the painful political capital required for any of these kinds of moves…for some reason. The most tragic acts of violence in our country are usually caused by people with mental health issues, often on psychotropic medications.
Real Solutions Options: Doctors and patients can stop taking medications known to be dangerous (unlike cannabis and other natural plants), not to mention passing them through to our water supply, and can urge votes against government giveaways to Big Pharma. Healthier diets of non-processed foods would also likely create a much more mentally healthy population. Encouraging, and positively reinforcing masculine identities with less associated violence might also help in the longer run.
Solutions ideally applied within mainstream narrative: Citizens have less terror and fear, less need for weapons to ‘protect against government’, ‘terrorists’ have less need to terrorize as our government would do not terrorize and occupy their homeland. Win, win.
Solutions ideally applied within alternative narratives: Citizens have less terror and fear, the few true terrorists out there are less inspired, the military is hopefully largely de-funded and dis-empowered, the minimal defensive violent forces left do not follow unconstitutional orders, money goes back to people or actually constructive projects. Win, win.
This is a bias, over-simplified, game theory style analysis, and it is way too soon for any concrete-seeming degrees of certainty on any aspect of this Boston Marathon. But hopefully this line of reasoning and example aids in how I strive to approach what reactions and solutions are most appropriate to our problems. I think to best achieve the goals of avoiding these tragic events, such strategies would have a deescalating effect and have far more net positive impact that any of the proposed solutions about to be sold over the mainstream airwaves with current winds.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. The military-industrial complex (with allies and states) is the direct or indirect cause of almost all cycles of terror. Terror cannot end unless the whole military-industrial complex ends. Period.
I’m registering Republican this election and voting for Ron Paul because he is the ONLY “electable” candidate talking about PEACE!
The ONLY candidate in either party talking about ending our current wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and others…and NOT starting new ones!
Even if Paul doesn’t get elected, we deserve a real challenge to Obama in the general election and NONE of the other candidates have a chance at beating the incumbent.
If nothing else, this Air Force veteran can bring a radical policy of PEACE to a wider audience than the republican “debates”.
Try listening to a Ron Paul highlights reel on YouTube for a debate on one of the Cartoon News Networks,
and even if you don’t agree with all his very consistent positions, SURPRISE!…you will hear rational discourse!
I know his vision of dramatically reduced government may scare many. But since the revolving doors surrounding most regulatory agencies allow them to be used more as a tools FOR the corporate-industrial complex to maintain hegemony…is less of THAT really worse?
Why Ron Paul?
Not just because he is the only mainstream candidate in both parties with any real empathy for the worldwide Occupation of the 99.99%.
Not just because the mainstream still insists that nobody predicted the “Great Recession.”
I’m voting for Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate in either party talking about the FEDERAL RESERVE.
Because he tried to prevent this extra radical consolidation of wealth and the “Great Recession”…at least ten years ago.
I don’t agree with him on every single issue, but he nails all the ones that matter most [urgently].
Not just because all the other “electable” candidates support the continued expansion of the war on drugs, war on terror, and cybersecurity.
I’m voting for Ron Paul because he was one of the few who voted AGAINST THE USA PATRIOT ACT and the recent treasonous National Defense Authorization Act!
I’m voting “Blue Republican” without expectations or HOPE for CHANGE by replacing one seat in corrupt government.
But if nothing else, it will send a message to the world that WE THE PEOPLE of America want PEACE!
Not because paperless electronic voting machines are intended to be rigged, and our votes don’t matter as much as they used to.
I’m voting for Ron Paul AND TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT IT, because he really could win as a Constitutionalist right now in this year of 1776 — I mean 2012.
Why Ron Paul?
I’m voting for Ron Paul because when he speaks, he almost always speaks from the heart…unlike most politicians.
You can feel him telling you what he truly believes, instead of just what his polls or handlers say.
So who should he choose for Vice President?
Who else speaks from principled and good positions?
Chances are, that by now you’ve heard of the concept of “Net Neutrality“. It basically means that everyone connected to the internet should have equal access to all web sites on the internet. Right now, we are quite dependent on the internet as a society, and can currently find infinitely unique sources of information. But the big telecommunications players want to change that, just as they did with radio waves and televisions decades ago.
In the future, will you be able to rely on broadcasting your voice via universally public lanes? Will you be able to afford getting your voice heard through mainstream toll roads? We must continue to fight to maintain our net’s neutrality, and we have recently seen threats like the big Google-Verizon deal. So if you like cat videos, and you haven’t already, please go to SaveTheInternet.com NOW to sign their petition, and call your representatives in Congress to tell them to protect net neutrality.
When the internet was invented, everyone fell flat on their face they were so thrilled and the world began to do business in a different way. Now both President Bush’s Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who I greatly respect, and President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Admiral Blair, who I greatly respect, have labeled cybersecurity perpetrated through the internet as the number one national hazard of attack on the homeland…. So I mean it really almost makes you ask the question, “Would it have been better if we had never invented the internet, and had to use paper and pencil or whatever?” – and that’s a stupid thing to say, but it has genuine consequence. – Jay Rockefeller on CSPAN
There are some basic threats parroted by political leaders to justify centralizing command for “cybersecurity,” including claims like…
#1. Common email spam and computer viruses are a significant problem. But I argue these issues are inherit in our free internet and we will continue to combat them by downloading software patches and spam filters as needed.
#2. Hackers (or cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists, or cyber-criminals), foreign or domestic, will continue trying to hack into publicly web-accessible banking systems and the Open Government Initiative, Gov 2.0, where we see more government forms and services going online. But I argue this does not justify changing how the rest of the internet works…those services are responsible for their own security if they wish to interact on the public internet. Furthermore, as well-known computer security and cryptography expert Bruce Schneier says, “in the cryptography world, we consider open source necessary for good security; we have for decades…. For us, open source isn’t just a business model; it’s smart engineering practice.”
#3. Hackers might hack into our country’s power grid and bring down large swaths of our access to electricity and other core infrastructure. But I argue just as with highly sensitive military systems and top secret information, there is no reason that these systems should be connected to the public internet if they are so vulnerable. Such systems should be on completely separate networks using Open Source security solutions, and should not need to infringe on the free internet.
Cyber war is going on in some sense right now. … And we need this capacity in a time of war. We need the capacity for the president to say, Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we’ve got to put a patch on this part of it. The president will never take over — the government should never take over the Internet. Listen, we’ve consulted, Senator Collins and I, who are proposing this bill, with civil liberties and privacy experts. This is a matter of national security. A cyber attack on America can do as much or more damage today by incapacitating our banks, our communications, our finance, our transportation, as a conventional war attack. And the president, in catastrophic cases — not going to do it every day, not going to take it over. So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax…(LAUGHTER)… take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country. Right now, China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have that here, too. – Joseph Lieberman on CNN, 6/20/2010
So instead of keeping critical and “vulnerable” infrastructure systems off the public internet, the solution being promoted is to give the White House a kill-switch for the web (via the big Internet Service Providers). This may only apply to emergency situations, but we also know very well that such situations can be easily manufactured by rogue elements of the corporate-industrial complex (see Episode 3 of the Wiki World Order report on False Flag attacks). It is also ridiculously difficult to transparently prove the source of sophisticated cyber attacks, so today’s cyber emergency situations can be easily manipulated.
Surely, as internet users we should keep educating each other to stay safe online, and to some extent our government will always need to spend resources on cyber defenses (ideally in fully open source processes). But similar to the War on Terror and “defensive” biological weapons research, we cannot fuel industries for yet another arms race. We do not want to design offensive cyber-weapons to be used preemptively against other countries or groups (as it appears we already are). We do not want such programs in the hands of secretive organizations like the National Security Agency. We must instead use more of our resources to work towards resolving the root causes for which such terrorism is a symptom.
Sure, very few bills will end up passing right now, so late in this session. But on September 21st, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Reuters that the draft bill of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is “something that we hope to be able to pass before the end of the year, if we can.” So whether you like online news, games, sitcoms, soap operas, sports, cat videos, or researching the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group…your free access is at risk.
And remember, last year the Patriot Act was renewed under President Obama and we are still LOSING the fight to restore our Constitution and non-digital rights. So please tell your representatives in Congress to reject the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act and help defend against recent attacks on net neutrality. Tell them we should instead move any vulnerable infrastructure systems to separate, secure networks based on open source security.
We must constantly defend our internet, because it is the single biggest threat to the establishment, the Corporate-Industrial Complex. And remember…
Every time you trade cyber-privacy for cybersecurity… the NSA kills a kitten video.
You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the original content of this website. If you like, please attribute legal copies of this work to WikiWorldOrder.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed.