In 2005, President George W. Bush placed the number of civilians killed since the US-led 2003 Iraq invasion at "30,000 Iraqis, more or less".
The following year, Bush was asked at a news conference about a controversial peer-reviewed study released at the time by The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which claimed that 655,000 Iraqis have been killed since the conflict began.
Though Bush dismissed the report due to "discredited" methodology, many academics and researchers at the time felt the methods used were "tried and true"; "sound"; and "solid".
In January of 2012, President Barack Obama both acknowledged and defended the US-led predator drone campaign in Pakistan for the first time since taking office, claiming the aerial weapons are not responsible for causing a "huge number of civilian deaths". He added that "for the most part", drone attacks have been "very precise, precision strikes against against al-Qaeda and their affiliates."
Wording here seems important. How many butchered civilians would be considered a "huge number"? Over 100? 500? 1,000? Obama's answer to this question is likely to be different from that of, say, a Pakistani civilian who lost a loved one in a drone strike.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in 2011 that 2,292 people have been killed by US drones in Pakistan, including as many as 775 civilians, and more narrowed down: 168 children. If we round the results of this study off to a mere 2,000 dead civilians, would this number be considered "huge"? And, does it somehow become more acceptable or justifiable because this death toll pales in comparison to larger atrocities, like the 150,000 civilians butchered by US forces in Cambodia during the 1960's and early 70's?
Unquestionably, we should work to accurately account for and acknowledge every innocent life unnecessarily destroyed by US imperialism. Accuracy in numbers, however, isn't the issue. The problem at hand is that US Presidents seem to think that 30,000 dead civilians is somehow more acceptable than 600,000 -- or that because a "huge" number of civilians haven't been killed in Pakistan by US drones, the campaign ultimately holds legitimacy.
Every person killed by US bullets and bombs in Iraq and Pakistan is an individual human being with friends and family directly impacted by their loss.
The efforts of US Presidents to desensitize the population to needless human slaughter -- whether accidental or deliberate -- ought to be thoroughly resisted. Murder is murder, and it is wrong and unjustifiable no matter what the numbers may ultimately be at the end of the day.
“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” -- Alice Walker
The exploitation of non-human animals is prominent within nearly every country on earth. However, unlike issues such as gender or racial equality, non-human animal welfare seems to be one of the most invisible forms of oppression quietly and consistently operating in the background of society.
Being born human hardly grants us the moral authority to subject
other sentient creatures beyond the realm of our species to cruel
experimentation, brutal traditions, and a life of involuntary servitude
for our mere entertainment.
Non-human animals have been routinely subjected to the worst kinds of scientific experiments.
For instance, in 1944, toxicologist John D. Draize invented the Draize Test, which was used to evaluate the risks of human exposure to cosmetics. The procedure involved applying a small amount of the substance being studied to an animal's eye (usually rabbits) or skin for several hours, and then observing whether irritation occurred. In most cases, regardless of the results (blindness, infection, pain, or nothing at all), the animal subjects were put to death upon completion of the test.
In 1946, pigs, goats, guinea pigs, rats, and mice were placed on the lower and upper decks of US-owned naval vessels in the Pacific. Shortly after, an atomic bomb was set off nearby. Roughly 2-3 days later, most of the animals involved exhibited cases of anorexia, bloody diarrhea, and extreme irritability. Lesions observed during autopsy were of three types: hemorrhagic, infective, and degenerative, resulting in ulcers of the gastro-intestinal tract and tonsils.
Eleven years later, pigs were unloaded off trucks into the desert and
subjected to a nearby atomic bomb blast. The lucky ones quickly
perished, while the less fortunate who managed to survive were fatally burned and sickened by large doses of radiation, left to suffer slow, agonizing deaths.
During the 1960's, tobacco companies used animals in experiments to
instill doubt in consumers by delaying and confusing links between their products and cancer. In
one experiment, nearly 20 dogs (Beagles) were trained to smoke up to 12 cigarettes a day. Within the first two weeks, the dogs
began suffering from a variety of ailments. Eventually, autopsies
revealed that the dogs had slight changes in the
tissue around their lungs, with advanced cancer cells present.
During the mid 1970's, monkeys were trained by the US military to
manipulate a joystick by maintaining a constant positioning of it to
simulate the operation of an aircraft. Then, to determine their
efficiency while flying "under attack", the animals were subjected to medium
and larges doses of radiation. According to the military's report,
the monkeys demonstrated mouthing, retching, and productive emesis
(vomiting).
Throughout the 1980's, about 19,000 dogs, rabbits, pigs, ferrets, rats
and mice were butchered during various automobile safety tests performed
by General Motors. Experiments resulted in skin shredding, chest
injury, and polluting of the lungs via auto emissions.
More recently, in 2006, the New York Times
reported that the military regularly traumatizes animals to prepare
medics for combat. Said one officer: "The idea is to work with
live tissue. You get a pig and
you keep it alive. And every time I did something to help him, they
would wound him again. So you see what shock does, and what happens when
more wounds are received by a wounded creature. My pig? They shot him
twice in the face with a
9-millimeter pistol, six times with an AK-47, and then twice
with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire. I kept him alive
for 15 hours. That was my pig.''
In 2009, USA Today
reported that military researchers dressed live pigs in body armor,
strapped them into Humvee simulators, and then detonated them with
explosives to study the link between roadside bomb blasts and brain
injury.
What would the public's reaction be if it were one day leaked that the
military kidnapped random people, loaded them on to boats, and then
detonated a thermonuclear weapon nearby to test the outcome? How would
we feel if certain individuals were treated like lifeless dummies, forcefully subjected by auto companies to brutal car crashes? Would we be okay
with strapping human babies to Humvee simulators and then blowing them
up? Obviously, such ideas
would be out of the question, which is exactly the reason why non-human
animals have been used in their place. Experimenting on other humans
without their consent has -- at least in recent years
-- become largely frowned upon in modern societies. Still, such logic
is somewhat puzzling. The non-human animals used so often are selected
precisely because of their physical and emotional similarities with
humans. Like us, they experience fear, pain, and suffering. The only
substantial difference between them and us is their lack of humanity,
but is that really a justifiable excuse to subject them to such types of of brutal experimentation?
Aside from becoming the victims of scientific testing, non-human animals are needlessly and regularly killed around the world for sport, tradition, and entertainment.
In South Africa, one particularly controversial practice known as "canned hunting"
allows hunters to pay for entry to an enclosed area where "trophy
animals" -- such as lions -- are trapped, hunted, and eventually gunned
down. The hunter walks away with a rare animal hide to show off, and the "canned hunt" operators walk away with a fatter wallet. Everyone but the slaughtered animal benefits from the exchange.
Elsewhere, in places such as Japan, thousands of dolphins are butchered
every year under the guise of tradition. Hunters use loud noises to confuse
their hypersensitive sonar, drive the dolphins into coves sealed by
nets, and then slaughter them with knives and spears. Once all the
animals are killed off, their corpses are loaded on to boats and taken
to warehouses for processing.
As with dolphin hunting, bullfights are continued today largely because of tradition, even though the practice is perhaps one of the most barbaric on the planet. In 1996, 40 million spectators attended bullfights and bull-related
festivals in Spain, with a record 650 fights and 3,900 dead bulls. Essentially, the bull is taunted, slowly weakened with tiny barbs, and finally, after much suffering, stabbed in the heart. Once the bull is killed, the carcass is dragged from the arena, quartered, and dressed. Sometimes the bull's meat is given to the poor, but usually it is sold on the market.
Whereas bullfighting is human v. non-human, dogfighting is purely non-human v. non-human, and although the practice has been outlawed in most parts of the world, it nonetheless remains popular in Latin America, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, and clandestinely in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. A database run by animal advocacy group Pet-abuse.com shows reports of dogfighting cases increasing from 16 in 2000 to 127 in 2006. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that at least 40,000 people are involved in the industry domestically. Because fight dogs have been bred to attack and kill, almost all of them are euthanized when dogfighting rings are broken apart.
Perhaps the luckiest non-human animals (which isn't saying much) are those locked away in zoos and circuses for human entertainment. These animals not only tend to be mistreated by their handlers, but the animals themselves often exhibit behaviors unnatural to them, such as depression and hostility, primarily due to being taken out of their natural environments. As reported by the New York Times: "The typical zoo enclosure for a polar bear is one-millionth the size of its home range in the wild, which can reach 31,000 square miles." Elephants abducted in to the entertainment industry have also become a cause of concern. Linda Huebner, Deputy Director of Advocacy for MSPCA-Angell -- a non-profit animal welfare group -- writes: "The use of bullhooks and restraints is extremely cruel, causing painful injuries and adding to these animals' already intense suffering. Moreover, they do not mitigate the huge threat to public safety inherent to forcing large wild animals to perform unnatural tricks in front of large crowds of people."
The non-human animals which avoid becoming victims of experimentation and needless exploitation will perhaps find themselves born into one of the worst hells imaginable: the industrial farm. In the United States alone, 10 billion land animals are slaughtered every year in feces-crusted, disease-ridden factories which make even the worst Holocaust camp look like Disneyland. Sentient, non-humans spend short lives in such facilities wallowing in painful misery, getting sick and fat with nothing to look forward to except a gruesome death. Most of these places are so horrible that it only takes showing the public what's inside to drastically lower meat demand, according to researchers at Kansas State University. Perhaps that's why the meat industry has been lobbying so hard in recent years to increase legal penalties for undercover investigations at these types of establishments.
Not too long ago, there was a point in human history when taking the lives of non-human animals may have been necessary for our survival. In some places around the world, that may even still be the case. But in modern societies, sentient, non-human beings are being needlessly and brutally over-slaughtered in an unrecognized genocide, subjected to torture, suffering, and death for outdated traditions, entertainment, sport, and profit.
Recognizing the indiscriminate cruelty against non-human animals is the first step towards ending it. So long as we remain blind to the ongoing oppression -- whether by choice or ignorance -- it will continue to take place, and millions of innocent souls will pay the ultimate price as a result.
The imperialist war drums are beating again, this time with Iran in sight. When the conflict begins, what will be the response by the antiwar movement in the United States? To answer this question, we can look to American history and examine efforts made regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and their ultimate effectiveness, in order to obtain an understanding of which approaches might be taken to stop a war with Iran.
Aside from protesting, how many petitions were started and signed to stop the Iraq invasion? How many members of the Senate and Congress were called, written to, visited, or combinations of the three?
Some believed voting to be an effective method for ending the Iraq invasion once it began. Yet in 2004, the only major candidate running against presidential incumbent George W. Bush was John Kerry, who had originally voted for the Iraq invasion (and stood by the decision). In 2008, Barack Obama was widely considered the anti-war candidate in comparison to John McCain, yet since then, he has become responsible for escalating aerial predator drone attacks, starting new wars (Uganda, Libya, Yemen), leaving armed State Department contractors in Iraq, and provoking Iran through sanctions, propaganda, and regional bullying. The 2012 U.S. election is shaping up to look like warmonger vs. warmonger, which gives little hope to the idea that politics will bring about an end to the seemingly endless "war on terror" anytime soon.
For the most part, it seems protests and political action have become more of an outlet for the public to release emotional rage without anything actually changing as a result of it. The war in Iraq continued on as planned (and the wider military occupation would have actually continued longer if President Obama managed to secure an extension, as his administration was attempting to do).
When the U.S. attack on Iran starts, will anti-war demonstrators once again assemble like farm animals behind metal barriers on sidewalks throughout major U.S. cities, chant slogans for a few hours, and then return home with a sense of satisfaction? Will petitions be signed and distributed in a desperate, hopeful attempt to get senators and presidential candidates to at least consider their message?
To avoid potentially wasting time and energy, the effectiveness of the aforementioned measures ought to be seriously considered by what's left of the anti-war movement before such ideas are implemented and repeated again in response to a seemingly inevitable war with Iran. Otherwise, like so many interventions before, the conflict will ultimately be started and ended without consequence to those directly responsible.
In July of 2011, the state of New York officially banned the touching of cell phones while driving, supposedly in an effort to stop people from texting behind the wheel. This means if a cop sees a motorist driving with a phone in their hand -- regardless of whether they're actually using it -- the motorist will receive a $150 fine, and possibly three points on their license.
After cell phones, what other "distracting" entities will be next to fall victim to the state's mighty banhammer? Any of the aforementioned entities could be up for consideration (and already are, in some states).
It makes little sense for the government to try and control everything that distracts us. These types of laws preemptively punish non-violent individuals, fail miserably at addressing the underlying root cause of the problem (which is NOT cell phones, pets, laptops, GPS, etc., but driver inattentiveness behind the wheel), and set a ridiculously dangerous precedent which could lead us down a slippery legal slope from which we may never recover.
If a news article begins with, "a grim report is circulating the Kremlin...", "rumors in the Kremlin...", "a new report from the Kremlin...", or some other variation, the story is most likely 100%, USDA-certified, Grade A Bullshit.
When I conducted a google search for keywords "circulating", "Kremlin", "report", and "grim", two separate stories appeared on one page, and a third story on the other.
Both of the articles linked back to whatdoesitmean.com, a website which mixes real news with stories that are entirely or partially fabricated.
Further searching reveals additional usage of the Kremlin bit:
"A shocking Federal Security Services (FSB) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Obama has begun a campaign in the United States that can only be compared in modern history to former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s (1878-1953) campaign against Christianity that the Communists had labeled as nothing more than “the opiate of the masses.”" http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1530.htm
"A frightening report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared by the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAAE) states that “emergency notices” have gone out to all of Russia’s nuclear power plants warning them that a potential “blast” from our Sun could cause “massive power blackouts” and could even result in “spontaneous atomic explosions.”" http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1523.htm
"A frightening foreign military intelligence directorate (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that over the past nearly 36 hours the vast intercontinental military tunnel complex constructed by the United States Air force over the past nearly 45 years was hit with two powerful nuclear explosions at its main terminuses in Colorado and Virginia used nearly exclusively by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)." http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1514.htm
Other articles on the page speak for themselves in discrediting the website as a legitimate news source, such as this one:
"A most curious report prepared by the Russian Finance Ministry on the impact of soaring food prices for our world in the remaining months of 2011 says that the deliberate flooding of some of America’s most valued farmland by President Obama was “most assuredly” done as a ‘living sacrifice’ to the ‘sun god’ of the ancient peoples once living in this region known as the “Mound Builders”." http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1482.htm
The articles on whatdoesitmean.com have also been mirrored on other disinformation news websites, such as EUTimes.net. For example: "World Powers Stunned After Message From God Broadcast" can be found on both Whatdoesitmean and Eutimes.
It's possible these websites are all owned by the same group of writers. One name that kept popping up as an author for many of these articles was someone named "Sorcha Faal", though there are indications that this is a pseudonym.
Regardless of who is responsible for the flow of bullshit, fact-checking has never been more important than it is now, especially considering how widely many of these stories are being shared throughout social media platforms such as Facebook.
Though I've written before about how to identify reliable websites, some additional tips pertaining to this specific type of disinformation, and its characteristics, are as follows:
1. Poor external sources: The article titled, "Obama Vows To Wipe Out Christians, Take Over All US Churches", begins: "A shocking Federal Security Services (FSB) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Obama has begun a campaign in the United States that can only be compared in modern history to former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's (1878-1953) campaign against Christianity that the Communists had labeled as nothing more than “the opiate of the masses.”"
For this particular story, the alleged source is a Federal Security Services report. Most government reports originate on the websites of their respective governments (.gov, for example, in the U.S.); however, the source for this supposed "federal" report takes us to someone's blog on WordPress.
2. Poor + reliable sources: As mentioned previously, some of the articles have truth to them. For example, in the article titled, "Russia Reports Nuclear Explosions Hit Vast US Military Tunnel Network", one source leads to an article on the Washington Post, a reliable source. Yet, the overall story, and a majority of the sources, are fabricated.
3. ALIENS WILL DESTROY THE WORLD IN 2012 (PS: buy my books and DVDs!): Aside from tainting the societal knowledge pool with the piss of disinformation, many of the articles' headlines are designed to attract visitors for advertising purposes. This is why almost every single article starts off with eye-catching, stimulating adjectives such as "grim", "shocking", "frightening", "curious", etc. Trustworthy news sources will generally neglect such words as they are indicative of a non-objective opinion regarding the story.
4. Investing in your lack of curiosity: Determining the credibility of a story takes just a little bit of curiosity, and often, a quick google search. Websites like Whatdoesitmean rely on a generally large audience taking everything at face value, whereas an individual will see a story with an explosive headline and share it via social networking on emotional impulse. For the most part, this strategy has been successful.
If you're unsure about the validity of a report, find a quote in the article, or some unique detail pertaining to the story. After you've done that, put it in quotations, and then do a quick google search. If there's truth to it, the details will almost always be picked up or mirrored on other news websites, even if mainstream news websites like CNN or FOX fail to mention it.
5. If there are comments, read them: Occasionally, user comments can help give additional clues as to the validity of a story.
These deliberately fake stories seek to manipulate our opinions, and occasionally, damage our credibility. Learning how to sort through them effectively will inevitably help us stop wasting time and energy on disinformation, and direct more of our resources to real news taking place in the world.
In December of 2011, mainstream news networks such as CNN and MSNBC proudly proclaimed that the war in Iraq is over, as you can see from this photo of my television:
It's true: U.S. troops are leaving Iraq (with the exception of 150, which will be staying behind to "assist in arms sales"). But here is what we're not being told by mainstream news networks:
2. 5,000 security contractors have been hired by the U.S. State Department for guarding various American interests throughout Iraq. The State Department also tried to obtain legal immunity from Iraqi laws for its contractors operating in the country.
Why won't mainstream news media bring these things up? Perhaps because in doing so, people might start asking questions like, "If we know for a fact that we invaded Iraq based on false pretenses, why are we still occupying the country at all?" By observing the continued exploitation of a country which posed absolutely no threat, blatant imperialism is exposed.
When it comes to war in the United States, party-loyal Democrats have taken a cozy seat on the bloody imperial throne once occupied by party-loyal Republicans for eight years under Bush and Cheney. In doing so, whether unknowingly or otherwise, the two corporate-sponsored political entities now seem to agree when it comes to most foreign policy issues.
In 2010, there were more U.S. drone strikes inside Pakistan than in any other year. The Telegraph reported that 1 out of every 3 "suspected terrorists" killed by a drone in the country was actually a civilian. One US-led drone strike destroyed a house containing four women, three children, killing them all. A 16-year old teen who spoke with the BBC told the story of how a US drone explosion caused him to lose one eye, and both legs.
In August, Obama referred to George W. Bush as a "fellow patriot", claiming no one could doubt his "love of country" and support for the troops. Later in the year, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on "The Colbert Report" and gave George W. Bush a sincere "thank you" for "caring about US troops".
November brought Obama to Australia, where he boldly announced that around 2,500 troops would eventually be stationed there in the coming years because the United States has "interests" in the region.
As 2011 winded down, provocation towards Iran drastically increased, with numerous reports in the country of nuclear scientists being assassinated, rampant cyber warfare, and US drones patrolling the border.
If George W. Bush was doing these things, party-loyal Republicans would be cheering him on, and party-loyal Democrats would be condemning him. But this time around, it's the Democratic Party engaging in bloody imperialism, with party-loyal Democrats cheering their figurehead on as he continues the Bush-era neoconservative plan for what appears to be US-led global hegemony. However, as Republicans have realized, they are no longer able to attack Obama on foreign policy primarily because his strategies so closely resemble those of his predecessor. It has become very clear that Democrats and Republicans are equally bloodthirsty, and will do everything in their power to maintain an empire which caters to corporate interests, all funded by our taxes. The big tragedy of 2012 will be that day in November when millions of Americans go to the polls and overwhelmingly vote for a warmonger from either of the two camps.
