Home | About | Donate

The Islamic State, America, and a History of Violence


#1

The Islamic State, America, and a History of Violence

Nick Turse

In the muddled midst of last week’s mass killing in San Bernardino, California, a few words skittering across my Twitter feed gave me pause. “On this awful shooting: Is U.S. culture evil? Enemy of our civilization? Must all Americans apologize? Should we bar U.S. tourists as dangerous?” asked Simon Kuper, a columnist with the Financial Times.


#2

The evil psychopaths that covet evermore destructive weapons and their demonstration and supply exhaustion upon enemies, who con the public into supporting their barbarities in the name of "security", they are at the root of the problem. Unfortunately, they are legion and have recruited myriad minions. They ensure that the military sponsors research in all sorts of fields to inculcate patriotism in the "scholarly" (technocratic) ranks. They interject tear-jerking reunions of military families during National Fantasy League games. The US seems but a tool for their sickness.


#3

schools and media are servants of evil.


#4

The "Crazies" are in charge and so far they are winning.......


#5

I usually like reading Turse's pieces because he does his homework and reading him (and others) is me doing mine.

What happened Nick?

What is this crap? Do we need the horrific past yet again? Yes people acted horribly back then. Remind yourself of the Holocaust and Pol Pot. Of Rwanda.

Once more someone looks back in the past as some sort of rationale for or against something in the present.

Romans crucified. Crassus hung thousands and placed the crucifixes along the roads leading into rome so that mile after mile of rotting corpses (they were not removed after the person finally died but left to rot) needed to be passed by walking or riding in a horse drawn wagon.

What is the point Nick? Are we those people who mistreated and murdered native Americans? Are you? Even the most rabid repubs are NOT THOSE PEOPLE.

The murders in Paris (and Beirut) were not caused by the murders of protesting Algerians 50 years ago.

Serbs who massacred muslims in the balkans because some massacre happened 300 years ago... are simply murderers and nothing more.

There is NO justification nor excuse for murdering innocents. There is no justification for beheading nor for killing a family as collateral damage by drone.

There is no quid pro quo of innocent death.

Ever.


#7

He's not justifying anything.

What we call terrorists consider themselves to be freedom fighters ala Paul Revere, or liken themselves to the French Resistance.

Political violence happens in a political context. US using drones to kill Muslims is senseless and evil violence, not justifiable, but it happens in a specific political context.

The same thing is true of terrorism.

Trying to understand or analyze the political context of terrorism does not equal justifying it.

The US myth of the Muslim Boogieman is driving one of the most vile and cruel eras of warfare ever. The US is running wild, terrorizing the world, because for 35 years Americans have believed in the menace of the so-called Islamic extremist. Meanwhile, it is the US which has the most weapons and the most deadly, and it is the US which as killed at least a million Muslims since September 2001, not the other way around.


#8

Now you tell me????????????

Darn!


#9

You can spout this nonsense then in the next breath claim people must support the Democrats over the Republicans because of what is in essence translates to "they are not killing as many people overseas as the republicans would".

So why that quid pro for all the innocents killed by the US Military when Democrats in charge?


#10

But the USA remains the most murderous culture ever devised, no excuses please, no need to mention the romans, or other people's atrocious behavior, we are the merchants of death when we could have lead the world in peace and peaceful coexistence.


#11

Defining policy by its repercussions is valid. Defining those repercussions by ancient history is bullshit.

I have what I think is a reasonable grasp of western history and at least a passing familiarity with eastern history. Somewhere I suppose is a nation or people who are endlessly innocent and pure but as yet I haven't found them.

If you want to remember the past so as to avoid repeating it then do so. However, this is actually remembering the past so as to repeat it instead.

Nobody escapes the history of blood and savagery. Not a one. Possibly a few pre Roman Canary Islanders but that is iffy!

Who hasn't wiped out, tortured, pillaged and ruined with cheerful abandon in history? Everybody. Caesar exterminated the Gauls and repopulated the place with Italian settlers. Ghengis Khan went sight seeing and left behind 40 million dead. The relatively modern King of Belgium chopped off the hands of indigenous people for not working harder. Germans exterminated Jews and Gypsies. Does anybody remember that a million and a half Gypsies were murdered in the camps and after the war they got no Israel nor anything else like did jewish survivors? We may well ask (paraphrasing the ultimate mass murderer "Who will remember the Gypsies?" It is shameful that European jews ignore the other suffered of the Holocaust who shared the same horror and decimation.

I digress.

The past is indirect however in the modern online world, the past is being manipulated to serve other aims. For example. Who is at fault for the Paris murders? The actual murderers who may not have even known of the massacre of Algerian protesters fifty years prior? Or should that massacre be blamed on caesar's brutality in depopulating Gaul and so forth?

I can more accept the direct effects of warfare (drones do not make us any friends) as a causative factor but the facts of history are being manipulated which is what isn't acceptable.

It isn't that history doesn't matter...

it is that history is NOT the present.

Those who choose to only remember the violence of the past are doomed to repeat it in the present.


#12

This article misses the entire context of the last 500 years of European and American history, which is the banks versus the people.

After the colonists defeated the mercenaries fighting for the bankers that controlled Britain, Hamilton sold the U.S. down the river by creating the First Bank of the U.S., wholly owned and operated by the Anglo-European banking cartel.

When Madison refused to renew the charter, the banks started the war of 1812, which suckered the U.S. into borrowing to build a larger navy and thinking that they needed the Second Bank of the U.S. When Jackson refused to renew the charter, they tried to assassinate him more than a half dozen times.

When President Zachary Taylor said there would be no private national bank on his watch, he was poisoned. When Lincoln printed real U.S. dollars (Greenbacks) to fund the Union Army (rather than pay the Wall Street banks between 24 and 36% interest), they assassinated him. When Garfield said he was going to start printing Greenbacks, they assassinated him. And so on, until the cartel got the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913, with much of Congress already on Christmas break.

All of our wars, including the Revolutionary War (which Benjamin Franklin said was due to the British refusing to allow the colonists to continue to print their own money), are bankers wars.

Since the Federal Reserve Act, the U.S. has not been a sovereign nation, because it does not print its own money; rather, we pay principle and interest for the privilege of using the cartel's private bank notes.

Our government is owned and operated and has been for quite some time. Pitting people against one another is part of their modus operandi, as they have admitted.

http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-view-from-top-of-power-pyramid.html


#13

Well obviously you don't know history. You should read more. I am not making excuses for America's endless war stupidity but America is certainly not the most murderous culture ever devised. Do you know what the word hyperbole means?


#14

Economics breeds conspiracies...who knew? Lol.

Aside from everybody getting bumped off for the sake of a quick buck, for all I know you might be right. Proving your claims is something else again though. People often mistake those who benefited or took advantage of something for those who caused it to happen.

I freely admit that I haven't thought about Garfield since high school (and apparently not all that much even then based on what I can remember) nor of Zachary Taylor (whom I remember not knowing much about even then ...lol) but according to you bankers are a blood thirsty bunch and sort of like economic ninjas?

Did Wall St. assassinate Lincoln? He made them a bundle you know. Um whatever. Things can look like they resulted from something that happened simply because something or someone took advantage of that thing happening.

How did I end up feeling apprehensive about not knowing enough about Taylor again... it is fifty years later and too long for me to still worry about that test on friday. Sigh.


#15

So called "America" is just a proxy for the cartel, which got its power from OWNING the money supply and buying whatever it needs to expand its power. Perhaps you did not follow the link I posted and see the link to the MIT peer reviewed study that shows that the banks own the core of the world's economic assets. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/


#16

Whatever our education system may have attempted to teach us about the history of the U.S., it was, at best, only peripheral to what was really going on.

In this way, our educational system is much like our news media:

”History ain't what it is. It's what some writer wanted it to be." --Will Rogers

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. ... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." --U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." --John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, circa 1880

"'A handful of us determine what will be on the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. ... Indeed it is a handful of us with this awesome power ... a strongly editorial power. ... we must decide which news items out of hundreds available we are going to expose that day. And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control.'" --Walter Cronkite, in the Introduction to "Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News-And Why," Carl Jensen, 1996

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." -- A.J. Liebling


#17

Yes, the crazies are ,and have been, in charge for my entire life (heading now into my 71st year). And yes, you might say they they are winning. But winning for who? I imagine that most on this site already know this but let us repeat it over and over. The rich who are manipulating the Capitalist system for their families' direct benefit will stop at nothing to control all; wealth, political power in our country and political control of the wealth and resources of the world. Those are the people who are "winning." But who are the direct losers in all of this insanity? The rest of life on Earth is the loser. Where all this ends, who knows. But I do know that unrestrained capitalism and a government whose leaders "play the game" and are let inside the castle of the self proclaimed elite is not sustainable. It never has been. The exception today is global human caused climate change is fast breathing down our necks. Our attention has been diverted from the real threat to everyone's security and we are all surrounded. Trouble is there is a cancer in our midst and the vast majority is afraid to act.


#18

There is a problem when quoting from the past as people then were speaking of their present. It sounds like they are talking about right now. Sometimes the truth remains and sometimes it is dated and only sounds like it is current.

Oligarchy owned news whether Hearst's era or Luce's etc. is what it is. Back in the sixties, those who were old enough to see the advent of the sixties (and what a sight that advent was as we came out of McCarthyism) remember it as amazing. We had the East Village Other, Pacific News Service, Robert Crumb and underground comics, we had Gloria Steinem and the Voice plus all the other stepping stones.

But believe it or not, the editors and publishers were the same. They didn't want it but to sell papers and mags, they allowed it. People were willing to pay money for a Ramparts but most never got the chance.

Big city folks knew what was happening but there was no cable, no internet ... no free press stuff out in the boonies. People were used to not questioning what they didn't know. Vietnam changed that. America changed. We learned that there was a lot that we didn't know about a lot of things.

That remains the case in places but don't kid yourself. We know a lot more than we used to. Once it was college kids who led. You still see that in some countries where universities represent the educated class but even that is changing with the internet.

What you see is 'spoiled for choice' diversity of the news and no reason to be a news junkie for most people. They work too hard and just want to relax mostly. Old coots like myself get bored and want to debate and keep me political champers sharp.

Most people are willing but they are new to the game.

I predict that if Bernie gets in that Americans will take a great deal of interest in their government and what it does because they won't feel like they are being made fools of. Learning about their own government will feel good. Contrast that with what we have been learning our government does > Bank bailouts, off shoring, outsourcing, foreclosing, data mining and on and on. Most people start and immediately feel depressed to learn the reality. Bernie may change that. people might want to participate in their own government again.


#19

Great points, but why do you call America's acts political violence while describing that same violence committed by others terrorism. It is all terrorism!!


#20

Yes, I was on the streets in the '60's.

So, what you're saying, regarding Bernie, is that there is a correlation between the way people vote and how that vote is reported and certified? I would like to see any evidence that you have showing that the voting electronic voting machines are not hacked.


#21

I worry that they are hacked since they were hacked under Bush/Cheney.

Bernie isn't a fool and neither are his supporters. Lots of people will be ready to prevent such shenanigans this time (I hope). Maybe we can get the UN to certify our elections? Lol.

I sure hope that Bernie doesn't get robbed. Maybe just maybe enough people (some on the other side) might also want to preserve democracy for their kids and roll back climate change...

Maybe.