f'n insane, and if you think this is ok or that we should tolerate this type of murder, time for a moral check up. we absolutely shouldn't put up with this. ignoring the law and intentionally taking innocent life isn't acceptable. somebody needs to speak up and stop this, like right now. please make a phone call.
"Contrary to false denials, the U.S., under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been bombing Yemen for the last two years, including one attack using cluster bombs that killed dozens of civilians. But what's new is that this will be a CIA drone attack program that is a massive escalation over prior bombing campaigns." Know what you're paying for when you give the government money.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
The US government sure has an interesting way of defining war these days. Just a few months after the Obama administration played word games with the public by insisting that air strikes in Libya were just "kinetic military action," not acts of war, the Pentagon has now come on the record stating that it will treat all acts of cyber-hacking against the US as "acts of war."
The announcement came on the heels of a supposed cyber-attack that occurred a few weeks ago against defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Officials say when hacking incidents like this occur in the future, retaliation in the form of reverse cyber-attacks, economic sanctions, and even "military strike" may take place.
"A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response," said Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. "All appropriate options would be on the table." A White House statement also said the US plans to "respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country," implying that computer hackers could soon face retaliatory attacks by the US military.
So when the US decides to invade foreign nations, often times without necessary congressional approval, it is just a simple act of exerting kinetic energy. But when a computer hacker correctly guesses a password and breaches the security protocols of the US government or one of its contracted companies, this is an act of war. And so it goes in the arbitrary world of the military-industrial complex, where definitions of war are applied only when it benefits the corporate oligarchy.
In truth, this latest cyber fear mongering out of the Pentagon is just another excuse for those running the US government to widen the scope of those it considers to be terrorists and enemies of the state. And now that the announcement has been made, you can expect to hear about many more "cyber-attacks" that will predicate convenient excuses to launch new kinetic military actions against nations, groups, and perhaps even fellow American citizens.
America's denial of the roots of 9/11 is not a unique phenomenon in U.S. history, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. Although Osama Bin Laden told the world why he attacked-he detested specific U.S. policies in the Middle East-Americans did not want to hear this, just as they wished not to learn about U.S. policies that precipitated other security crises.
Like the citizens of many other countries, Americans believe that their government is blameless when it comes to taking up arms against other peoples: wars are simply thrust upon their government, which they absolve of any responsibility for helping to create the conditions that precipitated the crises. The pattern, Eland argues in his latest op-ed, can be found in the popular perception of the causes of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, and the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Americans need to better learn their history-and to see what their government does in their name. Were they to do so, they would learn scores of unacknowledged truths, such as that the War of 1812 was instigated by congressional "war hawks" who sought to grab land from Canada, that the Mexican-American War was precipitated by President James Polk's blockade of the Rio Grande, and that the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted from the United States cutting off oil and other vital resources to Japan. "American history vindicates the old saying that ‘truth is the first casualty of war,' Eland writes, "but the passage of time should allow a republic to undertake a more honest and dispassionate examination of historical events. It rarely does, with truth being swept under the rug in favor of assuming uncaused indignities.
Now that is refreshing i have been so tired of initial Bush lies, "they hate our freedoms" being the extent of debate in the US over the last 10 years. What happened to, " know your enemy"?
95% of the world just wants to make a living, raise their family in peace and be left the HELL alone. The other 5% fucks everything up and wants us to be a part of it.
America's denial of the roots of 9/11 is not a unique phenomenon in U.S. history, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. Although Osama Bin Laden told the world why he attacked-he detested specific U.S. policies in the Middle East-Americans did not want to hear this, just as they wished not to learn about U.S. policies that precipitated other security crises.
Like the citizens of many other countries, Americans believe that their government is blameless when it comes to taking up arms against other peoples: wars are simply thrust upon their government, which they absolve of any responsibility for helping to create the conditions that precipitated the crises. The pattern, Eland argues in his latest op-ed, can be found in the popular perception of the causes of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, and the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Americans need to better learn their history-and to see what their government does in their name. Were they to do so, they would learn scores of unacknowledged truths, such as that the War of 1812 was instigated by congressional "war hawks" who sought to grab land from Canada, that the Mexican-American War was precipitated by President James Polk's blockade of the Rio Grande, and that the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted from the United States cutting off oil and other vital resources to Japan. "American history vindicates the old saying that ‘truth is the first casualty of war,' Eland writes, "but the passage of time should allow a republic to undertake a more honest and dispassionate examination of historical events. It rarely does, with truth being swept under the rug in favor of assuming uncaused indignities.
