To contact us Click HERE
Source: Another World Is Possible -dot com
Once in a while, a writer comes along. A writer who hasn't been battered by the relentless you-are-powerless voices that bring learned helplessness via the tv and radio. A writer who hasn't been cowed by criticism from the more "sensible" among us, who hasn't allowed the numbness to scare every last trace of passion from his understanding of how things ought to be.
The truth is we are all at the mercy of a giant power system driven by murderous forces which literally are running amok in the atmosphere, in the sky. From the oil-probing intrusiveness of the HAARP radio waves to the drones that buzz day in, day out over people going to school, going to work, going home, going somewhere they hopefully won't be killed by the "surgical" drone strikes.
Those "surgical" (means less collateral damage) strikes only kill serious terrorists about two percent of the time, according to a new study. That's real surgical.
The other day I overheard a woman saying her friend is a drone pilot, a drone warrior. She said he spends his days in front of the computer and drinks the rest of the time. Killing via computer---from Sunny So Cal.
What I can't understand is that the world goes on turning, happily, people jabbering on their phones, laughing on the patio, going on and on and on with life while continuing to pay money to the cabal that kills through their taxes.....not caring, not despairing, oh well, it's something that's beyond our control.
Sometimes a writer comes along whose soul isn't killed by apathy. Here's Chris Floyd:
"US drones hover 24 hours a day over communities in north-west Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning," the American law schools report says. "Their presence terrorises men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.
"These fears have affected behaviour. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."
The study goes on to say: "Publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best … The number of 'high-level' militants killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low – estimated at just 2% [of deaths]. Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks … One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy."
A powerful story, setting out the lineaments of the report with admirable concision. But then the Guardian correspondent, Owen Bowcott [or his inserting editors], betray heartbreaking naivete:
Coming from American lawyers rather than overseas human rights groups, the criticisms are likely to be more influential in US domestic debates over the legality of drone warfare.
The truth, of course, is that regardless of its "Homeland" provenance, this report will have no influence whatsoever on the non-existent "debate over the legality of drone warfare" in the United States. For beyond the rare, isolated op-ed, there is no "debate" on drone warfare in American political or media circles. The bipartisan political establishment is united in its support of the practice; indeed, both parties plan to expand the use of drones on a large scale in the future. This murderous record -- and this shameful complicity -- will be one of the Peace Laureate lasting legacies, whether he wins re-election or not.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder