What’s the exchange rate of a darkie’s life?

The war in Iraq, and war in general, seems to have become one of my new pet peeves. I refuse to sympathize with any soldier or anyone who plans on becoming one. This is because I firmly believe that war is organized murder, and that the war in Iraq in particular is horrific in its moral implications. But all wars are horrific, and all wars demand the abandonment of morality in favour of murder.

A recent Salon article, “When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?,” engages this very topic, which is very interesting and refreshing to see on a mainstream statist media. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone sane would understand this and still be a statist, but I don’t pretend to study insanity. Anyway, here is the important passage:

“The magic number was 30,” said Marc Garlasco, who was the Pentagon’s chief of high-value targeting at the start of the war. “That means that if you hit 30 as the anticipated number of civilians killed, the airstrike had to go to Rumsfeld or Bush personally to sign off.” If the expected number of civilian deaths was less than 30, however, neither the president nor the secretary of defense needed to know.

Four years later, the U.S. military still has rules in place that permit the killing of civilians in airstrikes. In fact, the number of anticipated civilian deaths is carefully appraised beforehand in a calculation known as the collateral damage estimate, which is then reviewed by commanders and military attorneys who must decide if the benefits of the strike outweigh the cost in innocent civilian lives.

And then the article drones on and on by giving us the State propaganda lines: the US Army is really careful not to kill more innocents than they have to, they minimize bomb sizes, they have all this great technology, they have no choice because the Taliban is putting innocents in danger, and so on and so forth. In short, two and a half pages dedicated to making apologies for cold-blooded murder.

Those murderers needs to be tried and executed, or at least taken out of society, so they do not inflict their insane policies ever again. It makes me sick.

In the end, the point is that war is murder. However you want to rationalize it, however “nice” you are in determining how many innocents you are going to murder, however you try to make yourself believe that you’re fighting for “democracy” (which is itself an agency of murder), you are still killing innocent people. That’s called “murder.” No uniforms, no national pride, no strategic plans can change the simple facts of reality.

The refusal of people to acknowledge the fact that their beloved soldiers are murdering people is astounding, and I have given up trying to understand it. US troops have explicit policies to kill protesters, including mothers and children. US troops have explicit policies to bomb innocents. How much more direct can you get?

What kind of mentality must a person have to believe that the people of Iraq will see their loved ones bombed or shot and not take arms against the US Army? How retarded, immoral, corrupt, mindless can you be? Is it really that hard for the average Joes to understand that concept? Or do they think that sand niggers don’t have feelings, or what? Is this just simple racism?

I don’t pretend to understand the warmonger’s mind, but there’s one thing I know: I am going to do my darndest best to no longer give one cent to the federal government as long as I live. I am no longer going to fraternize with any murderer or hopeful murderer. I am no longer going to be silent about war.


%d bloggers like this: