Sunday, June 23, 2019

The death toll from the U.S. post-9/11 wars is a horrific number of human beings wiped off the face of the Earth, but it is completely absent from the national consciousness and the national discussion. 

I think all Americans share the lifelong experience of perceiving the U.S. as this extraordinarily good country that is the moral compass for the whole world. But, in the wake of the carnage from the post 9/11 wars, is there any reason to continue believing that? 

If we look at the facts about Afghanistan and Iraq, that these were both crippled 3rd world countries that the U.S. crossed the ocean to attack, and I keep saying that about "crossing the ocean" to emphasize how unilateral the starting of the wars were. They were wars of choice, wars of aggression that the U.S. wholly started. Every claim that was made about Saddam Hussein to justify attacking Iraq proved to be false, and afterwards, it simply became that "he was a brutal dictator anyway; he gassed his own people; so we had every right to do it." But actually, even the claim that he gassed his own people is in doubt. 

https://advocatesforpeaceandsocialjustice.wordpress.com/iraq-the-truth/iraq-committee-info-usa/david-hungerford-the-myth-of-the-anfal-genocide-saddam-hussein-did-not-kill-the-kurds/    

With Afghanistan, there was only one claim, that the Taliban had harbored Osama bin laden, giving him a platform for his terrorist training camp. But, isn't the fact that Donald Trump is paying the Taliban to negotiate a peace deal with us which will certainly put them, the Taliban, back in power, to a great extent, in Afghanistan, proof that nobody really believes it?  Because if the Taliban had done that, if they had actually supported and facilitated the 9/11 attacks, how could that possibly be forgiven? On the basis of what? Promising not to do it again?  

Our government can't forgive Lori Loughlin for paying a college admissions bribe that didn't kill anybody. And I'm sure she is promising never to do it again and giving assurances that she won't. Yet, our government is throwing the book at her, threatening to put her prison for 20 years- or longer. And yet, we claim the Taliban gave sanctuary to the 9/11 terrorists, but as long as they give assurances they won't do it again, they can resume power?  Is that how it works, Donald Trump? 

I don't believe Osama bin laden had anything to do with 9/11, but, even if our claims about him were true, that he did plan the 9/11 attacks, it was still terribly wrong to start a war over it. And that's because we knew that a war would get thousands of innocent people killed, yet, we did it anyway. We just didn't care. We assumed the right to kill those people in order to get to him. And when I say "we" I mean our government, which is to say, the George W. Bush administration. 

It has parallels with World War 1 in which the whole world went to war over the death of one man, the Archduke Ferdinand, and 40 million people were killed. In this case, Osama bin laden was alive and it was a matter of us acquiring him, and over that, we started a war which killed hundreds of thousands. Note that at the time, Afghanistan did not have an extradition treaty with the United States; and even though we refused to show them any evidence against him, they did agree to turn him over to a third country for trial.           

Why the heck didn't George Bush accept that offer? If bin laden were incarcerated in a third country, he would have been neutralized, right? Furthermore, once the Taliban released him to that third country, it would have been between us and them. We might have been able to prevail on them to turn him over to us. Once the Taliban turned him over, he would have been out of their hands. They'd have lose control. We are talking about something that would have prevented the whole 18 year, no end in              sight, Afghanistan War from ever happening. Again I have to ask, how is it that George W. Bush is still walking around a free man? We're talking about putting Lori Loughlin in prison for 20 years but not him? 

All right, so let's talk about the numbers. Johns Hopkins researchers reported in The Lancet in 2006 that 600,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The Physicians for Social Responsibility confirmed it, then reported in 2011 that the number had risen to 1,000,000 Iraqis dead. Then in 2015, they hired Nobel Prize winning researchers who determined that in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the death toll from the wars was at the very least 1.3 million and as many as 2 million. There have been naysayers, but the lowest body count I have seen is that of Iraq Body Count which claims only 288,000 Iraqis dead. However, they are counting only the direct deaths from the violence and not any of the secondary deaths related to the war. For instance, if a water treatment plant gets blown up, and water-borne diseases start spreading and kill some people, those are considered secondary deaths from the war. 



Note that the number of civilian deaths vastly outnumbers the number of combatant deaths on both sides. 

And finally, I will mention the Brown University study which came out last November which claimed 500,000 deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from the "War on Terror" but again, not including any of the secondary deaths, which they admit usually outnumber the primary deaths, and not including any of the deaths from any attribution from the wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. 

The point is that no matter who is right about the Math, a very great human catastrophe has occurred that is high on the list of historical catastrophes, judging by the numbers.  

The highest number of fatalities I have seen reported from the U.S. War on Terror is 4 million. This is by the think-tank Global Research:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-war-on-terror-has-killed-4-million-muslims-or-more-do-the-math/5467349

And they stress that it was 4 million Muslims who were killed.

The point is that we, as Americans, in light of this, can't go on acting like everything is normal, like nothing has happened, like nothing has changed, like we're still the same country we were before 9/11. There has never been a reckoning about this. There is barely any awareness of it. 

So, what about you? Do you care? Are you OK with all this killing by your government? Because: I am not OK with it, and I want to network with people who are not OK with it. 

         






The mainstream media is going bananas over the court decision against Jim Fetzer. I want to repeat that I am not taking a position on Sandy Hook, and I am not accusing Leonard Pozner of any wrongdoing, nor am I saying that his son Noah didn't die at Sandy Hook. But, I do want to look at  a widely circulated claim concerning it: that an image of Noah Pozner appeared among the victims from the Peshawar, Pakistan school shooting in which 132 students were killed.   

The attack was attributed to a militant Pakistani group called 


 Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, 



But, it has no association with Afghan Taliban which calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who denounced the attack. And obviously, it must be realized that they didn't do it and had no connection to those that did because otherwise, why would Trump be paying the Afghan Taliban to negotiate, aiming to put them back in power in Afghanistan to some extent? 

So, here is the image, which is universally admitted to be Noah Pozner, which appeared in the photo taken on the day that the Peshawar massacre happened. 




So what is the explanation for this admittedly odd circumstance? I am not offering one, but I am reporting one by David Mikkelson, the founder of snopes.com. 


David Mikkelson

David Mikkelson founded the site now known as snopes.com back in 1994 as a creative outgrowth of his wide-ranging interests in a variety of subjects (particularly folklore) and his professional expertise in the computer industry. Handling everything from researching and writing articles about urban legends to managing the site’s technical infrastructure, David saw snopes.com (which antedated the development of automated search engines) quickly become the go-to place for Internet users to query about anything questionable they encountered online, establishing it as the oldest and best known online fact-checking outlet operating today. David’s educational background includes a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Texas (San Antonio) and about a zillion course hours of post-graduate classes at California State University Northridge taken with no particular degree program in mind. His previous employment encompassed stints with the News-Chronicle (newspaper), Teledyne Electronics, USPS, JPL, Digital Equipment Corporation, Rocketdyne, and Health Net (HMO). In his ever-dwindling moments of free time away from snopes.com, David can be spotted at board gaming events and conventions.


So, here is his explanation:



"A number of explanations might apply to this puzzling photograph. The first is that an image of Pozner was mistakenly included in the vigil by someone who turned up his picture while performing an online search using a term such as “December school massacre” to find photos of those killed in Peshawar and and did not recognize his face (because he had dark hair and facial features not unlike those of many of the victims in Peshawar). Another is that his image was deliberately included by mourners as an homage in order to publicly link multiple incidents of young, innocent victims’ losing their lives in senseless school shootings.
In fact, the second explanation offered above appears to be what happened: On the day of the Peshawar incident a Pakistani woman created a collage of photographs of young people killed in school shootings and posted it to Facebook with the caption “They Went to School and Never Came Back.” Because the Peshawar shooting occurred very close to the anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre, she included a picture of a child from the latter event, namely Noah Pozner, along with pictures of Peshawar victims."

RC: Oh, OK. So, even though 132 children were killed that day at Peshawar, it occurred to some Pakistani woman to make a collage that included an American child who was killed  at a school here for the sake of global solidarity, and it's a small world after all. She had that thought on the very day of the Peshawar shooting. Wow. That is amazing because I would think that her mind would be totally on the children who had just been killed. But, I guess the mind can do whatever it wants.   
  • Jack Taylor Ralph Cinque actually neither one of those pics looks like Ruby...
  • Robert Jordan William Kelly I agree with Him !!
  • Ralph Cinque Jack Taylor Jack, you're absolutely right. Neither one of these guys looks like Ruby or was Ruby. The guy on the left was James Bookhout. The guy on the right, well, we are down the rabbit hole or through the Looking Glass with him because I think they did vast manipulation to create this image. Who knows what he really looked like. I'm telling you, it's a freaky image. Look at the distance between the sideburn and the ear. Then look at yourself in the mirror. Your sideburn is snug with your ear. The anatomy of this guy is freaky! He could not have existed like that.

We have received another review, this time from Alan Ng of FilmThreat.com, and I would have to say that it is mixed. He said "the well-meaning intentions of the film are clear," and I appreciate that very much. Then he suggested that it has the makings of a pretty good action film, but it comes off more like a political soap opera. But actually, there is quite a bit of action, and the action we have isn't bad: There are fights, kidnappings, car crash; you even see a truck do a reverse 180. For a low budget film, there is quite a bit of action. And the message decrying war and the terrible carnage from war, is strong, and you could even say it's heavy-handed. But time-wise, it does not comprise very much of the movie. Mostly, it is an exciting thriller based on the approaching and inevitable collision between two very capable men.
And some of his criticism I don't think was fair. For instance, at the marine filling station, Senator Cruthers, played brilliantly by Mike Gassaway, jokes around with the attendants, whom he thinks are Hispanic, but they are really Arab. And, he calls them Poncho and Pablo, and Alan Ng referred to that as "racist slang." But, the truth is, the way Mike Gassaway played it showed no meanness at all, not the slightest bit. He addressed one of them as, "my brother.".So, how racist could it be?
Alan fairly and reasonably criticized the lighting in the last third of the film, but actually, it's a matter of coloring, not lighting. Some scenes were shot DAY-FOR-NIGHT, in broad daylight, and then had to be made to look like night, and it's very difficult. We really should have shot all of them night for night, and it wasn't my decision to do otherwise.
Nonetheless, I have a very talented editor now, Jeff Stolhand, who is tackling that problem to get it as good as it can be.
Let's look at Alan's closing statement: "Fundamentally, My Stretch of Texas Ground is trying to do some good and force us to empathize with (victims of) a war happening on the other side of the planet and with a group of people we see from TV satellites. But if you’re going to go out of your way to alienate your intended audience, then you’re preaching to the choir." Of course, I wasn't trying to alienate; I was trying to affect- on a very humane level. President Trump said something last night that is one of the best things he ever said, which is that the 150 people who would have been killed in the planned attack that his generals wanted, "have families." And, it's really the same message delivered by Abdul Latif Hassan. So, there is really no reason for anyone to feel alienated by it, and that includes you, Alan. I'm hoping that after you sleep on it, you'll see it that way.

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Here's another problem. The Ruby-did-it story has these two being Ruby just seconds apart. But, they don't look remotely alike. The guy on the left has got this short fat neck; the guy on the right is slender with skin like a catcher's mitt. Again: they don't look remotely alike. Claiming that they are the same guy 8 seconds apart is insane. And what happened to the curls in back on the guy on the right?

Ralph Cinque Jimmy Hardy:Wide neck.

Ralph Cinque: Very good point, Jimmy. And Jack Ruby did not have such a wide neck. And look how little hair Ruby actually had. He sure as hell didn't wear it long in back like a mop.

  • William Kelly Ralph Cinque photos lie. None of the photo or film evidence is proof of anything everyone can agree on.
  • Ralph Cinque Photos lie? Well, they lie when they have been manipulated to lie, yes. But, in this case, the shooter clearly has long hair, and Ruby did not have long hair, and in the 1963, it was very unusual to see hair that long on any man. But, it is definitely NOT the hair of Jack Ruby, and therefore it is definitely NOT Jack Ruby. Now, that is an unassailable fact, whether you like it or not.