See other Resistance Articles
Title: Braveheart... "I won't die for these bastards."
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 4, 2009
Author: Mel
Post Date: 2009-06-04 02:54:34 by wakeup
Keywords: None
Views: 655
Comments: 14
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Will Grigg's latest article mentioned the first part of this clip. Please read it: .
The eyewitness account provided by Abu Ghraib inmate Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, describing one of numerous episodes of sexual abuse by U.S. interrogators, including rape, homosexual rape, sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon and a phosphorescent tube, and other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation of detainees. We need to dispense immediately with the idea that releasing the second batch of photos depicting torture and other abuse at Abu Ghraib and six other installations would create an unacceptable danger to U.S. troops in the region. Though it seem callous of me to point out as much, we should recognize that people who enlist in the military are paid, trained, and equipped to confront danger. We should also recognize that we do the cause of liberty no favors if we make it easier to invade and occupy foreign countries; indeed, we ought to do everything we can to accentuate the difficulty of carrying out criminal enterprises of that sort. While we should focus most of our hostile attention on the policymakers responsible for sending the military on imperial errands of that sort, we shouldn't ignore the moral responsibility of every individual who enlists in the military and carries out the killing business such immoral policies entail. Given the pervasive stench of imperial corruption exuded by all of our public institutions, I cannot understand how anybody possessing the moral equivalent of the sense of smell could enlist in the military, or remain therein – as if that particular organization enjoys some peculiar immunity from the decadence that afflicts the rest of the Regime. Conservatives and others who revere the founders of our late Republic might recall that the men who won our independence and wrote the Constitution opposed a standing army, not only because it could be employed as an instrument of domestic tyranny, but also because it would offer irresistible opportunities for foreign adventurism. In this, as in so much else, the Founders' wisdom has withstood the passage of time. Yes, it's entirely likely that releasing the photographs of torture and sexual assault – including homosexual rape and, God forgive us, the defilement of children – would lead to dangerous and potentially lethal complications for armed government employees who are killing people and destroying property in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, countries they invaded and continue to occupy by force. If our rulers were genuinely concerned about danger to "our troops," they would release the Abu Ghraib documents and bring the troops home. There – problem solved! Instead, they are illegally suppressing the photos and keeping the troops in the field – and now letting it be known that the U.S. military will remain mired in Mesopotamia (which is the more tractable of the two ongoing conflicts) for another decade or longer. I suspect that the "danger" that preoccupies the ruling Establishment is not that confronted by the troops (about whom that Establishment cares little), but rather the danger potentially posed by those troops if enough of them escape the mental dungeon of official indoctrination and take a good, critical look at the people, institutions, and causes for which they're hired to kill and die. Exposure to the abuse photos, and the battlefield consequences that would ensue, would tend to focus the mind in that direction. An observation by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib abuses, seems to underscore my point. "I am not sure what purpose [releasing the 2,000 additional photos of prisoner abuse] would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy – " Hold it right there: Taguba said "protectors of our foreign policy," not "defenders of our independence" or "guardians of our liberties." The foreign policy referred to entails open-ended entanglements in the affairs of nearly every nation on earth, as well as plundering huge sums from taxpayers to sustain a grotesquely huge military establishment and bribe political elites abroad. That foreign policy cultivates misery and harvests war and terrorism. Why in God's Name would any decent human being defend that foreign policy in the abstract, much less spill blood to implement it? Although I wish harm or death on no human being, it seems to me a good idea to adjust the current set of incentives in such a way that at least some American military personnel, as they deal with another gust of blowback, will have an overdue confrontation with their conscience and decide unilaterally to end their service of the world's largest criminal enterprise, the government of the United State (spelling intentional). Am I trying to incite desertion? Reducing the matter to terms simple enough for Sean Hannity to understand them – yes, I am, in those circumstances where desertion is necessary in order to avoid carrying out immoral, unsustainable policies in the service of a depraved Regime. Desertion is a moral imperative when continued service implicates a soldier in crimes against God and mankind. Indeed, there are times when desertion is a moral duty. Yes, American enlistees swear an oath in God's Name. Then again, so do Mafiosi. Nobody outside of that criminal fraternity considers it improper for a Mafia foot soldier to renounce his oath. No oath of service can sanctify participation in a criminal enterprise. What should distinguish a republican military from an armed gang is a sacred commitment to the rule of law – meaning the defense of individual liberty and property, and the enforcement of measures that limit the power of government. At least some military and law enforcement personnel (or do I repeat myself) have come to understand that the oath they swore requires that they be willing to disobey certain orders. In exceptional circumstances, fidelity to constitutional principles would require wholesale repudiation of military service, rather than selective refusal to comply with illegal orders. We applauded the courage of those who "defected" from the Red Army during its occupation of Afghanistan. (Interestingly, I don't recall the correct term, "deserted," being used to describe such cases.) Apart from nationalistic special pleading, I can't think of a way of framing an argument to justify the Soviet deserter while execrating an American stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan who follows the same course of action for the same reason: The triumph of conscience over programming. For those whose conscience can withstand such an assault, another motive might prove effective. Those who have seen the film Braveheart remember its depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge: Huge, serried rows of British infantry, archers, and heavy cavalry assemble across the field from a large, poorly armed, and indifferently motivated throng of Scottish foot soldiers, all of them hapless conscripts forced by their feudal lords to fight. Near the front of the Scottish host the lords – whose allegiances are divided by favors dispensed on them by the English King Edward I – are seen frantically discussing a negotiating strategy. The camera then pans to a conversation between two serfs, who in disgusted terms discuss the impending sell- out, which will follow the same blueprint as several before it: The armies will briefly skirmish, then a negotiation will ensue leaving the lords richer and the serfs paying more in taxes. "That's it lads," one of the serfs exclaims. "I'm not fighting for these bastards!" At some point, if liberty is to have a fighting chance, American military personnel are going to have to experience an epiphany and decide that they're no longer going to fight on behalf of the bastards running the Regime. June 1, 2009 William Norman Grigg writes the Pro Libertate blog.
I seriously doubt I would like Mel Gibson in real life but he does clearly understand, with movies like "Braveheart" and "The Patriot," that the real problem throughout history has been the English. They've been far worse than the bush-leaguer Nazis, and they did it for 300 years, not a decade like the Nazis. They were even worse than the Jewsish Bolshevists in Russia. What the English have done to the world is unspeakable, and what they did to Inrelard was even worse than what they did to Scotland. I'd like to see Gibson do a movie about the Civil War. The South, after all, was pretty much founded by the Scots-Irish, and the New England Yankees were pretty were in many ways descended from the English. It's as if the whole English/Celtic wars over there were remapped onto the United States in the form of the War between the States.
I want to know the truth about slavery. What really happened, good, bad or indifferent. Too much of what we know is based on confirmed (mind control?) frauds like Haleys' "Roots". .
It's a forum post, not a doctoral thesis. Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Desertion is a moral imperative when continued service implicates a soldier in crimes against God and mankind. Indeed, there are times when desertion is a moral duty. Yes, American enlistees swear an oath in God's Name. Then again, so do Mafiosi. Nobody outside of that criminal fraternity considers it improper for a Mafia foot soldier to renounce his oath. That is a great article. Thanks for posting it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The Scots-Irish tribe to which you belong has a fatal flaw--they can easily be propagandized into fighting ... for any reason or for no reason. The beginning of the clip has a Scot beginning to think things over about what the impending fight is really all about. Then William Wallace comes riding in to propagandize him as if he's from the Fox News Channel. At the "end of the day," as the saying goes, Wallace was dead, that guy probably was, too, and the fight had been exactly about what the thinking Scot was saying it was, with no benefit at all to the ordinary peasants who mindlessly went to their deaths, just as there was no benefit at all to any of the Scots-Irish volunteers in the U.S. military who have just been killed or grievously wounded after Englishman GW Bush propagandized them into fighting for "Iraqi Freedom."
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Your damn right we can.. now you and me, water pistols at 20 paces.. !
I refer to them as my "goddamn stupid Scots-Irish cannon-fodder ancestors."
And I have no dog in this fight, but I'll lay that you can say that about any number of people on this planet: Tutsis, Aztecs, Germans, English, Comanche, Kurds, . . . Weld the state cult or religion to a rising level of technology relative to that of one's neighbors and a division of labor that makes a military industrial complex possible, and rulers have all they need to wage war. They only need play on the emotions of their subjects and on their animal greed and desire for gain. In any case, it is remarkable how quickly the Scots-Irish tribe melted away in the path of the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian invasions, leaving virually no linguistic markers or cultural monuments behind except for the the roads and few public builings that the Romans had built. The causes of this rout are not well understood and are very controversial. Perhaps these folk had been too softened up by peace and plenty and civilization to withstand what was really a War of Terror to take the Isles.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. America imported human farm equipment and they lived longer here than they would have back in Africa. America was the only nation, AFAIK, where the abolition of slavery was accompanied by violence. Lincoln intended to ship them back to Africa, about the ONLY good thought that he ever cogitated in his life. Freed slaves were just as much a pain to whites during Reconstruction as their descendants are to whites today. I conclude that slavery was a grave mistake due to it's unseen future consequences for America.
_________________________________________________________________________ Agreed. There are exceptions to that, but that's just it: they're exceptions. Too bad we couldnt keep the exceptions and throw the rest back. .
It's a forum post, not a doctoral thesis. Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
I screwed up and left out the quote the first sentence of the article refers to: "The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name withheld] who was wearing a military uniform, putting his [male appendage] into the little kid's [anus] ... and the female soldier was taking pictures." Makes you proud to be an American... bastards.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w96.1.html
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: wakeup, farmfriend, randge, PSUSA, christine, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, Bub, IndieTX, Prefrontal Vortex, RickyJ, X-15, mininggold, MUDDOG, IDon'tThinkSo, Cynicom, Original_Intent, DeaconBenjamin (#0)
#4. To: wakeup (#0)
Dancing Turtles and Bouncing Boobs
...that's Turtle Island.
#5. To: Turtle (#4)
I'd like to see Gibson do a movie about the Civil War. The South, after all, was pretty much founded by the Scots-Irish,
It's a fine line between being too specific and long winded and therefore too irritating to bother to read, and being too cryptic and therefore too irritating to try to interpret.
#6. To: wakeup (#2)
Reducing the matter to terms simple enough for Sean Hannity to understand them – yes, I am, in those circumstances where desertion is necessary in order to avoid carrying out immoral, unsustainable policies in the service of a depraved Regime.
Lord Acton
#7. To: Turtle (#4)
#8. To: Sam Houston (#7)
The Scots-Irish tribe to which you belong has a fatal flaw--they can easily be propagandized into fighting ...
#9. To: Sam Houston, Refinersfire (#7)
The Scots-Irish tribe to which you belong has a fatal flaw--they can easily be propagandized into fighting ... for any reason or for no reason.
Dancing Turtles and Bouncing Boobs...that's Turtle Island.
#10. To: Sam Houston (#7)
The Scots-Irish tribe to which you belong has a fatal flaw--they can easily be propagandized into fighting ... for any reason or for no reason.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#11. To: PSUSA (#5)
I want to know the truth about slavery. What really happened, good, bad or indifferent.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#12. To: X-15 (#11)
Lincoln intended to ship them back to Africa, about the ONLY good thought that he ever cogitated in his life. Freed slaves were just as much a pain to whites during Reconstruction as their descendants are to whites today. I conclude that slavery was a grave mistake due to it's unseen future consequences for America.
It's a fine line between being too specific and long winded and therefore too irritating to bother to read, and being too cryptic and therefore too irritating to try to interpret.
#13. To: redpanther (#0)
ping to excellent thread
#14. To: All (#2)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
