tuxedomarx:

inothernews:

An Afghan girl pops an Ollie as youths gather for the (Sound Central Festival) in Kabul.  (Photo: Massoud Hossaini / AFP-Getty via The Guardian)

radical

siphotos:

Pat Tillman, who died exactly nine years ago on Monday, appears on the cover of the May 3, 2004 issue of SI. Tillman famously left the NFL to serve overseas, where he was tragically killed. (Gene Lower/SI)

SI VAULT: Even as a boy, Pat Tillman knew he was destined for great things (9.11.06)

A Pro-Bowl safety who was in the NFL for less than four years, turned down a contract from the Arizona Cardinals for $3.6 million over 3 years to serve in the US Army after September 11, seven months after the start of the current Afghan War. He completed basic training with his brother, Kevin Tillman, who had also given up a career in sports, though a comparatively less successful one, as a second baseman drafted by the Cleveland Indians in the 31st round. They were both deployed in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite both of them considering the invasion illegal which was revealed after his death. After graduating Ranger School in November 2003, Pat Tillman was redeployed to Afghanistan.

Though his death was reported by the Army and the media as the result of an ambush in a village near the Pakistani border, subsequent investigations after his burial revealed that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, shot three times in the head by American bullets. Though commanding officers knew immediately the true cause of Tillman’s death, they fabricated the heroic martyr depicted in military reports and awards which was then relayed to sports reporters desperate to deify the NFL All-Star and 1997 Pac-10 Defensive Player of the year, an award that is now named after Tillman. This contrasted with the unglamorous reality of the nonreligious soldier with deep reservations regarding his government’s foreign policy, gunned down by his own brothers in arms.

The exact cause of his death remains ambiguous to this day. The United States Department of Defense maintains that Tillman was shot by an M249, some 40 yards away from the back of a moving vehicle, despite other autopsy reports suggesting that Tillman was shot by an M16 from as few as 10 yards away. Evidence related to Tillman’s death, most notably his journals were confiscated and destroyed, causing his mother, Mary Tillman, to postulate that Pat’s death was in fact a homicide.

Mary and Kevin Tillman remain vocal critics of the United States Armed Forces, recently condemning President Obama’s decision to appoint General Stanley A. McChrystal as commander of all forces in Afghanistan from June 2009 to June 2010. McChrystal resigned from this post after a Rolling Stones article published quotes mocking civilian government officials, most notably Vice President Biden. In 2011, McChrystal was appointed to the head of an advisory board to support military families, despite writing the initial 2004 report awarding Tillman the Silver Star for bravery “in the line of devastating enemy fire”.

readyokaygo:

Photos like this are being spread across the internet lately, and they are dangerous for a few reasons. If you’re too lazy to read below; basically ignorant Americans are blaming other people, governments, and religions for problems their own nation caused.

First, here is a history lesson on Afghanistan. From 1933 until 1973, Afghanistan was ruled under a man named Mohammed Zahir Shah. While he was a devout Muslim, he had a Western education in France. His reign marked four decades of peace and stability. With the introduction of a constitution Afghanistan progressively developed into a modern democratic state with free elections and a parliament, as well as a massive push for women’s rights, universal suffrage, education, worker’s rights, and civil rights. So yes, Afghanistan was doing well in the 60’s as this photo suggests. However, the photo doesn’t give you context for what went wrong.

During this period in time the Soviet Union had a strong influence in Afghanistan. They supported modernization and education in the Afghan state. The United States, not wanting to risk their hegemony in the region, clearly had a major problem with this. They were terrified of the spread of Communism and quickly developed a plan. Afghanistan would become the Cold War’s chessboard. In the late 80’s, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and the Americans brought in radical Islamists from around the world. They armed, trained, and directed them into a militant force, and they were called the mujahideen. They became the US’ main offense against the Soviets. It wasn’t to defend the Afghans against the Soviets who were ready to pull out, but to deliver as much harm against them imaginable. Carter wanted Afghanistan to be the Soviet’s “Vietnam”. And it was. When they finally retreated Afghanistan spun into chaos and a civil war ensued under the militant mujahideen warriors. Within this framework we saw the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and of course Osama bin Laden. All under the auspices of the United States security forces and American tax-payer monies. Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was directly responsible for their rise. Oh, and then in what was most likely the greatest immoral injustice of the 21st century the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 only further driving the besieged nation further into turmoil.

What does this mean? The mujahideen, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda do not represent thousands of years of Afghan culture and Islam. They are a direct reaction to Western imperialism. The root cause for the disparity between the two pictures is foreign intervention. Not Islam, and certainly not Arabs.

Second, here is a history on Iran. Before 1953, Iran was ruled under a democratically elected man called Mohammad Mosaddegh. Under his reign Iran saw a progressive movement of social and political reforms. During this time Britain tried to establish an oil company (British Petroleum) on Iranian soil, and promised to share profit and technology with the Iranian government. However the British, as usual, didn’t honor their agreement. They, and the United States, began to steal Iran’s oil. Prime Minister Mosaddegh would not stand for this and demanded the seizure of the oil fields and the ouster of the British. In response, the British and the United States overthrew him in a coup and installed the Shah who was a brutal tyrant and ruled the nation under an absolute monarchy. The women in this picture did live well, but that was because they were members of a very small minority and in the Shah’s social circle. Everyone else in Iran lived under harsh conditions. The economy was failing, education was abysmal, and the entire nation was rural and very religious.

Today, Iran’s health care is better. They have more political freedom. Education is improving, and the country is slowly globalizing. The economy is slightly better off, however that is quickly changing with the Western world’s sanctions against Iran in midst of their nuclear propaganda campaign at the behest of Israel. 

What does this mean? Essentially, the Islamic Revolution had little to do with the rise of an Islamic state; rather the resistance of Western imperialism. Almost every social and political group was united in resisting the Shah, from the communists to the secularists to the Islamists. They demanded Iranian sovereignty and political freedoms. Is the current regime in Iran perfect? Absolutely not, and I’m passionately against it. But this picture is extremely distortive of the truth.

Unfortunately, we have gone full circle. Today, the United States is supporting terrorist cells in Iran in an attempt to oust the current Iranian regime. They want to establish another pro-Western government like the Shah and “try again” where they failed. They have been doing this for decades and it hasn’t been working well. That is why we are now seeing media hysteria against Iran, and their false quest to achieve nuclear power and bomb Israel. Iran is a peaceful nation, and always has been. They have never attacked another nation, and have absolutely no intention of attacking Israel or anyone else for that matter. The United States’ war against Iran is rooted solely to seek revenge for their failed foreign policy in the 70’s and to once again take control of their natural resources.

In conclusion, if you think you can understand decades of history in the Middle East, or anywhere for that matter, by looking at a photograph you are a fucking idiot who has no right to engage in intellectual discussion or give your opinion on anything other than what you watched on TLC last night.

(via bapeonion)

91-7:

121-1:

Osama bin Laden used to be an American hero story.

Interesting

(via brianlionzion)

timekiller-s:

accio-enlightenment:

davejade:

“I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country.  I served as a Lance Corporal in the Marines for over three years.  In that time I was raped twice and sexually assaulted another two times. 

The first time it happened I was serving abroad in Afghanistan.  After that first incident I was assaulted three other times over the course of three years.  It came to happen so often that I assumed it was normal and that it must happen to everyone.  I never received any training on how to deal with sexual assault in the military- I didnt even know how to report it.  

When I finally decided to report the sexual assaults I was led through a maze of questions and excuses and I was even discouraged from reporting the crimes.  In the end, instead of getting justice I was ostracized and humiliated.  

I learned that there is currently no national military sex offender registry and that offenders are not required to disclose their crimes on their discharge papers.  A sex offender registration for convicted for military personal would help to address the impunity that surrounds rape within rape the military.  Most veterans are honorable men and women who have served our country, but there are some who have committed serious crimes like rape and sexual assault during their service and the military has a responsibility to disclose that information for the sake of the public good. 

When asked why sex offenders do not have to disclose on their discharge papers, some of the responses I was given were 1) It will take too long to create a national database or 2) the military is going green and it takes too much paper to add an extra check box to discharge papers. 

This is part of a larger issue of rape within the military.  Some estimates reveal that more than 1/3 of women in the armed services are raped during their service.  If you serve in the US military and you rape or sexually assault a fellow service member you have an 86.5% chance of keeping the crime a secret and a 92% chance of avoiding court martial.  

Join me in asking the Department of Defense to create a national database for sex offenders.”

So I received this in an e-mail today and my mouth was basically gaping open, would any of my followers mind signing the petition? 

REBLOG.

Signal boost.

(via badsnacks)

w0rld-painted-blood:

Guantánamo files: at least 150 innocent people imprisoned

New WikiLeaks documents reveal children, elderly and mentally ill to have been locked up in the world’s most controversial prison.

WikiLeaks today began releasing 758 files on almost every single prisoner ever to have been detained at the world’s most controversial prison. The ‘Gitmo files‘ reveal a shocking picture of wrongful imprisonment, incompetence and abuse. One detainee, for example, an Al Jazeera journalist, was held for 6 years partly because the US hoped to gain information on the Arabic news network.

Over the years, the US has held children, senile old men, and physically mentally ill people at the prison, while at least 150 inmates appear to have been innocent. The youngest prisoner at Guantánamo was an innocent 14-year old kidnap victim, the oldest an 89-year old innocent Afghan villager who suffered from senile dementia. According to the Guardian:

In 2002 Guantánamo prisoners were described as “the worst of a very bad lot” by Dick Cheney, US vice-president. “They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.”

But the internal files on some prisoners paint a very different picture. A 2002 assessment of Guantánamo’s oldest prisoner, Mohammed Sadiq, who was then 89, revealed dementia, depression and sickness. “His current medical issues include major depressive disorder, senile dementia and osteoarthritis, for which he receives prescribed treatment.” The Afghan national was also being assessed for prostate cancer.

(via vousrein)

pushinghoopswithsticks:

Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl walked off his base in Afghanistan three years ago and was promptly captured by the Taliban.

Now America’s last prisoner of war, Bergdahl is at the center of sensitive prisoner exchange talks as the conflict winds down. He also is the focus of a story published today in Rolling Stone that asks:Will the Pentagon leave a man behind?

Here is an excerpt from the letter he wrote his parents a couple days before he went missing:

The future is too good to waste on lies… And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. …

In the US army you are cut down for being honest… but if you are a conceited brown nosing sh*t bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank… The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. …

I am sorry for everything here… These [Afghan] people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live…. We don’t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks… We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them. …

I am sorry for everything… The horror that is america is disgusting.

[TDW] [buzzfeed]

(Source: thedailywhat, via brianlionzion)

TV presenter Rachel Maddow’s latest book speaks out against war, but not the system which makes wars inevitable. - Charles Davis.

Such an important critical analysis of how many liberal democrats and “peace” activists speak against the idea of war but rarely engage in actively criticizing the Empire that enables the possibility, funding and activation of war.

For one, Maddow, a self-described “national security liberal” who is “all about counterterrorism”, writes more like a politician seeking to flatter her US audience than a teller of tough, uncomfortable truths. While at times briefly alluding to its war-filled past, Maddow repeatedly paints a picture of the US as, at heart, a peaceful nation, one with a government structured by its noble founding founders with a “deliberate peaceable bias”. It is only recently, she maintains - post-World War II, but especially since Ronald Reagan - that war and a gargantuan military-industrial complex have been deemed “normal”.

And:

Though many might perceive it as an anti-war work, Maddow’s overriding concern seems to be not so much the wars themselves - certainly not the non-American victims of them, who are never once mentioned - but the modern, unilateral way in which we go about fighting them. Reagan, for example, invaded Grenada without first seeking approval from Congress and armed and funded right-wing insurgents in Nicaragua despite a congressional prohibition, facts she holds responsible for the creation of all that “‘imperial presidency’ malarkey”.

Plus:

Maddow doesn’t tell her readers any of that. Nor does she advocate a radical break from the system of hierarchical power that allows a few people in Washington - one if you’re a unilateralist, 535 if you’re not - to have the literal power to destroy the world. Rather: “The good news is we don’t need a radical new vision of post-Cold War American power,” she says. “We just need a ‘small c’ conservative return to our constitutional roots, a course correction.”

Just read the damn thing. It takes guts to face the Empire, the big guns that engage in war. Rarely will you find a media personality, political entity or activist questioning the validity of the Empire, of the Super Power. Those who do, have very little control and representation in the spheres where political narratives are established.

(via mehreenkasana)

Mehreen makes a very good and important point - those who routinely challenge conventional wisdom aren’t given the platforms that those who don’t are. It sounds cynical but it’s a reality. Rachel Maddow is a talk show host on a once heavily pro-war network that still touts neoconservative talking points. The U.S. media is all about access, that is, never angering politicians or government officials in hopes that they’ll appear on and return to your show or allow you to interview them in the future so you get your high ratings, pricey ad spots, and you sell more copies of your printed media. The heads of MSNBC have said that they are “the [Washington] establishment.” This is true of every mainstream cable network and media outlet. The military industrial complex is, arguably, the most powerful and largest actor in U.S. politics so, of course, presenting a challenge to U.S. foreign policy is going to be seen by Washington as unfavorable.

It’s not exactly fair to single Maddow out but using her as an example does a nice job of making the point that even the mainstream media giants who seem to be representative of leftist/progressive viewpoints really aren’t and there are a number of reasons why this is true, including all of the silly patriotic ideals we’ve absorbed, but much of it has to do with the nature of our media and their reluctance to challenge Washington conventional wisdom.

(via mohandasgandhi)

(via socialuprooting)

Shaker Aamer is a Saudi Arabian citizen and the last British resident held by the United States in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. He was captured in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on 24 November 2001 and was brought to Guantánamo on 14 February 2002, where he has now been held for 10 years, 1 month and 24 days.

According to documents published in the Guantanamo Bay files leak, the US military Joint Task Force Guantanamo believed in November 2007 that Aamer had led a unit of fighters in Afghanistan, including the Battle of Tora Bora, while his family was paid a stipend by Osama bin Laden. The file asserts past associations with Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui. Clive Stafford Smith a human rights lawyer said the leaked documents would not stand up in court. He pointed out that part of the evidence comes from an unreliable witness and that confessions Aamer made had been obtained through torture. Mr Aamer’s father-in-law, Saaed Ahmed Siddique, said: “All of these claims have no basis. If any of this was true he would be in a court now.” The Bush administration acknowledged later that it had no evidence against Aamer.

Aamer has never been charged with any wrongdoing and has never received a trial and his lawyer says he is “totally innocent”. He has been cleared for release by the Bush administration in 2007, and the Obama administration in 2009, but Aamer remains in Guantánamo. He has been described as a charismatic leader who spoke up and fought for the rights of fellow prisoners and some have speculated that this might be a reason for his continued detention. Aamer alleges that he has been subject to torture while in detention.

Mr. Aamer’s mental and physical health has been declining over the years, as he has participated in hunger strikes to protest detention condition and spent much of his time held in solitary confinement. He has lost 40 per cent of his body weight in captivity. After a visit in November 2011 Clive Stafford Smith said: “I do not think it is stretching matters to say that he is gradually dying in Guantanamo Bay.”

The UK government has been demanding his release for years and a growing number of people from all walks of life have started campaigning for him. (via)

(Source: dishabillic, via socialuprooting)

socialuprooting:

The New York Times this morning is prominently featuring a long article documenting the Terroristic aggression of Iran, as evidenced by that country’s attempts to exert influence and foment unrest in Afghanistan: because, as all decent people know, only tyrannical fanatics would attempt to interfere in Afghanistan (similarly, a couple months ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton both sternly warned the rest of the world, particularly Iran, not to “interfere” or “meddle” in Iraq; they did so as Clinton simultaneously announced that the U.S. “will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region”). The International Community knows that interfering in those countries is the exclusive prerogative of the U.S. and its allies, and Iran’s attempt to assert influence — in countries that directly border it — is clear evidence of its status as a rogue, Terror nation.

Here are the first three paragraphs of this morning’s big NYT report:

Just hours after it was revealed that American soldiers had burned Korans seized at an Afghan detention center in late February, Iran secretly ordered its agents operating inside Afghanistan  to exploit the anticipated public outrage by trying to instigate violent protests in the capital, Kabul, and across the western part of the country, according to American officials.

For the most part, the efforts by Iranian agents and local surrogates failed to provoke widespread or lasting unrest, the officials said. Yet with NATO governments preparing for the possibility of retaliation by Iran in the event of an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, the issue of Iran’s willingness and ability to foment violence in Afghanistan and elsewhere has taken on added urgency.

With Iran’s motives and operational intentions a subject of intense interest, American officials have closely studied the episodes. A mixed picture of Iranian capabilities has emerged, according to interviews with more than a dozen government officials, most of whom discussed the risks on the condition of anonymity because their comments were based on intelligence reports.

The article is basically written by “American officials,” all of whom are granted anonymity with no real justification, given that they’re all reciting the official government line about Iran in unison. The first three paragraphs of the story consist of literally nothing other than the unchallenged pronouncements of these officials. And it all leads to this:

Those activities also reflect a broader campaign that includes what American officials say was a failed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in October, and what appears to have been a coordinated effort by Iran to attack Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia this year… .The plots have also prompted American and other intelligence agencies to renew their focus on state-sponsored terrorism after a decade dominated by Al Qaeda, its regional affiliates and other shadowy terrorist networks. American officials say they never took their eye off state-sponsored threats, but rising tensions with Iran have caused these organizations to re-emerge in the public eye.

All of that is virtually identical to the NPR report in every single respect. That’s because it is written exactly the same way and with exactly the same agenda: we now turn over our media outlet to the pronouncements of anonymous government officials, who will explain — under the guise of a “news report” – why the U.S. is being victimized by an increasingly aggressive and Terroristic Iran. Both in methodology and conclusion, it is pure state-run media propaganda, by definition: shaped exclusively by official government assertions, amplified without skepticism or challenge. It’s not even hidden: Iranians are the Terrorists and its menacing aggression is proven by its attempt to “stir unrest” in Afghanistan. And then there’s this:

Iran appears to have increased its political outreach and arms shipments to rebels and other political figures in Yemen, and it is arming and advising the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

So Iran is supporting rebels fighting a dictatorship in one country (Yemen) and supporting the dictatorship in another (Syria). In those two countries, the U.S. is doing exactly the reverse: propping up the Yemeni dictatorship while arming the Syrian rebels. Why is one better than the other or a greater sign of aggression and threats? One would think this way only if one is a U.S. government national security official, or — obviously — if one is a New York Times reporter and editor purporting to publish “news reports.” That the mentality of those two groups is indistinguishable — even though one is supposed to be “adversarial” to the other — is the point. I actually think the methods that led to the Iraq War journalism debacle have intensified and worsened since then, not improved. The uncritical relationship and overlapping functions of government officials and establishment media organs are more severe than ever.