Labels: Larry Carlson

Labels: casual dystopia, collapse, The NSA has a meta file of your life, You don't need eyes where we're going, zombie nation

(Actually, I'll be writing more about this. You should consider this a first chapter, pretty boy Chrissy...)

 So anywho, my half brother Christopher Shropshire, who recently enlisted in the War Crimes or Us American Army  like a fuckin' moron, posted this on his Facebook page.

So, you know, I think I wrote something but by my own standards of cruelty it was quite harmless. I can't check because I've been defriended by my own  by own half brother (big loss but more on this Facebook later...) and so I think I wrote:

"Well I think that enlisting was a mistake but nobody thinks you're a pussy for it. On the other hand, it's kinda cool having a half brother who can do consulting work for 'Burn Notice'."

And that's it. His wife responded and it was kind of sarcastic because it wasn't the Support the Troops Fox news bullshit that she's used to hearing. And that's all right. I think I said that I liked the post even when I didn't mainly as a friendly gesture because if Chris Shropshire wants to go off and murder Afghan civilians, accidentally I'm sure,  hey that's up to him. We all have different and ironic ideas of what constitutes "fun". I'm sure they'll all die justifiably. Yes I'm being sarcastic all those dead civilians notwithstanding.

So then I get this private message from Christopher Shropshire, possible future war criminal or Ranger School dropout or deserving casualty of the war -- because we never know what the wondrous future may bring -- which says this:

 " i saw you comment that my joing the army was a mistake. 1. nobody fucking asked you 2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been. we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

First, your grammar is just atrocious. But seriously almost every word that Chris writes is, almost, completely fucking wrong. Not to mention badly written...that's the worst offense.

Well, as they say in the movies, "allow me to retort".

1. nobody fucking asked you

Actually, you can screen your posts in Facebook so that certain people only see certain things. Unfortunately, because you're kind of dim witted about Facebook protocols the post was made available  to all your so-called "friends". So, as a matter of fact, you were asking me fuckwit. I hope you're getting the details better on munitions training. Gosh, it would just break my heart if something bad happened to you.  It's good to see that the army is still recruiting the Best and the Brightest Gomer Pyle.

2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been.

Technically, this will require some tricky phrasing, but the truth of it is that I'm a "was been" and "still am". I am a prolific and widely published professional writer because, hey, I'm smarter and more talented than you Chris.  I've written about things that you and your deeply stupid twat wife (the war (many wars in fact if you consider the range of our drone strikes)  is about defending me Jen Shropshire...are you that naive?) can barely pronounce. I don't brag  about it because I'm not so insecure about my manhood and what I've accomplished as a writer  that  I have to defriend people on Facebook who say slightly sarcastic things to me. Semper Fi or whatever....

Oh, and for the record, I'm not that impressed by one time state congressional losers and insurance salesmen. You know the funny thing about that races is that they knew you well and they still voted against you. Perhaps they saw what I see in you: a vacuous privileged pretty boy materialistic lightweight who wouldn't understand the problems of ordinary people if they bit him in his scrawny little beige ass.

Just so you know...Hey, if working for newspapers and trying to help black folks while I was doing it makes me a loser then hey I'll take being a failure in your ever so discriminating eyes.

 we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

Well, technically again, you never wasted time on me before. We haven't had a single conversation since Dad, the conscientious objector in the Vietnam War  who I'm sure would be brimming with pride over your enlistment, died. That was 11 years ago. I think we've had two discussions in over two years on Facebook. I usually don't comment on your silly vain materialistic posts about Kewl Cars because most of the world doesn't have enough to eat. Good to see you've got your priorities in order soldier boy. I mean, I sort of get that in that I wouldn't like the kids that my dad had from a previous life, either. So I never took it personally.

Oh, and just for the record,  here's a quick list why I have no respect for your enlistment.

1.) The main fighting is pretty much over. You'll be an occupying force essentially killing people who have the audacity to live on stuff that we want. It's like joining up to fight Hitler in 1946. (Update: I don't want to underestimate our capacity for new and unnecessary wars. You might get the distinct thrill of shooting a Nigerian freedom fighter. Then there's always Iran or the hills of Pakistan, which you're not supposed to be in...ahhh, the thrills of the military...)

2.) The wars we wage are mainly against people of color, of which I am one. I remember that apparently. I think those wars are extremely dishonorable and are not the vocations of decent or truly courageous men. Look up the terms "expropriation" and "good german". That's you in the mirror there winner. You're like a black guy who fights for the confederacy.

3.) I would be hesitant to fight and die for a country that clearly doesn't give a fuck about me or other black people.  And hey if you actually lived in a black neighborhood like I do then you would know this. The direction of this country for black Americans is privatized prisons. The fact that a black president is presiding over it doesn't necessarily make it better, although I will vote for him because he's better than Romney...who isn't? I mean, if the Nazis are back or you want me to stick a knife into a confederate soldier then, hey, sign me up. Poor colored folks abroad, backward ass theocrats though they may be, not so gung ho about that. And not for this country at this time...

4.) The wars are so blatantly about resource theft that, quite frankly, they are within their rights to kill you because you're the evil invader. They have every reason not to trust the United States. I mean, there is an informative website or a thousand if you can turn off the Hannity for awhile...


I hope that clears things up for you. You know, if something bad happened to you before this I probably could have faked a tear or two for someone I didn't know very well. Now my response would be this:






You reap what you sow. Oh and don't worry I won't come to the funeral and vice versa I would sincerely hope. It's probably not fashionable to spit on the corpse.

Labels: Christopher Shropshire, Fuck the troops and fuck their evil wars

July 17th, 2012 | by Chris Woods Following recent revelations by the New York Times that all military-aged males in Waziristan are considered fair game by the CIA in its drone strikes, many US journalists have been reassessing how they report on deaths in the attacks. So when CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen produced a graph claiming that no civilians have been killed in Pakistan this year by US drones, his views were bound to attract criticism. Conor Friedersdorf, a columnist at The Atlantic, accused CNN and Bergen of running ‘bogus data‘, for example. Bergen is also a director of the New America Foundation, which for more than three years has run a database on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan and produces estimates of numbers killed. That data is the most frequent source of statistics for the US media, including CNN itself. So the accuracy of its material is important. Yet there are credible reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan this year. And unlike the New America Foundation the Bureau actively tracks those claims. Up to July 16 for example, between three and 27 civilians have been reported killed in Pakistan this year, out of 148 – 220 deaths. Some were actively defined as civilians by news organisations including Reuters and AFP. But these are not necessarily the only civilian deaths. Ambivalent reports might sometimes refer only to ‘people’ or ‘local tribesmen’ killed. More research is needed. And of the remaining alleged militants killed, we have so far been able to name just 13 individuals.

Bergen’s claim of zero reported civilian casualties this year is therefore factually inaccurate. To be so categoric is also problematic. The Bureau’s own data shows that of at least 2,500 people killed by the CIA in Pakistan since 2004, we publicly only know the identities of around 500. Most of the others were reported to be alleged militants by local and international media. We can say no more than that. It is not just in NAF’s 2012 data that credible reports of civilian deaths have been missed or ignored. NAF’s Pakistan data also contains many other inaccuracies. A number of confirmed strikes are omitted, for instance, and its overall estimates of those killed are significantly below even the CIA’s own count. The consequence is a skewed picture of drone activity which continues to inform many opinion-makers. Subjective choices On July 13 Peter Bergen responded to his recent critics in a CNN article which stated that reported civilian casualties in Pakistan are in decline – as the Bureau itself recently noted. He also repeated his claim of no civilian casualties in Pakistan this year. And he attacked the Bureau for its own recording work in this area: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s high estimate of 24 civilian deaths in 2012 came in part from reports provided by an unreliable Pakistani news outlet as well as the claims of a local Taliban commander, which contradicted all other reports. It’s worth unpicking Bergen’s claims in some detail. His comments appear to refer to a CIA drone strike on February 9 in which local Taliban commander Badar Mansoor died. Citing just four sources, NAF’s data reports only that three to five ‘militants’, including Mansoor, died in the attack. But this is a misrepresentation which ignores credible claims of civilian casualties, as the Bureau’s own Pakistan database makes clear...

Good news for people who love freedom, hate terrorism, and people who do not live in Yemen and will never visit Yemen and do not appear to be from Yemen or its surrounding areas: the U.S. government is relaxing its rules for drone strikes in Yemen. When it comes to incinerating more or less inscrutable targets with unseen missile attacks like Zeus himself, why be encumbered by a bunch of bureaucratic rules? The new policy reportedly "includes targeting fighters whose names aren't known but who are deemed to be high-value terrorism targets or threats to the U.S." No more pesky hours of intelligence-gathering before you can vaporize that jeep from above. But do these rules go far enough in eliminating those who Hate Our Freedoms and Familes and Children, and Our Children and Families' Freedoms™? We think not. A few common sense edits for the future of warfare: * If someone is carrying a machine gun, RPG, or shoulder-fired missile that looks like an imminent threat to any Coalition soldiers, whether from the Western world or from the Muslim world, they may be killed. * If someone in an area known for militant activity appears to be transporting cargo with brown and grey markings consistent with databases of the graphic skin that covers the outside of missiles or rockets and moves with an intent to set up and fire those armaments at Coalition forces, they may be blown up. * If someone is determined through confirmed intelligence of a reliable nature to be forming a terrorist group with the intent and capability of causing mass casualties in America or in any territory of an American ally in the Middle East, and they cannot be apprehended without significant risk of loss of civilian life, they may be kabazongaed to bababooey with a fucking Hellfire, bro. A little common sense goes a long way.

People have been making a fuss about the domestic use of drones recently. Now the drone industry has come up with a 'code of conduct' to ensure the public's safety and privacy. [Evil robot laugh drifts through the air.] Huh? What was that? The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents thousands of drone manufacturers all over the world released the document yesterday. It includes a pledge that the industry will ‘‘respect the privacy of individuals," along with guidelines like "We will be responsive to the needs of the public," and "we will not operate [drones] in a manner that presents undue risk to persons or property on the surface or the air."* "We understand as an industry that we've got a public relations problem," one association member told the Associated Press. That's nice and all, but it's not going to go far toward convincing a skeptical public, which largely believes we are hurtling toward a dystopian future where drones are omnipresent in American skies, beaming live surveillance film of citizens' every move to a shadowy Director, who stitches the best bits into a reality show to entertain Chinese real estate tycoons. A much more savvy public relations move by the drone industry would be to show the vulnerable, human side of drones. Have drones star in a series of viral YouTube videos where they're caught in hilarious awkward situations—you know, mysteriously crashing, being hijacked by hackers. *Offer not valid in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen...

Labels: R.I.P.

"Our impulses are being redirected. We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep. (...) The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society, and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain. Please understand. They are safe as long as they are not discovered. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated." Vigilant Citizen

Labels: propaganda, psychology, psyops, public citizen, punishment, religion, zombie nation

Labels: psyops

WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States