US military claims Guantanamo suicides are 'acts of war'

I could not believe my eyes while reading this statement. They imprison hundreds without access to court, legal counsel or family visits. They torture, dehumanize and degrade them. And when some of those prisoners commit suicide, they call it an 'act of war'. The world turned upside down.

These are the first suicides at the base, despite dozens of attempts The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says. The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us". (BBC)

Full article
 
That is completely, totally, and hideously psychopathic. I am dumfounded, yet I should know better than to be surprised.
 
A prime example of blaming the victim: "It's them, they're waging war"
 
If you haven't already, check out something I found on the net and posted to the forum here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1868

It's a bit long, but worth reading carefully.

What surprised me was that it was apparently written back in 2003. Obviously, there are SOME people who are also on to what Lobaczewski discovered.

Lobaczewski said:
The actions of this phenomenon affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every village, small town, factory, or collective farm. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country, creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

A normal person deprived of privilege or high positions goes about performing some work which would earn him a living; but pathocrats never possessed any solid practical talent, and the time frame of their rule has eliminated any residual possibilities of adapting to the demands of normal work. If the law of normal man were to be reinstalled, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of psychological and political cunning and a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people.

In general, this new class is in the position to purge its leaders should their behavior jeopardize the existence of such a system. This could occur particularly if the leadership wished to go too far in compromising with the society of normal people, since their qualifications make them essential for production. The latter is more a direct threat to the lower echelons of the pathocratic elite than to the leaders.

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".

We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions? What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation? The overwhelming majority of the country's population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the corresponding genes. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power. This is a nightmare vision [to the pathocrats].

The biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of this majority is thus a "biological" necessity.

Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule. Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy.

Any war waged by a pathocratic nation has two fronts, the internal and the external. The internal front is more important for the leaders and the governing elite, and the internal threat is the deciding factor where unleashing war is concerned. In pondering whether to start a war against the pathocratic country, one must therefore give primary consideration to the fact that one can be used as an executioner of the common people whose increasing power represents incipient jeopardy for the pathocracy. After all, pathocrats give short shrift to blood and suffering of people they consider to be not quite conspecific. Kings may have suffered due to the death of their knights, but pathocrats never do: "We have a lot of people here." Should the situation be or become ripe in such a country, however, anyone furnishing assistance to the nation will be blessed by it; anyone withholding it will be cursed.

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that "other" world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into and within the strivings of the non-pathological majority, thereby creating a certain sense of direction. The non-pathological majority of the country's population will never stop dreaming of the reinstallment of the normal man's system in any possible form. This majority will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be educated and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. The latter factor effectively limits the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people.

The ideology must of course furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality.
 
Hi. I was mightily shocked by the declarations of the Commanding Psychopath at Guantanamo. You may already know that not so long ago he wrote an article for a newspaper in Chicago with equally shocking distortions of reality:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=274214

"We treat them well and they try to kill us
Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guant
 
apeguia said:
Oh, and how convenient to kill a Palestinian family when Abbas was trying to force a referendum to recognize Israel. Someone doesn't want peace. Meanwhile, the world watches football...
Indeed apeguia. And, surprise surprise, some folks don't appreciate the beach footage being televised.

...the US consulate has called the Al Jazeera Satellite channel and urged them to stop broadcasting the images of Huda Ghalia weeping and crying next to the body of her dead father.
 
We should try to send far and wide the SOTT article about this, plus the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060613/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelgaza_060613225521

Israel formally denied involvement in a blast last week on a Gaza Strip beach that killed eight Palestinians, but the claim was refuted by a US human rights group and the United Nations. (...)

But a military analyst from the New York-based Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday that the explosion was "most likely" the result of Israeli shelling.

"It is my contention that the most likely scenario is that Israeli shelling hit the area," Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon advisor, told journalists in Gaza City.

And UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as "odd" the suggestion by the Israeli investigation.

"To find a mine on the beach is rather odd," he told reporters at the UN headquarters.

(...)

Garlasco based his conclusions on an investigation of the site, interviews with and examinations of those wounded and shrapnel from the explosion.

"It has been suggested by some that the family was killed by a land mine, and this is patently not the case," he said. "The injures of the people in the hospital were all to the torso and head, so a land mine couldn't have done this."

Garlasco did not rule out the possibility that an unexploded Israeli shell had been left on the beach or turned into makeshift bomb by militants. He noted that 40 unexploded shells have been turned over to the Palestinian bomb squad in northern Gaza. Still, he called the notion "way out there."

"It is possible that a militant group can take one or two shells and make them into bombs. While it's possible that it was a bomb set up there, I think it's way out there," he said.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas government, said earlier on Tuesday that Israel was trying to engineer a whitewash.

"Israel is shying away from its responsibilities over this atrocious crime, without offering the slightest proof," he said.

"These Israeli allegations are false and lack any credibility. While the resistance wants to ambush the occupation, it does not place bombs on beaches or in the middle of crowds."
 
Back
Top Bottom