King Obama has given his orders, now let him carry them out.
He has the support of no one. Not the American people, not the international community, not the politicians and not even his own armed forces. This article from Infowars points out several important ideas. If you don’t read it for the ideas, at least check out all of the photographs of military people holding notes which all say variants of the same idea: “We signed up to defend our country, not to help our enemies and not to get involved in another country’s internal disputes.”
The first idea is that there are good people out there. People willing to pay any price for their morality, conscience and principles. While you may be such a person, perhaps the fear that people like you are too few to have any significant impact has kept you from taking action. This article evidences that you are very much not alone. You and people like you can have an impact. Secondly, this article shows that many such people are in the US military. Moral people in the military has twofold very positive implications. First, prevalence of principled people in the US military means that tyranny in general may be much harder to actually carry out, and much easier to reverse or prevent than a person would have thought if he or she assumed that all or most military people around the world are of the fall-in-line, brainwashed or immoral types. Second, rather than in general, it reveals that such a situation is also true specifically in the US. That is important because the US is the world’s dominant power. Even morality is not common in the world’s military, if it is common in the US military that will be enough to greatly minimize tyranny.
The third and final point is relevant to DIYL and subversive anarchy. While subversive anarchy is usually reckless, dangerous, illegal and immoral, I have mentioned some cases where it is not. Obama’s war on Syria is one of the rare exceptions where subversion is not only moral, it is in fact legal. The reason it is legal is due to the fact that Obama has begun a war without authorization, and in fact in the face of strong speech against the idea, from congress. This is not legal by US law. Therefore subversion against the execution of these orders is not only legal, but constitutionally advocated. In addition it is morally advocated because Syria has done nothing against us and to help topple Syria we would be supporting the immorality of Al Qaeda. Intra-military subversion is arguably one of the most potent kinds of DIYL that exist. Of course it’s still reckless and dangerous, but that makes the actions of these people inside the military all the more admirable.
Related articles
- Military Revolts Against Obama’s Planned Attack on Syria (2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com)
- U.S. soldiers in open rebellion against Obama’s war in Syria (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Ron Paul: Syria Intervention Would be “Reckless and Immoral” (lastresistance.com)
- President Obama should listen to US and UK public: don’t strike Syria (theguardian.com)
- Stunning Photos Of U.S. Service Members Publicly Saying No To War With Syria (amresolution.com)
- Twitter Flooded With Active Duty Military & Veterans Opposing Attack on Syria (sgtreport.com)
- Military Revolts Against Obama’s attack on Syria (extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com)
- Calls to Congress 244 to 1 against Syria war (wnd.com)
Aye.
This is looking like Iraq 2.0.
Nobody wants that except the Saudis, who stand to benefit because of some complicated natural gas and oil pipeline business that needs the permission of whoever controls Syria.
Say it loud!
The Saudis want it, true, but so does Booz Allen Hamilton, The Carlyle Group and the rest of the military-industrial complex.
As well as various other elitist groups.
Reblogged this on fightingthesystemblog and commented:
I really believe Bush Jr. put us where we are today and it is to my understanding that Bush is a oil man and look what happen to gas prices when he took are country to war. Now being President and being a oil man and being involved in this group, where does co-mingling of funds come in at or does it.