Jihadists #Documentary

 

More

These are the people your CIA, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama supported in at least two countries. Half of governing an empire is creating problems so that you can later solve them, or at least pretend to.

 

 

Watch this also:

Clinton / Fethullah Gulen Ties

 

 

WikiLeaks, Hillary-Gulen Intimate Ties & How Clintons Gave Birth to Mullah Gulen’s Terrorist Network

 

JUMP TO 13 MINUTES

Sibel explains how the FBI protects terrorists. An order is given to move criminal investigation files over to “Counter-Intelligence” Division. There no criminal case is ever made, and all information is simply stored to become part of the CIA/FBI shadow world. This is how terrorist, billionaire, and Sharia Law sugar daddy Fethullah Gulen is protected and allowed to live inside the USA in Pennsylvania!

This is so outrageous, so Treasonous, such an affront to Western Civilization and the rule of law that it is shocking.

PPS

Graham Fuller is named repeatedly as a key figure in Gladio B. Graham Fuller is linked by marriage to the Tsarnaev Brothers, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing.

Gulen is a CIA asset:

 

What is Fethulla Gülen?

Clinton / Sharia Law Connection

 

Look for Trump to make plenty of this…

Bill Clinton Got Millions From World’s Biggest Sharia Law Education Firm

Former President Bill Clinton collected $5.6 million in fees from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that teaches Sharia Law through its network of more than 100 schools in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

Blum vs. Political Correctness

By William Blum

 

Warning!  What follows is very politically incorrect.
Is Nice the last straw for you?  The last victims before you call it by its proper name: radical Islamic terrorism?  French Prime Minister Hollande was quick to point out that it was a “terrorist attack”, but not a radical Islamic attack.  Oh?  When the perpetrator is a Muslim named Mohamed, as in this case, and the victims are celebrating an iconic Western holiday, why the reluctance to use the latter term?  President Obama’s preference is “violent extremists”.
The left is the worst when it comes to political correctness.  Here is the very progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), criticizing the New York Times for labeling the mass-murder truck attack in Nice “terrorist” … “despite admitting that it had no knowledge of the presumed killer’s motives.”

In a recent article I criticized President Obama for saying that ISIS “has nothing to do with Islam”.  This, I stated, is standard political correctness which ignores the indisputable role played by Islam in inspiring Orlando and Long Beach and Paris and Ankara and other massacres; it is the religion that teaches the beauty and godliness of jihad and the heavenly rewards for suicide bombings.
I have received several letters of rebuke for these thoughts which mainly argued two points:

    You can’t condemn an entire religion or other ideology for the actions or the statements of a few “psychologically deranged individuals”.

 

The West has behaved just as terroristic, but no Western religion has been condemned at all in the same manner.

The Islamic teachings I refer to are not necessarily explicitly mentioned in the Koran or any other sacred texts, nor have any connection to actual historical events of the 7th through the 21st centuries, but rather are an imbedded part of the atmosphere surrounding a young person growing up in a Muslim culture or environment.  This atmosphere, this education, this culture must be severely curtailed.  The West must oversee the classes in Islamic schools in France, the UK, the US, et al; and particularly Pakistan if feasible.  Even if it means sending in spies to the classes, outfitted with recording devices.  The teachers of these classes, if they have had any connection at all to anything smacking of radical Islam, should not be hired; if already hired, should be fired.
The same should apply to imams and other officials of mosques.
We are sometimes told that the perpetrator of some horrible terrorist act was not even religious or never attended a mosque.  This appears to be irrelevant if the person has been raised in the kind of atmosphere referred to above.
If defenders of Islam really believe that the terrorists are just a tiny group of “psychologically deranged individuals” they shouldn’t object to this purging of them.  They should be as happy to be rid of them — and the ignominy and shame they bring upon Islam — as the West would be to rid the world of their influence.
As to the West having behaved just as horribly, just as terroristic, without any Western religion having been condemned in the same manner … I do not need to be taught about terrible Western behavior.  I’ve literally written the book on the subject; five books to be exact. And I have called for the imprisonment of numerous American mass murderers, torturers and war criminals, from Harry Truman and Richard Nixon to George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Every culture of course indoctrinates its young and I would further ban the teaching of the American state religion that inspires young men and women to travel halfway round the world to torture and kill complete strangers who have done them no harm; a religion known as “American exceptionalism”.
US and French foreign policy provide ample reasons for the hatred of their governments, but as awful as these governments have been, they have not sought to destroy modern civilization.  They have not routinely, fiendishly and joyfully engaged in beheading people, playing soccer with their heads, hacking people to death with machetes, sternly banning alcohol, music, gays, sex, covering up women’s faces, destroying ancient monuments, forcibly imposing religious law, and on and on including the worst of all: repeated suicide bombings and suicide attacks such as in Nice.
The vast majority of radical Islamic terrorism’s victims have been civilians who had nothing to do with US or French foreign policy.
And last week at a high-school graduation in Germany an Islamic student refused to shake the hand of a teacher handing out diplomas.  Why?  The teacher was a woman.  (The Independent, London, July 13, 2016)

It should be further kept in mind that, unlike the Islamic State, the Western powers can be, and have on many occasions been, embarrassed; they have some constituencies to cater to; ISIS is not a member of the United Nations, human-rights groups or anything else, and doesn’t run for office.  They behave like creatures from outer space and are convinced that God/Allah is on their side.  American leaders, such as George W. Bush, have stated the same on occasion but they don’t really act on this in any meaningful, lasting manner, and wouldn’t get away with it if they did.
Yes, I of course know all about Hiroshima and Indochina and Iraq.  The fact that no American leader has been punished for any of this does not reduce the need to destroy ISIS.
It may come down to this: A video released by ISIS following recent terrorist attacks in Bangladesh declared: “What you witnessed in Bangladesh was a glimpse.  This will repeat, repeat and repeat until you lose and we win and the sharia is established throughout the world.”(Washington Post, July 8, 2016) In combatting such an obsessed and maniacal force, the West can not afford to be held back by political correctness.

 

In Defense of Western Civilization

 

Joe Giambrone

July 4, 2016

 

 

We face many problems; most stemming from ideologies run amok. Ideology is the enemy of truth, and the truth is larger and counter to all ideological frameworks, paradigms, religions, and dogmas. The truth cares nothing at all for your ideology nor for you; it never did, and it never will.

 

America has never lived up to the myth. Dumbed-down nationalism has always displaced reason, evidence, and fairness, even among the masses. Thus the term “Exceptionalism” is shouted from the think tanks without a hint of irony or shame. We are the exception to the rules we force upon others. Because we’re us. Because our military is both powerful and ruthless.

 

But, then again, America has always stood for some important bedrock principles: freedom of speech, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of the press, the right to due process, the right to be secure in our persons, homes and effects. Our notion of freedom was codified more than two centuries ago and thankfully still stands in the face of so many ongoing challenges.

 

But this freedom is under attack from many fronts. It is attacked domestically, and it is attacked from afar. It is attacked by ignorant herd members, and by highly educated Machiavellian monsters wearing suits. It is attacked by the corruption of the system erected to defend it and by external influences such as oil-money bribes.

 

By now we’ve all been exposed to the concept of a “clash of civilizations.” By now we should have revisited that hypothesis at least twice. Intractable cultural differences divide humanity today, and I will mention an important one, which some are not going to want to hear.

 

In the West we reserve the right to reject your religion. We have no obligation to suffer your religious proclamations, and we reject out of hand the very concept of religious law as equivalent and supplanting secular law. We are a secular haven, and we are not under any obligation to grant religious ideas any special place elevated above the cacophony of hucksters, charlatans and pornographers, of which there are multitudes.

 

This argument becomes quite real when tested. Incident after incident has led to extreme violent backlashes against the exercise of this particular religious freedom. Theo Van Gogh was the first prominent Westerner assassinated for daring to challenge Sharia Law, with a provocative short film called Submission. Do you dare to click and watch it? The film told of a young Muslim woman punished for falling in love. With no freedom of her own, she was a criminal guilty of fornication in a system designed to sell her off like chattel into a prominent family. So much is wrong with this single incident. It certainly cannot be defended by our modern Western standards, not at all.

 

We will not return to 7th-century theocracy, and the First Amendment is non-negotiable. We will draw the line, and the line provides that we in the West can tell anyone and their stack of holy books to take a long walk off a short pier. That is something we will fight to defend, as forcefully or perhaps more so than the Al Qaedas, ISIS, Al Nusrah Brigades, Al Shams et al. of the world. That is indeed a clash of civilizations.

 

Many American leftists/liberals/progressives now engage in apologetics over Islamic terrorism, as if it didn’t actually exist. Their admonishments approach the absurd when mass killers like Omar Mateen proudly proclaim their allegiance to ISIS as they shoot scores of innocent bystanders. The twisted illogic of progressives lately has jumped the shark. 

 

Yes, religion was a factor. Mateen was a longtime fanboy of Islamic terror and should have been monitored by FBI as the next potential mass killer he turned out to be. The evidence was there ahead of time. He’d made repeated threats to that effect and was investigated for them over a ten-month stretch.

 

Denying reality is not a legitimate answer. We have not just freedom, but a civic duty, a responsibility to know what’s actually going on, why, and how best to address it.

 

And that, sadly, leads me to my final point today, July 4th, a day of failure more than success. Today’s American public is derelict in its civic duty. It is not well informed. It cannot think clearly about heated controversies such as terrorism, war and peace. Education has crumbled, vanquished by the tsunami of propaganda. If we were to choose a new name for our nation it would be most accurately described as Propagandistan. Blathering talking heads shout half-truths, quarter-truths, or perhaps less twenty-four hours a day on hundreds of channels. Such an insane media environment is beyond what anyone could have imagined even a few decades ago. The unsourced noise has drowned out the factually defensible. Ideology has trumped common sense.

 

How else to explain Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton?

 

Drink heavily this July 4th, brothers and sisters. It could very well be the last one.

#

Gays: “chop their heads off”

 

A so-called Anerican scholar of “Islamic jurisprudence.”

 

I certainly hope THAT guy is on the Watch List and would be arrested if he tries to return to the United States. But, who knows?

Shaykh Hamza Sodagar is an American scholar raised in Washington, DC. He currently resides in Qum, Iran and has been studying for over fourteen years, specializing in Islamic Law and Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence as well as Islamic Philosophy. Currently, he is attending the dars-e-kharij of the renowned scholar, Grand Ayatullah Shubairi Zanjani. Over the years, Shaykh Sodagar has travelled to many places around the globe to speak on matters concerning the Muslim community. As a result, he is deemed a role model by young Muslims all around the world.

“If you’re not with us you will be beheaded.”

For actual debate on the Syria catastrophe you might want to go to Australia instead.

 

Parry vs. Hanks, re: Afghanistan

Robert Parry takes on Charlie Wilson’s War, and the Hollywood fictional foreign policy that nearly always kowtows to official spin. As always, I have a healthy skepticism of Parry’s own take, but he seems to have come back to hard factual reality lately. Good.

“Yet, as deputy assistant secretary to the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, put it, “the most critical special operations mission we have … is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us.“”

The film made it seem like Wilson was instrumental in getting this Mujahadeen resistance started, when in reality he didn’t even get involved until 1985, six years after radical Islamic terrorists were sponsored under Carter/Brzezinski to destabilize pro-Soviet Afghanistan.

…Hiding the unspeakable realities of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan was almost as high a priority as concealing the U.S.-backed slaughter in Central America. Reagan’s pet “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan as in Nicaragua were tainted by the drug trade as well as by well-documented cases of torture, rape and murder.

…The problem, as Avrakotos explained, was that the Afghan mujahedeen [Reagan’s “freedom fighters”] routinely tortured and then murdered any Soviet soldier who fell into their hands, except for a few who were kept around for anal rape.

…Despite this knowledge about the true nature of the Afghan “freedom fighters,” the Reagan administration — and the “Charlie Wilson’s War” moviemakers — concealed from the American people the inhuman brutality of the jihadists who were receiving billions of dollars in U.S. and Saudi largesse.

Continue

Parry concludes with one hell of a detailed history of the conclusion of the Afghan/Soviet War.  He destroys the myth of “abandonment” used by DC to keep garrisons in nation after nation.  The Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani ISI.  The Pakistani ISI was a creation of the CIA, and this massive money spigot.

FURTHER

Coincidentally, today Globalresearch has an in-depth analysis of women’s rights used as an occupation pretext, and the real history of the US government fomenting Jihad and financing extremist textbooks through USAID to teach children Islamic fundamentalism.

Women of Afghanistan – BEFORE 30 YEARS OF USG ‘HELP’

Afghan Women Today – Under Sharia Law

Thanks Charlie Wilson!

From Afghanistan to Syria: Women’s Rights, War Propaganda and the CIA

“The [Madrassa school textbook] primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with US law and policy.

…The [USAID] agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.”

 

’”These gentlemen (the Taliban) are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” -Senile Ghoul R. Reagan

 

In Defense of Free Speech

President of Egypt, Mohammad Morsi

(Published at Counterpunch)

by Joe Giambrone

Freedom of speech is essentially dying by the day here in the modern world.  Threats are real and slippery slope test cases have been piling up to where we must seriously address this issue if we are to avoid slipping into Orwellian double-speak and mandated speech stripped of unacceptable ideas.  For it is about the ideas, not the words themselves.  The words spoken are merely a fixed form that represents the underlying thoughts to be communicated.  Censoring out speech means censoring out ideas that one finds objectionable for whatever reasons.

And that’s unconstitutional.

Amendment One: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This bad movie trailer, “The Innocence of Muslims,” essentially 14 minutes of terrible acting and visual effects with deliberately offensive situations and dubbed dialogue, is now being used as evidence in order to change the law of the land in the United States.  More than a few commentators have suggested that the United States clamp down on such expressions, as it may offend people.

So what?

Yes.  So what?  As the line goes, “Maybe you need to be offended.”

The answer to speech you disagree with is … (drum roll) … MORE SPEECH.  If people are in disagreement with the historical situation portrayed in that film, they have an opportunity to present their own case, their own historical evidence, their own version of the matter.  By rendering this topic to the realm of sacred cows, it would eliminate all dissenting discussion and ideas.

Who gets to decide then what the actual historical record is?

Who gets to decide how much we can question this dogmatic interpretation?

We don’t rewrite the U.S. Constitution based on the possibility that someone somewhere might be offended by something.  Nor should we.  That truly is akin to religious fundamentalism, to Sharia Law.  These are bedrock principles of our nation that are not negotiable, despite the endless assaults on freedom of expression, which we should be well aware of and actively oppose.

I don’t agree with the messages of that movie trailer, but in America we have a right to put the ideas out into the world without fear of government crackdown (at least we used to; we’re supposed to).  Other less free regimes and societies respond that what is good for their citizens should be enforced here as well.  Examples will follow.

What has been proposed, since time immemorial, is to create sacred cow issues around religion and – of course – Israel, whereby American citizens, previously protected by the First Amendment, would face legal repercussions for uttering unacceptable speech.  And that’s just plain unacceptable.  As an American, raised from birth on this notion of “freedom” which is beamed from every transmitter, you should find wholesale assaults on First Amendment “freedoms” to be problematic at the very least.  Once the framework for establishing sacred cows is put into practice, it is only a matter of time before the list of unacceptable ideas grows into an abomination that warps the very fabric of our culture.  I could argue that it is already happening.

In my days hanging out on the ACLU forums, we debated a lot of free speech issues.  These were the days of the “Communications Decency Act,” (1996) a patently unconstitutional law that was passed by the house and senate and signed by none-other-than William Jefferson Clinton.  The Act was immediately struck down by federal courts for infringing on citizen’s First Amendment rights.  But first it passed the congress.  Then the president’s desk.  It was blatantly unlawful in this country, and yet it passed without reservation.  That was a frightening moment, a watershed moment that could have gone either way.  It was clear then that unconstitutional laws could pass the congress and the president’s desk (ie. PATRIOT ACT).  Our rights were under attack and would continue to be, into the foreseeable future.  Like today.

One of the popular articles currently circulating on this topic is by “peace activist”, “radio commentator” and “columnist” Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich.  She makes a quasi-legal case for quashing free speech in regard to Islam:

“There is a precedent to curbing free speech when deemed harmful.   In a landmark Supreme Court hearing — Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) , the actions of Schenck, an anti-war individual who had printed and distributed leaflets in order to discourage enlisting servicemen, was not afforded protection under the First Amendment. The issue before the court was whether Schenck’s actions (words, expression) were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

Of course this is a mind-numbingly terrible Supreme Court decision.  Such an assault on freedom of expression has scarcely had such glaring cases as this to point at.  How much damage resulted from prohibiting military recruits from hearing the arguments against going off to fight wars?  This is a fascistic ruling, in contravention of the spirit of the First Amendment, and should clearly be struck down, not praised and regurgitated.

Notably president Wilson himself campaigned on the platform of keeping the United States out of the war in Europe.  A deceit, a Big Lie.  This period is a dark stain on America where propaganda was institutionalized, financed by the government; surveillance of citizens was instituted; mail was opened; people were arrested for political crimes.  That a self-professed peace activist would cite this case in a positive light is a bit baffling.

The ruling itself was a so-called violation of the recently passed “Espionage Act” (1917).  Mailing flyers was now considered the trumped-up act of “conspiracy to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service.”  Telling the people who would go kill, die and be maimed the truth about the war could now be considered a “conspiracy.”  This is a clear eradication of ideas that the government decided should not be spread.  This sort of mind-control could lead to good things in the world?  Seriously?

Soraya continues with another monumentally terrible development that should have all of California on the phone to the capitol, screaming into their ears:

“August 2012, California passed a resolution (House Resolution 35) against criticism of Israel. What is perhaps more revealing than the Resolution itself, is the desire and the power to curb “free speech” (read Resolution).”

This corruption has not yet been tested in the courts, and could likely be struck down, like the Communications Decency Act before it.  This bill creates a specially selected group and grants exceptional, extraordinary rules in relation to this group.  The law attempts to regulate speech on the campuses of California, whereby criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism and officially condemned.

“(2) speakers, films, and exhibits sponsored by student, faculty, and community groups that engage in anti-Semitic discourse or use anti-Semitic imagery and language to falsely describe Israel, Zionists, and Jews, including that Israel is a racist, apartheid, or Nazi state…”

Granted, it doesn’t seem to apply if the “racist” or “apartheid” charge isn’t “falsely” applied.  So, perhaps former president Jimmy Carter can still talk about his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at the colleges of California. But then again, that isn’t particularly clear from this vague, broad wording that attempts to prohibit negative descriptions of the policies of a foreign country.  This is an example of the slippery slope continual chipping away at bedrock freedoms, here in the U.S.

What Soraya has revealed is the tendency to use bad precedents to enact more bad laws based on bad reasoning.

“Perhaps for the protestors [in the Middle East], it is hard to understand that the [American] President’s kill list allows the assassination of American individuals ” based merely on patterns of behavior ” yet he is not able to exercise power to curb speech denigrating Islam.  Why has there been no will to put a stop to these insults and the ensuing violence?”

Besides using Obama’s war crimes and felony murders as a legal precedent, Soraya brings up several other issues at once.  A little clarification is in order here.  Killing American citizens without due process is murder and an impeachable crime.  We should be clear on that, and not accept excuses to the contrary.  The constitution is very clear about due process, warrants, various amendments establishing the rights of the accused and the right to a fair trial.  Violating this is criminal.  We should not tolerate these abuses at all.

As for the “insults” and the “ensuing violence” these are obviously two different things.  Someone can insult without violence becoming the response.  Why is violence not the responsibility of the perpetrator of said violence? Why is the alleged culprit here only the one doing the insulting?  Standard legal norms place the blame for violence on those committing it.   Stretching such blame to others may work in an organized crime setting, where underlings are part of a conspiracy, a hierarchical organization that issues orders.  However, this linkage does not extend to such random connections as those who watch videos that someone else posted, the two having no personal connection whatsoever to one-another.  In no way is a movie trailer to be used as a causative factor in the perpetration of violence half a world away.  That has no basis in any law, as far as I am aware.

Further, there is quite a lot of evidence that the violence at the Benghazi, Libya embassy, and the murder of the American diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with the film trailer at all, and was a coordinated military attack in revenge for the killing of Al Qaeda’s “number two” commander in June of this year – a Libyan.  Benghazi has been a seething cauldron of radical Islamist violence since the days when Qaddafi quite rightly told us so. These were casualties in an ongoing war, and quite unrelated to this free speech debate over a “film.”

If it was just Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, I may have not been inspired to respond.  But, we see other more notable figures pressing for a U.S. government crackdown on speech.  Of course the Muslim Brotherhood’s new president of Egypt, Mohammad Morsi, has weighed in on the film.  Morsi personally told Barack Obama to impose, “legal measures which will discourage those seeking to damage relations … between the Egyptian and American people.”  Another report quotes Morsi demanding “assurances from the U.S. government to prevent any infringement on the sacred.”  Arrest warrants have been issued in Egypt for the filmmaker, as well as for the pastor Terry Jones.  Some reports claim that the “blasphemy” charges carry the death penalty there.

One might expect such a response from Egypt, but from the Russian parliament?  Aleksey Pushkov, the Russian chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Affairs has also weighed in on U.S. freedom of speech:

“This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is not covering a lot of other things that are considered banned in the West. Otherwise they would not be so eager in attempts to put Julian Assange in jail … Attacks on Islam and its sacred things – this is not the freedom of speech but the freedom of hatred …”

In fact it is most certainly a freedom of speech case.  Freedom of speech protects unpopular ideas, the views we oppose.  It is not selectively restrictive.  Pushkov’s point about Julian Assange is well taken, and there is no U.S. case against him that should stand.  Rumors of secret grand juries and, of course, the covert manipulation to get him on the false Swedish charges of “rape” are in play.  Assange is another case entirely, in a league of his own.

As for the “freedom of hatred”, we actually retain that right in the United States.  You can hate whomever you want.  Don’t believe me?  Post a Youtube video about anything.  You will be hated on.  The inverse, the outlawing of “hate” carries more problems than it solves.  You have the right to express your hatred, thus exposing your arguments to scrutiny in the light of day.  They can then be countered.  The resulting synthesis is understanding. To eliminate the bad ideas through government repression is to attempt to circumvent the natural debates and discussions that ideas carry.  Bad ideas can be refuted, not by the guillotine, but by presenting their antitheses. We call this civilization, and I’m for it.

Violence has erupted across the Middle East this week, and that’s unfortunate.  Is the motivation for this violence confined to the “Innocence of Muslims” film trailer?  Or are there myriad other factors involved?  Are sections of the Middle East pissed off about a lot more than bad Youtube videos?  I think the evidence is unequivocally going to support that thesis.

Let’s not get muddy in our thinking and accept that people are burning U.S. embassies solely because of this movie. It was not produced by the U.S. government, nor even by an American director.  The creator is Egyptian!

The U.S. though has been a perpetrator of violence, coercion, covert support and numerous machinations for a long, long time.  Engaged in war after war, sometimes covertly supporting these same groups that wish to burn U.S. embassies today, the foreign policies of the U.S.A. should take center stage here.  They are conflicted, scattershot, always intrusive and often destructive of entire societies (sanctions, bombing campaigns, including NATO’s extensive bombardment of Libya).  Imperial meddling tends to make a lot of enemies, and this number has steadily increased since the escalations 11 years ago essentially declared war on Islam.  U.S. military personnel routinely referred to Middle Easterners as “Hadjis”, “ragheads”  and even “sand niggers” as they decimated Iraq and Afghanistan.  Even torture, rape and murder were broadcast across the globe, as Americans at home turned the channel to something more lighthearted.

People saw and felt how Islamic populations were treated as compared to other populations, even here in the U.S. itself, where people of south Asian descent were summarily rounded up after 9/11.  In a move reminiscent of the rounding up of Japanese Americans in World War Two, the federal government pointedly imposed a racist us versus them dichotomy that persists to this day.

It’s far easier to discuss bad movies and how we should punish the bad filmmakers than to attempt to reconcile massive war crimes that span numerous countries and several administrations, both Republicrat and Demogogue.  But isn’t that how it always plays out?  You can’t talk about the bipartisan rampage.  You can’t call out where both the Dems and the Repugs agree in their imperial ambitions.  It’s better to focus on other issues, side issues like bad filmmakers and too much free speech.

Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits The Political Film Blog, which welcomes submissions. polfilmblog at gmail.