American Imperialists and Their Allies Enjoy Killing Civilians


It's very clear that American imperialists, along with their international allies, enjoy murdering civilians.

In the month of March 2017 alone, the US intentionally murdered 1,782 to 3,471 civilians in Iraq and Syria.

In 2015, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and other groups estimated the death toll from US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to be 1.3 million as a conservative estimate.

This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.1

As of January 2017, Saudi Arabia's horrible military campaign against Yemen has left 10,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and 10 million in need of urgent assistance. This campaign began back in March of 2015.2

Since taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.3

The US has not flinched in its support for Saudi Arabian aggression in Yemen despite full awareness that Saudi Arabia is intentionally targeting civilians.

The United Arab Emirates is another Middle Eastern autocracy with a history of severe human rights violations allied with the US. In March 2017, the UAE jailed an academic for tweets criticizing Egypt. The UAE is part of the phoney war against ISIS led by the United States whose main objective is to target civilians. The UAE is also part of the Saudi-led campaign against Yemeni civilians.

The UAE is a key ally of Egypt and has joined the country in bombing Islamic State militant group (ISIS) fighters in Libya. UAE is part of both the U.S.-led coalition fighting the extremist group and the Saudi-led coalition carrying out an air campaign against Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen.4

The Israel-Palestine situation deviates between apartheid and genocide in terms of severity.5

To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel...

-Noam Chomsky, 'Noam Chomsky: Israel's Actions in Palestine are "Much Worse Than Apartheid" in South Africa', Democracy Now6

Western imperialists are so supportive of Zionism because they enjoy murdering, torturing, and confining innocent civilians. The Washington Post reported that 7 in 10 Palestinians killed in the 2014 Gaza Massacre were civilians (and since Israel is the prime aggressor at all times, all Palestinians—civilian or non-civilian—are considered victims).

In its most recent count, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 1,462 civilians, among them 495 children and 253 women. Those U.N. numbers would mean that 69 percent of the total killed were civilians.7

In 2016 alone, 5000 Libyan civilians drowned in the Mediterranean Sea trying to reach Europe.8

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.9

The US is not even a democracy. American military intervention destabilized the region and resulted in extreme civilian casualties—the real objective of US intervention. The article from which the above quote was taken describes the US interference in Libya as a "well-meaning intervention" that resulted in failure. That's a complete lie. The US has shown it has nothing but sinister intent. Anybody saying the US has good intent also has sinister intent. Oligarchists will always assert that there was good intent or that intent cannot be determined. This is to prevent people from seeing the obvious sinister intent of oligarchs.10

The American campaign in Indochina was primarily directed against the rural population of South Vietnam to prevent South Vietnamese independence from the oppressive conditions of inverse-civilization.

In its essence, the Indochina war was a war waged by the US and such local forces as it could organize against the rural population of South Vietnam.11

The US is so hostile toward taking refugees from countries they have destabilized or obliterated because the main objective of US foreign policy is to murder innocent civilians. When European colonizers of the Americas gave blankets infested with smallpox to the Native Americans and nearly exterminated the American bison, it's very clear that the objective was to carry out the genocide of Native Americans. This genocidal impulse is still the main driver of American foreign policy.



There is a lot I'd like to do with the information you provide. A lot to discuss.
I think you weaken your point with some elements of your language and with your discussion of intent. The stark, provable facts are distressing and revolting enough on their own. By adding something on top of that, making your accusation stronger, instead of making your point stronger, you make it weaker. I think there is a technical name for this kind of verbiage, a fallacy of discourse. I'll try to find something on wikipedia. Discourse will be a important, recurring topic, here, starting very soon.

I'd like to thank you for bringing the facts to this site. On those topics, you are my source of information, and I appreciate it a lot. Also, I want to congratulate you, again, on your excellent research and sourcing. I don't know how much time you spend on it, but certainly not little. I'd hate for your efforts to go to waste. Because, let's face it, as of today, probably only you and myself read what you write in your blog. :-/ But if we properly handle the information that you painstakingly collected, and use all the resources that this site has to offer, then our efforts can be put to good use. It will help us build a community of like-minded people. One day we'll reach a critical mass that will allow us to take meaningful action and put an end to this madness.

I have to go now. My student has arrived. I'll comment again here, and see with you how we can best handle the distressing information your provide.



The evidence very clearly shows that there is sinister intention. I would classify anybody who intentionally targets civilians as sinister. The intention to target civilians is sinister intent.

How a Well-Meaning Intervention Ended in Failure


In the above article, the author says the intentions of the Obama administration were good despite evidence to the contrary. Why are people allowed to declare imperialists well-intentioned contrary to evidence but not allowed to declare imperialists ill-intentioned when the evidence warrants such a label?

From my experience on multiple sites (Facebook, Twitter WordPress, etc.), any time hard facts and evidence are presented, people start to flee for more convenient delusions. I'm not interested in convenient delusion.

The critical consciousness that must reach a critical mass to end such madness would comprise the ability to use evidence to determine whether another's intentions are good or evil. It would be no different than using evidence to determine that Hitler had sinister intentions.

Best of luck!

A good way to share.

I run two Facebook accounts: one private and one public. I have about 350 friends on my private and 550 on my public account. I'm also part of a spiritual group that delves into politics that has about 450 members. Most people mute or ignore me, but once in a while somebody who came from one of those war-torn regions will write me and say that they are happy that I chose to share the facts. I have about 250 followers on Twitter, and over the years I've gotten into thousands of heated Twitter debates. When Zionists and other imperialists debate, they attack you if you don't present evidence, and then when you do present solid evidence, they turn tail and run. Your website gives me a platform to create more complete pieces of writing that I can then use to help get my point across. Facebook and Twitter aren't really the best platforms for creating fuller pieces of writing.

Building something positive

I'll do what I can to help. There are so many things I'd like to support you with, for the sake of the victims and to promote long term alternatives. Give me some time, though. Right now I am very busy between 1) physiotherapy, with exercises that I must do every hour and visits to the hospital several days a week. 2) the presidential election obviously preoccupies me a lot, too, and takes a lot of my time. Altogether, I am neglecting my regular job and getting behind.

The wiki is the best place to gather an authoritative body of evidence. I'll get something started next week. Speaking of wiki, I did notice your several contributions to the wiki, fixing grammar and spelling mistakes. It's much appreciated. Teamwork is the key to eventually achieving meaningful change.

Thanks a lot.

(Don't Stress)

"1) physiotherapy, with exercises that I must do every hour and visits to the hospital several days a week."

Are you okay?

Yes, I am.


Palestinian children held in solitary confinement

Tags:-Afghanistan -Iraq -Libya -Saudi Arabia -Syria -United Arab Emirates -Vietnam -Yemen

Israeli authorities held increasing numbers of Palestinian children in solitary confinement for longer periods in 2016, for interrogation purposes.1

Israel has proven that it wants to keep all Palestinians in prison-like conditions. The solitary confinement of Palestinian children is an extension of this sociopathic compulsion. The need to interrogate Palestinian children is just another pretense.

While globally, children in conflict with the law are often held in solitary confinement either as a disciplinary measure or to separate them from adult populations, the use of isolation by Israeli authorities does not appear to be related to any disciplinary, protective, or medical rationale or justification. [1]

Additionally, putting children in solitary confinement for interrogation purposes is cruel and unethical treatment anyway.

International juvenile justice standards, which Israel has obliged itself to implement by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1991, demand that children should only be deprived of their liberty as a measure of last resort, must not be unlawfully or arbitrarily detained, and must not be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. DCIP considers all persons below the age of 18 to be children in accordance with the CRC.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has explicitly found that solitary confinement, when “used intentionally during pretrial detention as a technique for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession” amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

The practice of using solitary confinement against children in Israeli military detention, whether in pretrial detention for interrogation purposes or as a form of punishment, must be stopped immediately and Israeli authorities must amend military law to ban the use of solitary confinement. [1]


In early September 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in a democratic election. What were his politics?

He was basically a social democrat, very much of the European type. He was calling for minor redistribution of wealth, to help the poor. (Chile was a very inegalitarian society.) 1

...the US spent more money per capita to get the candidate it favored elected in Chile in 1964 than was spent by both candidates (Johnson and Goldwater) in the 1964 election in the US! [1]

Our ambassador to Chile brought up the question of torture to Kissinger. Kissinger rebuked him sharply-saying something like, Don’t give me any of those political science lectures. We don’t care about torture-we care about important things. [1]

Actually, the Kremlin was just as much opposed to Eurocommunism as Kissinger was... [1]

There is indeed apathy about the election, but that’s a reflection of the breakdown of Chile’s social structure. Chile was a very vibrant, lively, democratic society for many, many years-into the early 1970s. Then, through a reign of fascist terror, it was essentially depoliticized. The breakdown of social relations is pretty striking. People work alone, and just try to fend for themselves. The retreat into individualism and personal gain is the basis for the political apathy.” [1]


Tags:+Civilian casualties +Physicians for Social Responsibility

I tried to find some reliable sources for the number of civilian casualties in various conflicts.

I don't know if you heard of the lone terrorist attack in Paris last Thursday. The terrorist shot dead one police officer, wounded a few others as well as a tourist before being shot by the French police. The next day, a student who had heard about this in the news came to me and asked: why is it that France is always the victim of terrorism? I replied by explaining the biased nature of media reporting, and pulled out your blog entry (above) and showed her some of the civilian casualties estimates in current armed conflicts and the sources of information you provide.

The Physicians for Social Responsibility, the author of the report your quote, has a nice quote on its web site:

Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
- Martin Luther King, Jr


Tags:-Israel -Palestine provides civilian casualty numbers in Iraq, Syria, and Libya resulting from international strikes and tries to keep them as up to date as possible.


Both Newsweek and The Washington Post have cited Airwars. (Newsweek and The Washington Post both have an imperialist bias in their reporting, but Airwars mainly deals with just the numbers.)

U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria may have already killed 1,484 civilians in just Iraq and Syria this month alone, more than three times the number killed in President Barack Obama’s final full month in office, according to British monitoring group Airwars. For the first time, the number of alleged civilian casualties in events carried out by the U.S.-led coalition has exceeded the death toll of attacks launched by Russia.2

“Almost 1,000 civilian non-combatant deaths have already been alleged from coalition actions across Iraq and Syria in March—a record claim,” Airwars said in a statement. “These reported casualty levels are comparable with some of the worst periods of Russian activity in Syria.” [1]

Airwars uses varying methods to investigate and confirm civilian casualties, relying on a medley of local news outlets, NGOs, civilian volunteers and social media to determine if casualty reports are fair, weak, contested or disproved. For March, nearly half the alleged strikes are contested, according to Airwars data.

According to Airwars, more than 2,500 civilians have been killed by the U.S.-led coalition, which has admitted to killing only roughly 220 civilians.3

U.S.-led coalition casualties for March 2017 have increased since those articles were published as more reports have come in. As of April 13, 2017, the estimated number of civilian casualties for March 2017 resulting from coalition airstrikes ranges from 1,782 to 3,471.4