9 Times US and Partners Used Chemical Weapons and WMDs and got away with it

9 times US and partners used chemical weapons and WMDs and got away with it

“International law” only applied to enemies of imperialism

There has been no evidence presented that the Syrian government is responsible for the chemical attack that took the lives of hundreds of civilians. But the U.S. government and Britain claim that their allegations alone give them the moral authority to launch military action, in direct violation of international law. What they leave out is the long history of the U.S. government and its partners using chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction—and getting away with it. Here are nine examples:

#1: World War I, 1914-1918

Modern chemical weapons were first used on a mass scale during World War I, when the imperialist powers of the world sent their soldiers to kill and die in clouds of mustard gas and phosgene to re-divide the world amongst themselves. Germany was the first to use this deadly new weapon, but all sides of the inter-imperialist war joined in. Gas attacks killed 90,000 soldiers and civilians, while being linked to another 1.2 million casualties. Over 10 percent of all chemists in the United States were involved in the production of chemical weapons during the war, and the government ordered 3,000 tons of its own homegrown type of gas.

#2: Britain in Mesopotamia in 1920

Facing a heroic uprising staged by the people of Iraq, British colonial authorities authorized the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations, arguing in their “Manual of Military Law” that “the rules of International Law… do not apply in wars with uncivilized States and tribes”. Winston Churchill, then the civilian head of the British air force, stated that he was “strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes,” which he argued, “would spread a lively terror.”

#3: The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

In one of the most infamous crimes against humanity, the U.S. government dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 even though top military and political leaders knew that the war was effectively over. Approximately 180,000 people were killed immediately by the bombings, and hundreds of thousands died later of radiation poisoning in the first and only use of nuclear weapons in human history.

#4: Agent Orange in Vietnam, 1961-1971

Over the course of the Vietnam War the U.S. military dropped over 20 million gallons of a deadly chemical weapon called Agent Orange. This campaign killed or maimed 400,000 Vietnamese and led to 500,000 babies being born with debilitating birth defects, in addition to devastating the economic life of the Vietnamese countryside by destroying all plant life that the chemical contacted.

#5: Iran-Iraq War

During the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran, the United States supported the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein against the post-Shah Iranian government. Secret documents that have recently been declassified show that the CIA was fully aware of Iraq’s brutal and illegal use of chemical weapons but still continued to provide intelligence and other forms of political and military support. Pictured is Hussein with Donald Rumsfeld, who personally managed the chemical weapons sales.

#6: Depleted uranium in Gulf War

In the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, the U.S. military used depleted uranium—a chemically toxic and radioactive waste product of nuclear energy—in armor-piercing munitions. The use of DU has been linked to higher radioactivity, cancer rates, and congenital malformations among Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) estimated that the U.S. fired 1,000 to 2,000 metric tons of depleted uranium in 2003.

#7: White phosphorus in Fallujah, 2005

During the murderous assault on Fallujah in 2004, the U.S. military used white phosphorous chemical weapons as part of its campaign to level the Iraqi city, ultimately forcing 300,000 people to flee their homes. Although the Pentagon still officially denies that it used this brutal weapon, they are contradicted by countless eyewitnesses. One Marine who fought in the battle remembered, “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah… Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone… I saw the burned bodies of women and children.”

#8: Israeli use of white phosphorous against people of Gaza, 2008-09

In its 2008-2009 massacre of hundreds of civilians in Gaza, Israel extensively used U.S.-made white phosphorous shells to terrorize densely populated areas – a form of collective punishment for daring to defy colonial aggression. Sabah Abu Halima, a Palestinian victim of an Israeli white phosphorous attack, recalled, “The fire was like lava, my family was burnt and their bodies turned to crisps.” Israel also has repeatedly used thousands of cluster bombs, which wreak enormous civilian damage.

#9 Military testing of radioactive chemicals in St. Louis communities, 1953-1954 and 1963-1965

The United States Military conducted top-secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing them to radioactive compounds without their knowledge or consent. Approximately 10,000 residents of the Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, primarily poor and Black, were exposed to the most chemicals. The Army told them they were testing harmless smoke screens, but in fact they were testing the chemical for potential use against the Soviet Union.

Content may be reprinted with credit to LiberationNews.org.

Britain’s Parliament Finally Turns Against the Neo-Cons and Serial Warmongers

Britain’s Parliament Finally Turns Against the Neo-Cons and Serial Warmongers

Britain's opposition Labour leader Ed Miliband is seen addressing the House of Commons in this still image taken from video in London August 29, 2013.(Reuters / UK Parliament via Reuters TV)Britain’s opposition Labour leader Ed Miliband is seen addressing the House of Commons in this still image taken from video in London August 29, 2013.(Reuters / UK Parliament via Reuters TV

 The MP’s vote against military intervention in Syria marked a wonderful day for democracy in Britain, because at long last, the Parliament listened to public opinion and voted accordingly, casting a huge blow to the powerful British neo-con clique.

In the great anti-war film All Quiet on the Western Front there’s a wonderful scene when Paul, on leave from the front, returns to his old school where his warmongering teacher and arch-hypocrite Kantorek is still urging his pupils to enlist, despite not volunteering himself. To Kantorek’s horror Paul launches an anti-war tirade, and turns on his old teacher. ‘He tells you go out and die, but it’s easier to say go out and die than it is to do it and it’s easier to say it than to watch it happen’.

I thought of that powerful scene this morning when I heard the news that the British Parliament had voted against military action against Syria.

In the same way that Paul had turned on his warmongering teacher, so British Parliamentarians – and the British public – have turned against the neo-con and ‘liberal interventionist’ hypocrites who, like Kantorek, are so keen on war, so long as its other people and their children- who do the fighting- and the dying.

These serial warmongers told us that ‘something must be done’ in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, producing no evidence to back up their claims that the Syrian government was responsible. But this time- unlike in the cases of Kosovo, Iraq and Libya- they’ve not been listened to. And the neo-cons and ‘liberal interventionists’, who trumpet so loudly their commitment to spreading‘democracy’ around the globe, are not very happy at this wonderful and long overdue sign of a democratic resurgence in Britain. A newspaper poll showed that just 8% of Britons wanted immediate weapons strikes on Syria, but despite that the ‘Democracy by Bombs’ brigade are condemning yesterday’s vote as a black day for democracy. Oh, the irony!

The vote is a huge blow to the tiny but powerful British neo-conservative clique who must have been confident that they’d get their way once again. But things have changed a lot since 2003, and even since 2011, when the neocons got their ‘intervention’ against Libya.

The Rupert Murdoch media empire, at the forefront for propagandising for the US-led wars of the last two decades, is now isolated in its obsessive screeching for military action and the facts that MPs ignored bellicose pro-‘intervention’ editorials in Murdoch papers shows us how much they are declining in influence.

 

Syrian army tanks are seen deployed in the Jobar neighbourhood of Damascus on August 24, 2013.(AFP Photo / STR)Syrian army tanks are seen deployed in the Jobar neighbourhood of Damascus on August 24, 2013.(AFP Photo / STR)

 

The Murdoch-owned Times must have thought it was being frightfully clever in wheeling out Tony Blair, the High Priest of ‘Liberal Interventionism’ to support an attack on Syria earlier this week but it showed just how laughably out of touch it was with public opinion by promoting the views of a man whom a large percentage of Britons regard- quite rightly- as a war criminal and who should be in a prison cell at The Hague.

Opposition to British involvement in an attack on Syria was widespread across the political spectrum. It wasn’t just the genuine anti-war left who opposed starting World War Three, but traditional conservatives too, with Conservative-supporting newspapers such as The Daily Express taking a strong line against intervention. UKIP opposed it, Respect opposed it, and so did the Greens, the Communists and other groups too.

With the vast majority of people turning against their devilish plans for Permanent War, the small, self-adoring gang of neo-cons and ‘liberal interventionists’, who have exercised so much influence on our politics in Britain since 1997, are now more isolated than ever. Their obsession with military intervention in Syria to topple a secular government fighting the very same Al-Qaeda terrorists and affiliates who are supposed to be our number one enemies, has exposed them for the crazed fanatics that they are.

People are sick and tired of being told by elitist neo-con pundits sitting in comfy offices in London, New York or Washington that ‘something must be done’ as its a record that we’ve all heard many times before. Iraq lies in ruins after the invasion of 2003 and Libya is in chaos too. Yet despite the disastrous record of US-led military interventions in recent years, and the lies told to justify them, we plebs were still expected to obediently fall into line and support the latest instalment of the neo-cons’ Permanent War- an attack on Syria. Its been truly nauseating to see the people who destroyed Iraq and Libya pose as concerned humanitarians in Syria, but now more people than ever before are seeing through the charade.

There’s still a long way to go before we get the foreign policy in Britain that the vast majority of ordinary people in Britain want, but make no mistake, last night’s vote was a hugely important step in the right direction.
The truculent reaction of the serial warmongers to this renewal of British democracy tells us just how significant it was. They’re finding out, like Kantorek in All Quiet on the Western Front, that you can only get away with it for so long.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

http://rt.com/op-edge/uk-parliament-vote-syria-warmongers-209/

Claims of chemical weapons use by Syria regime ‘utter nonsense’ – Putin

Claims of chemical weapons use by Syria regime ‘utter nonsense’ – Putin

According to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, allegations of Assad’s government use of chemical weapons in Syria are largely ungrounded. “While the Syrian army is on the offensive, saying that it is the Syrian government that used chemical weapons is utter nonsense,” Putin told journalists in Vladivostok.

At the same time Putin notes that next week’s G20 Summit in Russia’s St Petersburg could be a good platform to discuss Syria crisis.

“The G20 is a good forum for discussing the Syria problem, so why not take advantage of this?” Putin told journalists in Vladivostok on Saturday. Presidential aide Yury Ushakov said earlier that, while Syria is not on the official agenda of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, the issue could be brought up during bilateral contacts.

Putin also added that UK Parliament’s decision regarding operation in Syria shows that there are people guided by common sense there, although Russian President admitted that the British Parliament’s stance of Syria was an absolute surprise for him.

Addressing Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, Putin urged him to think about victims in Syria in case of US intervention.

“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” Putin said.
“Regarding the position of our American colleagues, who affirm that government troops used chemical weapons, and say that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors and the Security Council,” Putin told journalists. “If they don’t show it, that means there is none.”

Putin also said he has not had contacts with US President Barack Obama lately to discuss the Syria problem.
“The US president and I surely discussed this problem at the G8 [summit], and, by the way, we agreed then that we would jointly facilitate peace negotiations in Geneva, and the Americans committed themselves to bringing the armed opposition to these negotiations. I understand this is a difficult process, and it looks like they haven’t succeeded in this. But the US president and I have not had such negotiations of late, especially after the Syrian government was accused of using chemical weapons,” Putin told journalists on Saturday.

‘Any military action against Syria carried out by US bypassing UN would be act of aggression and violation of international law’ – Russian FM

Moscow calls on Washington to refrain from attempts to use events in Guta on August 21 in order to justify military pressure on Damascus, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said earlier today following a meeting between Russia’s Foreign Ministry Sergei Ryabkov and US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

“Michael McFaul put forward arguments proving the US administration’s claims that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is allegedly responsible for a chemical weapons attack in East Guta on August 21,” the Ministry added.

Ryabkov called on the US “to refrain from attempts to use the incident in order to justify growing military pressure on Damascus giving a chance to act in compliance with agreements reached at the G8 summit in Lough Erne in June this year”.

“It was stressed that the report of the team of UN inspectors working in Syria has to be subjected to close scrutiny of the UN Security Council,” the Ministry noted.

The Russian side is convinced that “any military action against Syria carried out by the US bypassing the UN would be an act of aggression and the violation of international law”.

Voice of Russia, TASS

Piazza della Carina

At the same time Putin notes that next week’s G20 Summit in Russia’s St Petersburg could be a good platform to discuss Syria crisis.

“The G20 is a good forum for discussing the Syria problem, so why not take advantage of this?” Putin told journalists in Vladivostok on Saturday. Presidential aide Yury Ushakov said earlier that, while Syria is not on the official agenda of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, the issue could be brought up during bilateral contacts.

Putin also added that UK Parliament’s decision regarding operation in Syria shows that there are people guided by common sense there, although Russian President admitted that the British Parliament’s stance of Syria was an absolute surprise for him.

Addressing Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, Putin urged him to think about victims in Syria in case of US intervention.

“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on…

View original post 374 more words

U.S. To Experience Total Collapse

Former US Treasury Official – U.S. To Experience Total Collapse

 

shapeimage_22

Today a former US Treasury Official shocked King World News when he warned that the U.S. would experience a total collapse.  He also warned that the entire Western financial system will be brought to its knees because, unlike 1980 when he and others saved the United States from collapse, the collapse cannot be stopped this time.  This is without question one of the most powerful interviews Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has ever done.

Dr. Roberts:  “The (U.S.) deficit projections, if they are honestly done by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, will show a larger deficit projection then Congress faced the last time they refused to deal with the issue.

So, what will they do when as of mid-October the new Treasury Secretary has said that ‘The Treasury will have run out of tricks’ to get around the debt ceiling limit.  For example, what the Treasury has done to evade this limit is to pay itself dividends out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“They have to (do this) because otherwise they can’t pay their bills.  The deficit ceiling stops them.  So they use this to produce revenues.  They also use these kinds of gimmicks to claim that there have been reductions in the cash base current fiscal deficit.  These are all deceptions they (the U.S. Treasury) are using to avoid the letter of the law.  Of course they (still) violate the spirit of the law.

The real danger is the whole world looks at this and says, ‘The Americans are printing up 1,000 billion (one trillion) new dollars every year to bail out the banks and to finance their current operating deficit, and there doesn’t seem to be any end to this.  There is no resolution and the deficit is worsening.’

So, if you then see people (and countries) bailing out of dollar and dollar-denominated assets in the international markets, you will have a real crisis because if the dollar drops, the Fed has lost control.  Interest rates will rise, the banks will fail, the bond market will collapse, the stock market will collapse, and you will see a total wipeout.

So, by refusing to realize the severity of the situation, and by pushing it off in the future, it’s now harder than ever to deal with.  And if you think the Congress has the kind of intelligence and leadership to deal with this problem, you’re mistaken.

I think this problem will resolve itself in a crisis.  You could see (a mass) exit from the dollar.  So I think the country is facing a series of shocks, and no one trusts it (the U.S.) anymore … This is a tremendous blow to everything that is said, from economic policy, to every statement that will come out of the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Treasury.

People now look upon the United States as a country where public officials are incapable of speaking any truth.  This just destroys confidence in the country and every aspect of it.  The United States is going to find itself in a very, very difficult situation.”

Eric King:  “Dr. Roberts, as Ronald Reagan took office as the President of the United States, he called on you and others to basically come in and rescue the United States from collapse.  In the 1970s we saw a stock market that was collapsing in 1973 and 1974 as gold and silver were skyrocketing.  And then from 1976 to 1980 stocks were really struggling and gold and silver essentially went into a mania (that frightened the world).  Is that a scenario that you see going forward — global stock markets collapsing and gold and silver skyrocketing?”

Dr. Roberts:  “Yes.  I think that’s the most likely effect.  I think it probably starts this fall/winter, and next year will be a dismal year in terms of economic history.  In the Reagan administration we were able to solve the problem.  We did (solve the problem).

That’s what the supply-side economic program did — It solved the problem for 20 years.  But the problem we have now is that policy doesn’t address it.  Supply-side economics can’t solve the problems we have now, and there is really no known economic solution.  It really doesn’t have a solution at this point.  It’s gone on too long.”

Eric King:  “Dr. Roberts, the people that were looking for a collapse of the U.S. dollar and the financial system 33 years ago (1980), is that (finally) in front of us now?”

Dr. Roberts:  “I think it’s likely that we are going to see that.  But what they were looking at then (in 1980) had a different cause.  The problem then is not related to the problem now.  There was a solution (in 1980), and it was solved.  So it (the collapse) did not come about.

The situation today is in no way comparable to 1980.  When you’ve got 3 or 4 American banks with derivative exposure that is three of four times larger than all of the wealth in the world combined, these bets can’t be covered.  No amount of money can be printed to bail that out.

It’s the Americans that deregulated and destroyed their own financial system.  It will have repercussions worldwide because, to varying degrees, every part of the world is connected to the American financial system.  The ones most connected will be hurt the worst.

I think the results of the toll will fall on the United States and Europe.  So it will be Western civilization which is simply moved aside, and is no longer the #1 arbiter and decision-maker (in the world).  They (countries in the West) have brought failure to themselves.  They, the United States and Europe, are going to become 2nd world, and 3rd world countries.”

George Galloway HEATED Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria. 8/29/2013

George Galloway HEATED Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria. 8/29/2013

Will Al-Qaeda attack the United States soon?

thedailyblogreport

Wayne Madsend joins Priya Sridhar and says that officials are now warning of new national security threats. Several top US intelligence officials have determ…
Video Rating: 3 / 5
if (typeof(addthis_share) == “undefined”){ addthis_share =…
Read more about:
Will Al-Qaeda attack the United States soon?

View original post

Oh! You Have Racism? I’ll Make It All Better. Just…

Oh! You Have Racism? I’ll Make It All Better. Just….

Oh! You Have Racism? I’ll Make It All Better. Just…

29JUL

inmate slaveThis began as a comment; in reply to a comment but I have decided to post it because it seems relevant and it’s just good to see Steve’s name in lights again isn’t it?

A reader said that Barack Obama was expressing his own experience of racism and Steve said:……………..

 

 

Steve

July 29, 2013 at 12:41

Seriously? You think THIS guy has any idea what it’s like to be a “black guy” in America?When would that experience happened? While roughing it in the boarding school in Hawaii? Maybe while slumming it at Harvard or Columbia. Bet there’s alot of confrontation there. Funny! He’s only half black first off, the other half is WHITE. Fact is he has divided this country MORE along racial lines than any other President in history. Just how alive is racism really in this country if a “black” man gets elected President? It isn’t perfect but it certainly is better. Blacks bring an awful lot of the problems they have upon themselves. When will they as a group start to take responsibility for themselves and fix some of their own problems? How about we start with fixing the basic family union. I think that would be a good start. In order to fix a problem you first need to address what that problem is instead of always blaming in on somebody or something else but then that’s kind of your guys MO. Blame things on somebody else and it starts right up there at the top, HMMMN?

So I felt compelled to reply:

Shit Man; where do I start? Oddly; even while going to Harvard where the level of racism is probably very low; The President was still Black and still had to deal with the rest of the world around him. Also I seriously doubt that a good education should make you forget the rest of your life experience and that of many of the people you know. Harvard isn’t in a bubble. Hawaii isn’t beyond the reach of racism.

Half-black? Now it’s, “He’s only half black.” Really? Only half Black? Because:

Who is Black? One Nation’s Definition by F. James Davis  F. James Davis is a retired professor of sociology at Illinois State University. He is the author of numerous books, including Who is Black? One Nation’s Definition (1991), from which this excerpt was taken.  Reprinted with permission of Penn State University Press

“”The One-Drop Rule Defined To be considered black in the United States not even half of one’s ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation’s answer to the question ‘Who is black?” has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the “one-drop rule,” meaning that a single drop of “black blood” makes a person a black. It is also known as the “one black ancestor rule,” some courts have called it the “traceable amount rule,” and anthropologists call it the “hypo-descent rule,” meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation’s definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks.””

So I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama looks black enough to be treated as a black and not white person by any self-respecting racist (talk about an oxy-moron) he would be ;likely to meet.

Now: Which branch of the Fucking tree did you fall out of? You actually believe that America was a former slave nation; racist and discriminatory for centuries which; although it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century and force-fed desegregation, civil rights, and voters rights (which they have done away with as soon as a bad excuse presented itself) suddenly changed its colors in a revelation of religious inspiration and began to purge racism from its heart? Then the rapidly healing nation (after fifty (50) years); finally elects a black man as President and that causes a horrific racial rift? Bull Fucking Shit Steve. Try this instead. In the 60s racists were forced to retreat into the shadows because of a nation’s outrage at the sheer volume of cruelty and murder being perpetrated against black people. A nation; Already incensed by the disgraceful behavior of our government and it’s military in Viet-Nam; the American people; made clear that such behavior here or abroad was not the way Americans wanted America to behave or to be perceived. After fifty years; representatives of the Racist-Right; saw an opportunity  to undo what it considered damage to their cause by denying the right to vote to millions of poor and black and brown Americans. Because these racists are Supreme Court Justices; it will be another very difficult battle to return that right to all Americans. When we elected a Black president; it didn’t cause a racial rift. It cause fear among the racists waiting for their chance to strike back. They will continue to do anything to prevent real progress. For all the years since 1965, they have done their damnedest to assure as little progress for Black people as they could. They have enacted laws that discriminate indirectly. They have made help complicated and difficult to get and maintain; they have assured that the help given is just enough to keep them on assistance but never enough to get away from it. Like cutting cactus for water. If you cut all day; you can get enough water to allow you to sit and cut all day tomorrow to get enough water to…

In a thousand other ways, Black people have been frustrated in all their attempts to progress. a comparative few of course have made enough progress to create the illusion that all can succeed if they just try harder. The same story they have fed the rest of the American people since the get-go. In fact; Blacks have been segregated; disenfranchised and alienated from society. They have been allowed to attend in principle but discouragedinmate labor' by behavior. They have been legally allowed to be part of the process but practically cold-shouldered out of the action and decision-making process. They are discouraged from acting “White”; made fun of for acting “Black”; pressured to assimilate; forced not to assimilate; and the subject of the biggest scam in history.

Black people did not bring racism on themselves. They did not bring centuries of slavery; torture; and degradation on themselves. They did not ask to be made second class citizens in the home of their former enslavers. Black people didn’t do anything to deserve or justify what was done to them and they have done nothing but react as anyone would; as you or I would; if we were treated as they have been. There has been a lot of friction between the races since emancipation. Caused by the divisive actions of White racists who control the economy and the commerce of our nation.

Should black people take more responsibility for their plight and do something more to improve their lot. Hell yes. So should we all. But aside from the obstacles placed in their way by the society; there is the problem of hundreds of years of demoralization and humiliation and obvious distaste they have been subjected to in order to ensure that they failed to become a part of the only home they have ever known. Slavery comes in all flavors and forms. It goes on today as surely as it did in 1860. If you deny what I am saying here today Steve; I fear you are self-deluding as the Masters wish you to. You know; you don’t have to like Black people; or love them. You don’t have to date them; marry them; invite them into your home for dinner or think they look pretty in pink. You can feel any way you wish to and still be a good American. Truly. We; Americans; don’t ask you to change your personal likes or dislikes or preferences. You can keep them; hide them; advertise them and live by them in your personal existence and still be called a good American. What you can’t do is allow your personal likes; dislikes; and preferences to affect the way you assign rights and privileges in society. You may not use your personal likes to infringe on the rights of all other Americans to do the same that you do. Not and be a good American. A good American believes in freedom for all people; not just whites and not just Americans. Real Americans will not allow themselves to be deceived into believing lies that allow a small power group to control us all. They will nor believe unreasonable stories that turn the responsibility for people’s mistreatment back upon themselves. Stories that would ask you to believe that there is something g wrong or lacking in some people or groups or races of people that makes them lazy or unwilling to join the team.

You don’t have to like anyone you don’t want to. I find most people are pretty much the same. The ones who aren’t; stand out and tend to be the original stereotype so-to-speak. We assign the faults of one person to his entire family or race or team or group.

It is a very limiting way to approach life and people and denies one the choice of seeing the truth about people.

Don’t see the racism all around you; everyday?

Open your eyes. You’re sleeping.

What you say about Black people taking responsibility for their own problems would be Ok if they were starting at the same level as everyone else. They are not. It would be Ok if we really lived in fairyland you live in where racism is a thing of the past but here? How does a man be or feel like a good father when he is frustrated and unable to get out of the spiritual morass he has been driven into all his life. It isn’t fair to say they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That’s just the White way to deny responsibility for what they have done to an entire race of people. To deny this is to suggest that there is something inherently wrong with the Black race. Really? Now that; THAT; is pure scientific racism. What a true racist believer believes.

I’d think about it a bit more Steve.