We Are The Human Shields Of The Political Class

Here is a must-read essay for all of us human shields:

There’s been quite a bit of chatter in the media recently about the concept of a “soft target” in the wake of the November 13th attack in Paris where 130 innocents were murdered. What is a soft target? According to Wikipedia,

“typical "soft targets" are civilian sites where people congregate in large numbers; examples include national monuments, hospitals, schools, sporting arenas, hotels, cultural centers, movie theaters, cafés and restaurants, places of worship, nightclubs, shopping centers, and transportation sites …”

Sitting ducks, in other words, people that are easy to kill. This is why they are targeted, obviously. A “hard target”, on the other hand, is an individual, structure, or institution that is very hard to inflict much damage on by any organization other than a technologically advanced military. The Pentagon (with the exception of 9/11), White House, Congress, Homeland Security, the elites who can afford round-the-clock protection, all these come to mind. These “hard targets”, although safe from attack, are usually the ones chiefly responsible for whatever danger from terrorism that we “soft targets” are exposed to. Blowback, the retaliation by those angered at Western interventionism, is our lot in life in the thick of War on Terror hysteria. 

The sheer pervasiveness of “soft targets” can be unnerving if thought about long enough. They are everywhere, from schools, coffee shops, movie theaters, dance recitals, concerts, the list is endless. Lambs for the slaughter for any nut job with the will and the way. How would it be possible for government to protect soft targets? The simple answer is that there is no way for our government to keep us safe from terrorism. They could try to transform society into a prison (a goal that government seems to earnestly strive for), each inmate walled off from the other, but even that wouldn’t prevent violence. But it’s plain that government doesn’t really care about soft targets to begin with. If they did, they would cease the bombing and occupation overseas, as well as severing ties with governments who oppress neighboring countries, i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia, the actions that cause the hatred that lead to gunmen storming a concert hall.

# # # # # # # #

Rather than keeping us safe, the Warfare State needs terrorism to justify its existence. It lives off the destabilization it creates around the world. It needs attacks like Paris, 9/11, San Bernardino, London, Madrid, et cetera, to keep the population in fear and stoke the nationalistic rage that can be guided into supporting endless war. The safety of “soft targets” is not the concern of government, despite the pretense to the contrary, and the truth of why exposed civilians are in danger of attack in the first place is never questioned. We are attacked here because our governments are over there. It is a painfully simple truth, but one buried under an avalanche of lies that are more flattering to the psyche of the nation. So as long as our governments are “over there”, meting out terror to civilian populations in our name, we can expect more attacks on soft targets, the unwitting citizens who are quite literally the human shields of the warmongering political class. 

You can read the rest @
http://original.antiwar.com/Shane_Smith/2016/01/08/we-are-the-human-shields-of-the-political-class/

The author is 100% correct. You don't see any of the bigwigs being attacked, do you?

Not ever.

This is very similar to what Dr. Ron Paul said while running for President. You didn't listen to him, and I fear you will not listen to Shane Smith, either. The US ruling class needs war, and war they shall have.