What Sort of Nation Kills Innocent People to "Send a Message"?

Trump Murders Yemenis to send a message to Iran

The following as reported by RT is the “reasoning” Team Trump is using to justify War Crimes of several varieties:

“There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” said the account labeled JD Vance, arguing that “the strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.” In response, Hegseth agreed, stating: “I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what — nobody knows who the Houthis are — which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”

Trump has claimed the Houthi attacks “emanate from, and are created by, Iran,” warning that from now on, Washington would view every shot fired by the Yemeni group as if it were fired by Tehran. “Iran will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire,” the president wrote on his Truth Social platform last Monday. [Italics Original]

Just another day in the life of the Outlaw US Empire that seems to try and kill at least one innocent daily either directly or via its proxies. Trump has now earned the sobriquet Genocide Don—some peace president, huh?! He trashes Biden but is just as evil, which appears to be a prerequisite for becoming the elected king of the Outlaw US Empire. When did we last have a US president that didn’t kill anyone as policy? Not in my lifetime.

The promised release of some JFK papers kept from public view for 60+ years prompted a visit to David Ratcliffe’s website ratical.org that I’ve been using as a source since 1998 to see if he had anything to say about Piper’s Final Judgement many of whose points in his hypothesis were proven true by those documents. Alas, there was nothing, so I decided to visit the section on MLK’s assassination and see what was new there. The first was a book review by David of William Pepper’s An Act of State - The Execution of Martin Luther King that I dug into. I then went to the hyperlinked title’s page which contains the transcript of a talk given at Modern Times Bookstore, San Francisco on 4 February 2003, which is also a fascinating read. I knew of the civil court trial verdict when it was made public in 1999 but as noted it was never publicized by BigLie Media because the Establishment Narrative is to be preserved and continued until all memory fades. In closing this note of outrage, I provide an excerpt, a very small amount of the text available at the above links that lead to more:

In his closing remarks on the last day of the trial, Dr. Pepper touched upon the underlying dynamics of what created the circumstances of Dr. King's execution:

Martin King, as you know, for many years was a Baptist preacher in the southern part of this country, and he was thrust into leadership of the civil rights movement at a historic moment in the civil rights movement and social change movement in this part of the country. That's where he was. That's where he has been locked in time, locked in a media image, locked as an icon in the brains of the people of this country.
But Martin King had moved well beyond that. When he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize, he became in the mid-1960's an international figure, a person of serious stature whose voice, his opinions, on other issues than just the plight of black people in the South became very significant world-wide. He commanded world-wide attention as few had before him. As a successor, if you will, to Mahatmas Gandhi in terms of the movement for social change through civil disobedience. So that's where he was moving. Then in 1967, April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was killed, he delivered the momentous speech at Riverside Church in New York where he opposed the war.
Now, he thought carefully about this war. . . . I remember vividly, I was a journalist in Vietnam, when I came back, he asked to meet with me, and when I opened my files to him, which were devastating in terms of the effects upon the civilian population of that country, he unashamedly wept.
I knew at that point really that the die was cast. This was in February of 1967. He was definitely going to oppose that war with every strength, every fiber in his body. And he did so. He opposed it. And from the date of the Riverside speech to the date he was killed, he never wavered in that opposition. Now, what does that mean? Is he an enemy of the State? The State regarded him as an enemy because he opposed it. But what does it really mean, his opposition? I put it to you that his opposition to that war had little to do with ideology, with capitalism, with democracy. It had to do with money. It had to do with huge amounts of money that that war was generating to large multinational corporations that were based in the United States . . .
When Martin King opposed the war, when he rallied people to oppose the war, he was threatening the bottom lines of some of the largest defense contractors in this country. This was about money. When he threatened to bring that war to a close through massive popular opposition, he was threatening the bottom lines of some of the largest construction companies, one of which was in the State of Texas, that patronized the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and had the major construction contracts at Cam Ran Bay in Vietnam. This is what Martin King was challenging. He was challenging the weapons industry, the hardware, the armament industries, that all would lose as a result of the end of the war. . . .
Now, he began to talk about a redistribution of wealth, in this the wealthiest country in the world that had such a large group of poor people, of people living then and now, by the way, in poverty. That problem had to be addressed. And it wasn't a black-and-white problem. This was a problem that dealt with Hispanics, and it dealt with poor whites as well. That is what he was taking on. That's what he was challenging.
The powers in this land believed he would not be successful. Why did they believe that? They believed that because they knew that the decision-making processes in the United States had by that point in time, and today it is much worse in my view, but by that point in time had so consolidated power that they were the representatives, the foot soldiers, of the . . . very economic interests who were going to suffer as a result of these times of changes. So the very powerful lobbying forces that put their people in the halls of Congress and indeed in the White House itself and controlled them, paid and bought them and controlled them, were certainly not going to agree to the type of social legislation that Martin King and his mass of humanity were going to require. [My Emphasis]

Killing MLK was clearly sending a message to all who sought the ends he sought, and riots erupted in major cities coast-to-coast. And since 1968 there’s been zero progress on stopping the Outlaw US Empire or its Merchants of Death and those who own them and the federal government. How should the Humanistic portion of the world access such messages? What sort of reply must really be sent by those able to stand up like Ansarallah? What to do with a society so densely filled with criminals in positions of leadership? A friend now gone named his publication “Voices in the Wilderness.” I now understand why he ended his life. His message was to continue resisting. I will.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!