Ghengis Khan killed more people per year than the Russian Civil War or Mao Zedong. He killed a larger percent of the world’s population than World War 2…
Ugh…
(via socialistexan)
In a somber, yet bold, reportage, photographer Franco Pagetti reveals the daily struggle to survive in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s North Kivus province. In the forbidding bush and teeming, fetid displaced persons camps, food is scarce and the people are on edge, ready to run at a moment’s notice.
This is one of 195 million stories of malnutrition. Sign the petition to help us rewrite the story.
New data from polling firm Gallup shows that out of all the religious groups in the U.S., Muslims are most likely to reject violence, followed by the non-religious atheists and agnostics.
Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.
When Gallup put the question a bit more pointedly, asking if it would be justified for “an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians,” the responses were a bit more uniform. Respondents from nearly all groups were widely opposed to such tactics, with Protestants and Catholics at 71 percent against. Muslims still had the highest number opposed, at 89 percent. Seventy-six percent of atheists were also opposed.
The Gallup survey, conducted over the course of a year, was designed to measure religious and non-religious attitudes toward violence 10 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(Via: Raw Story)
from smbc comics
Submitted by: pocketabortions
Math AND politics humor. Flawless, flawless victory.
There is actually some interesting research showing that people care much more about an isolated individual’s suffering than the suffering of many people.
I really want to support the U.S. action. I do. Gaddafi is a tyrant and a nutjob. I think this rebellion has a better chance of success with the help from the U.S. and the rest of the coalition.
Here’s the ‘but.’ There are other rebellions going on. Why aren’t we helping them? The answer is that it is not in our interest. Take Bahrain. The government has met protests with violence. Bahrain is good friends with Saudi Arabia, our ally and petroleum pusher. So we won’t help out Bahrain’s people no matter how fucked they are because it isn’t in our interest.
For me this delegitimizes any claim to our actions being for moral or humanitarian good. It’s just the big U.S. doing what it always does, using the military to further its interest.
Part of me says, “Who the cares as long as it saves some peoples’ lives?” The other part says, “Acting morally when it suits you isn’t really acting morally at all.” So I don’t know. What do you think?
(via katrinamarina)
