US Navy's 'Accidental' Pacific Strikes: Collateral Damage or Calculated Control?
📰 THE STORY: Al Jazeera reports on a US boat strike in the Eastern Pacific that killed two and left one survivor, bringing the total death toll from such incidents to 125 since September, prompting general 'human rights concerns.' 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The United States has a century-long history of asserting maritime dominance far from its own borders, often with
deadly consequences for local populations. From gunboat diplomacy in Latin America in the early 20th century to the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes, which killed 290 civilians, the US military's 'freedom of navigation' often translates to freedom from accountability. These 'boat strikes' are not isolated events but part of continuous, often undeclared, military deployments
in regions vital for trade routes and resource control. Double Standard: Imagine if a Chinese naval vessel repeatedly struck boats in the Caribbean, resulting in 125 deaths. Every major Western outlet would declare it an act of aggression, a 'threat to global shipping,' and demand UN intervention. Yet, when US forces kill civilians in the Eastern Pacific, it's framed as a tragic 'incident' raising
'human rights concerns,' rather than an indictment of a hegemonic military presence frequently operating with impunity. The outrage metric is directly proportional to the perpetrator's diplomatic standing with Washington. Follow the Money: These deployments, and the inevitable 'incidents,' directly benefit the military-industrial complex. Continued instability, real or perceived threats (often a