Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

November 17, 2004
Treasonous Bastard

CIA asset Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is "very concerned" about the fatal shooting by a U.S. Marine of a wounded and apparently unarmed man in a Fallujah mosque, his office said Wednesday.
…
".. I don’t think that (the incident) in any way is a reflection on the quality and caliber of absolutely fine young servicemen and women we have serving here in Iraq," [US ambassador Negroponte] said.

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot points us to "the quality and caliber of the absolutely fine young men and women" at this Free Republic thread who reflect on Kevin Sites, the reporter who filmed and published the incident.

Turn Sites over to the terrorist.

—

That tape should have gone to DOD for vetting first!!

—

No need for anything overt. Unfortunate things happen in combat zones, and if the reporter fails to hear someone yell "Sniper!!", well, c’est la guerre.

—

The US attorney general may be able to charge him with sedition.

—

Someone should’ve deserted him right before sunset in Fallujah, or some such treatment.

—

I wish. This guy Sites shouldn’t walk away from this unscathed. Red America wants justice.

—

If the government won’t police the press there will come a day when the people will.

—

It better charge Sites, that treasonous bastard!

—

He’s an effin traitor. He is aiding the enemy. He should be tried and killed.

—

He sure behaved like a Judas didn’t he? He certainly is doing the leg work for our Islamofascist enemies

As pointed out here earlier, the real issue is not the Marine, or Sites, or the reaction of the freeper psychopats.

The issue is the cover up of multiple, systematic, institutional sanctioned war crimes by promoting a single personalized incident.

But as Jérôme has pointed out: in absence of easy consumable video footage of the big crimes, this personalization may be a only way these crimes will ever be publicly recognized.

Posted by b on November 17, 2004 at 22:24 UTC | Permalink
Comments

THE GORILLA SPEAKS ABOUT THE ant.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 17 2004 22:29 utc | 1

Just thinking out loud here, but has it struck anyone else how we seem to be recreating feudal politics, and not by anything so simple as corruption, but by recreating pre-literate politics thorough TV, movies, and video games.
I just happened to see a McDonalds commercial with an NFL linesman running through city crowds, knocking people and even a bus aside, and it struck me what good preparation this might be to see images of the military disrupting civilian life. Or to see tanks and whatnot actually disrupting the life of a city (“Wow, just like that McDonalds commercial…”) The commercial never argues, but simply prepares us to not be shocked by the next outrage.
How many things seems acceptable just because I saw them first in the movies. My first murder. My first execution. My first exploded building. My first coup d’etat. etc. We are all reading those medieval Books of Hours now, but with a lot more variety. So what is the language of the rulers, what is the new Latin? Perhaps economics and political science – but the main truth in these would not be their explicit message, but the way they coordinate the use of images and pulpits to rule.
Am I dreaming?
Then why is the hunt on for our modern blasphemist?

Posted by: Citizen | Nov 17 2004 22:43 utc | 2

I’ve wondered since I first saw LGF threads what the reaction would be if someone picked the tastiest Euro-bashing threads from LGF and FreiReich and sent them to every single member of Euro parliament and to all the EU commissars, then to precise that these are the leading GOP right-wing sites in the US.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Nov 17 2004 22:58 utc | 3

In 2000, National Geographic did a story: “In Search of the Vikings”. A line from that article keeps looping in my mind; “In a casually brutal age Vikings were simply the better brutes…” Are we again vying to see who can be the “better brute”? Our culture conditons us in this direction.

Posted by: beq | Nov 17 2004 23:13 utc | 4

Citizen, I feel the same way about tv.
Stan Goff recently posted an article deconstructing the film “Man on Fire” which details the reasons behind my own disgust in watching as the film’s engaging protagonist, Denzel Washington as a down-on-his-luck ex-CIA agent, turns to graphic torture as he tracks down the kidnappers of a young girl.
Apparently that film was based on a true story, but I was revolted by the combination of 1) CIA and 2) torture in 3) current popular cinema.
Way too f’ing close to home.
This is a desensitizing story. I am surprised at my reaction to “make-believe” violence. This is not a popeye cartoon, it is a justification of brutality shown in graphic detail, supposedly forgivable since it serves as the “revenge on the bad guys.”
As to your greater thought, Citizen, “recreating pre-literate politics thorough TV, movies, and video games” — this is a key concept in our post-literate world.
Perhaps this is a justification for why I enjoy(ed) The West Wing. Simply because there seems to be action, drama and resolve without violence, rather the plots show the value of discussion and negotiation.

Posted by: jonku | Nov 18 2004 0:47 utc | 5

@Citizen 543PM:
Very Good Post!!!
War and everything else is all a made-for-TV movie ,CNN Live There, or a video game.
Hopefully no one gets powder burns or queasy from getting too close.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Nov 18 2004 1:59 utc | 6

I think you are absolutely correct, Citizen. Col. David Grossman in “On Killing” points to television as an unintentional means of desensitizing the public to killing. He also talks about war crimes and how they need to be immediately confronted and punished. If he was in command of that Marine, that kid would have found himself in the nearest brig by nightfall.
I don’t think desensitization is the goal in our enterainment, I think the violence is just feeding on its self. I keep debating Plato’s point that society should be only allowed edifiying material. Free speach vs. the very real detriment to society that comes from feeding our meanest. desires

Posted by: Stoy | Nov 18 2004 2:10 utc | 7

the military requires that we have the ability to desensitize. as less and less people chose not to go there, that leaves the least of us, that participate. they say about animals, the smartest are the hardest to domesticate. this new generation raised w/seige mentality, and the constant justification/rationalization for war, which is what our media seems all about, the weakest of our society seek opportunity thru the fulfillment of these images, which is the point. added to the natural implications of youth, hormones, aggression, catch them before they develope fully, presto, an army.
then the real brainwashing begins. so what is the language? to a child raised in front of the tv, eating fast food, whose parents/parent aren’t home much, shitty role models, total lack of tribal connections/ robotic heros like arnold. but i have hope, did everyone see the mosh video. i like to think this is a phase we are going thru as a society, and hopefully something will stop it, or i am certain nature will play a hand.

Posted by: annie | Nov 18 2004 4:03 utc | 8

Amnesty International calls for ‘unequivocal orders’ to prevent war crimes in Iraq
US Marines killed four wounded Iraqi prisoners – US reporter

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 18 2004 5:03 utc | 9

Yes, the military intentionally desesitizes its recruits, but as a society we do it to ourselves unintentionally; unconsciously. Then we shrug in the face of violence and blame it on “lack of morals and values” and decline of “the traditional family”.
Yes, the mosh video is terrific, but I find Eminem’s aggression in general a little off putting. Peace, as with everything, begins with ourselves.

Posted by: Stoy | Nov 18 2004 5:22 utc | 10

that is suposed to be “desensitizes”. Pardon my atrocious spelling.

Posted by: Stoy | Nov 18 2004 5:22 utc | 11

Gah! “supposed” fuck all.

Posted by: Stoy | Nov 18 2004 5:23 utc | 12

I think tv is not only desensitizing, but it also makes stupid – especially if it is the only source of information. Digby has two interessting posts today, which confirm this to me.
Decidedly Different and Unconventional Wisdom

Posted by: Fran | Nov 18 2004 6:11 utc | 13

via BBC
Her humanitarian career spanned three decades and was carried out in far-off destinations, from the Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon to the slums of Baghdad.
Cui Bono?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 18 2004 6:56 utc | 14

@ Cloned Poster
“Cui Bono”: Obviously a rhetorical question, and a leading one at that, but probably leading in the right direction. I assume you have seen this
article from the Times On Line
which would seem to confirm your views on Sistani’s deafening silence, and this
UPI story on Israeli “mercenaries” in Ivory Coast. (Both are highlighted at http://www.antiwar.com)
UPI is a U.S. outfit, I believe, but I wonder how much play the second story will get in the American press. I also wonder if the contentious
word “mercenaries” will appear as such or be
laundered into the now in vogue “civilian contractors”.
The ill-concealed (sometimes even brazenly open) antipathy for France nurtured by the
neocons and their spear-carriers in the U.S. media
seems to be a coherent continuation of other more
urgent points in their agenda.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 18 2004 8:08 utc | 15

Grossman’s “On Killing” is one of the ten most breath-restoring books I have ever read: it re-affirmed my faith in human nature, in how much work it takes to brutalize us and make us pass that on, a faith the world tells us we should lose. No, it was not happy news to know how much better military training and video games etc. have learned to make our friends and children kill dispassionately. But it was shockingly good news to hear that even now, (and even in WWII) there were so many who conformed on the surface but refused to kill the other side’s people.
It is absolutely essential for me to know that if we figure out the new feudalism and its methods of isolating us as fellow humans, the knowledge may help. It can help.
Because so many of us still hate the brutal violence at some level, and when we figure out a way to crack and break this vile game, sheer human compassion will also guide our choices of what to make out of the shards.

Posted by: Citizen | Nov 18 2004 8:12 utc | 16

Fran,
I have stopped wondering how so many people could have voted for Bush. I now believe that it is un-important what they think or believe, they do not take the time to make informed decisions so the only way to convince them to vote one way or another is through advertising. In the past and even now for that matter the Republicans have the more effective ad campaign.
It will be an uphill battle because the Republicans control so much of the media but with some skilled people (like the fictional character that Dustin Hoffman played in “Wag the Dog”) the left should be able to attract voters.
Money is not an object as the left was able to raise as much money as the right. All that is needed are ideas. The first would be to get OUT of bed with the capitalists.

Posted by: Dan of Steele | Nov 18 2004 8:34 utc | 17

re desensitising and stupefying — I think it’s time the Left reconsidered its kneejerk position that media cannot be harmful, i.e. the absolutist First Amendment position. I know this is a very dangerous suggestion and State censorship of any kind is not what I am suggesting (shudder!). but I think at some point we need to face up to what Bobby McFerrin said concisely: what you put into your head by way of your eyes and ears has an effect on you just like what you put into your stomach by way of your mouth. (I’m paraphrasing, can’t remember his exact words). people aren’t gloriously immune to the irrational, to propaganda and advertising and the lot — we’re horribly vulnerable to it. what to do about that? I’m stumped.

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 18 2004 9:01 utc | 18

Hannah: Saw that in the Jerusalem Post (weirdly) and I’m still wondering what these idiots were about. Israel involved in bombing the French troops is very risky and may backfire on French Jews indeed, not only because of the bombing, but most of all due to the looting, riots and raping that ensued against French (and by extension probably against any White still in the country). Was it another desperate move by Sharon to provoke anti-semitism in France, in the hope that the 600.000 Jews will move to the West Bank?
Concerning the Shia, I still have doubts that the US would continue to fight and die for what basically would be Iran’s best interests. Unlike Bush is really bribed by Tehran and is a double agent – I mean, getting rid of both Saddam and the Talibans, and doing that for free?
C. Hayes article in Digby is a must-read. It’s just another evidence that some people are literally to fucking stupid to vote, if not to live. It’s nice to be confirmed in his opinions, but it’s becoming pretty worrying when the bulk of these opinions is that mankind isn’t ready for freedom and democracy because most of it is still too uneducated and (sometimes willingly, which is even worse) ignorant to exercise their rights. They chose to be 2nd class citizens, so what do we do with them?

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Nov 18 2004 10:07 utc | 19

Re computer games: I hope you all seen September 12th, a very educational game.
Generally I think that what cultural impulses we get has impact on us, but what impact that is I think differs a lot because what can influense us is our reading of the material. A year ago I re-read a bunch of sci-fi stories were I in my youth read the heroines as cool, independent and strong. I now found them stereotypically dependant and weak. The point is my reading of these cool heroines influensed me even though there might not have been any factual grounds for such a reading.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Nov 18 2004 14:43 utc | 20

Michael Parenti (who sometimes does go too far) observed that action movies often falsify historical relations by reversing the roles of the victims and the culprits. He calls the propaganda theme “Rambo and the swarthy hordes”.
In “Red Dawn” you have America invaded by Russians in a coalition with Libanians(spel.?), Nicaraguans, Cubans exactly at the time as these small countries were under attack by Reagan. Of course the idea that continental US would ever be invaded is ludicrous, OTOH all these countries were under US occupation during some time in their history (even Russia).
In the typical western you have nice, warm, white humans attacked from all sides by the dirty, faceless savages. Why do they attack? Because that’s their thing, they hate white, nice people. Therefore they have to be mowed down, without mercy, because you can not negotiate with them. (You never hear that the native indians are defending their land, villages or children.)
As John Wayne said: “There is humans and there is comanchees.”
Let me put it this way: if Germany ever produced an action movie in which Jewish hordes surround and attack Germans and one Rambo-like guy shoots them all J-skins down, there would be an gigantic international scandal. But doing this to Native Americans (Redskins) is good entertainment.
Let’s face it, we are watching propaganda and paying for it, too. Here in Poland Rambo movies have always been extremely popular. Maybe because Rambo killed “them” Russians.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Nov 18 2004 15:00 utc | 21

My understanding was that these “embeds” have all their news reports vetted my the DoD. Is this correct? If so, the military censors approved that footage of the shooting of the wounded guy. DeAnander, Fran and Stoy are on to something here… in the end, nothing will happen (just like with Abu Ghraib) and the public will have swallowed one more atrocity as “acceptable when committed by Americans.” And they keep pushing that line…

Posted by: kat | Nov 18 2004 17:37 utc | 22

@kat – please check this earlier posting: Psy Ops

Posted by: b | Nov 18 2004 18:26 utc | 23

A little off-topic, but I was very disappointed and surprised in Juan Cole’s reaction to this crime and the subject of American war crimes in Iraq–he wrote today about the huge difference between the Iraqi terrorists who target civilians and American forces who kill them “accidentally”. I agree with the condemnation of Iraqis who target civilians, but don’t think you can call it accidental when civilians die because you use artillery and bombs in cities. Also, the impression I get from various articles is that Americans hope that the Fallujans and others will turn against the insurgents because of the suffering they have to endure from American bombs. In short, there’s a bright side to collateral damage.
I intend to write Juan Cole a very polite note about his post–it surprises me because he found the Lancet estimate of 100,000 deaths largely caused by Americans to be plausible.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | Nov 18 2004 22:24 utc | 24

Back to Main