| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Washington Hayduke" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2004 09:11:06 PM |
| Object: |
Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents |
Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents
By Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services
"The enemy has got a face," a Marine lieutenant-colonel told an
embedded reporter just before the invasion began. "He's called Satan. He
lives in Fallujah. And we're going to destroy him." And with that fair
warning, 10,000 or so heavily armed avenging angels descended on a
latter-day Sodom and reduced it to rubble. It was jihad with a yahoo, "a
return to the simplicity of combat," wrote Paul Wood of the BBC, "after the
complexities of peacekeeping and an enemy that never shows itself."
Who knew there was such a fine line between democracy and genocide?
Destroying a city in order to save it is back in style, as long as a queasy
public is spared raw footage of the details.
Yeah, NBC aired that video of the injured Iraqi in the mosque:
Ka-blam! "He's dead now!" But as usual, the war criminal was a low-level
grunt; appalled higher-ups, their holy war momentarily interrupted, took
refuge behind their love of the Geneva Conventions and the Iraqi people,
and promised a full investigation.
What a weird war. We're officially ashamed of what we're doing and get
indignant not so much at criticism of our actions as unvarnished
documentation of them. NBC, for its part, took pains to apologize to the
country for being unable to fit its troublesome footage into the big,
reassuring picture of American compassion. And except for that aberration,
mainstream journalists have mostly behaved themselves, only giving us news
embedded in official context: 1,200 insurgents (and no civilians) dead, the
January elections on track, a great victory for the forces of good.
Thanks to them, George Orwell still has our number. "The nationalist,"
he wrote in 1945, "not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by
his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about
them."
Actually, I think Orwell (who was quoted in an excellent piece by
Linda S. Heard, writing recently for al-Jazeera), is only half right. We do
disapprove of atrocities; Abu Ghraib, after all, was a PR nightmare. Public
enthusiasm for war is a lot more iffy than it used to be. That makes "not
even hearing about the atrocities" all the more crucial. It's a lot easier
to support our troops if we don't know exactly what they're doing.
So most of us are not going to read about children in Fallujah
bleeding to death from shrapnel wounds because they can't get medical
attention. Nor will we hear about Abrams tanks firing randomly into
residential neighborhoods or families huddled in their houses wondering
where the next bomb or shell is going to hit.
We won't know how badly the streets of Fallujah stink from rotting
corpses, or that coalition mop-up operations included heaving bodies into
the Euphrates. We won't hear that at least 800 civilians (many women, many
children) are dead from the latest onslaught, added to the 800 who died
when we pounded the city last spring.
And that figure, a Red Cross estimate, is "extremely conservative,"
independent journalist Dahr Jamail told Democracy Now. It "doesn't take
into account people buried under the rubble of homes, and other horrendous
things that have happened there." Officials expect the final toll to be
"far, far higher."
Nor are we likely to realize, as non-embedded news organizations are
reporting, that a humanitarian crisis of daunting proportions is looming in
Fallujah. Residents trapped in their houses have nothing to eat or drink.
"There's no water," one resident told al-Jazeera. "People are drinking
dirty water. Children are dying. People are eating flour because there's no
proper food."
OK, war isn't pretty, but at least what's left of Iraq when we finish
our job will have a fresh, new democracy to enjoy, right? That's the big
picture we're asked to believe in, the context that allows - demands -
forgiveness for the occasional American war crime we learn about, and stops
us from asking whether the entire game plan isn't a war crime.
And besides, the other side fights dirty too. I'll concede a
ruthlessness to the insurgents that may well be equal to our own (though
lacking tanks, bombers, fighter jets, attack helicopters, etc.), but I
won't concede them stupidity.
The embedded and approving Paul Wood described "the simplicity of
combat" we were expecting and hoping for in Fallujah. But why would the
enemy oblige us? Scott Ritter called the Fallujah operation "squeezing
Jell-O." As we were shelling civilians, taking out the hospital and
leveling the city with Old Testament fury, the insurgents were regrouping
and attacking targets in other parts of Iraq.
The sickening truth is that we may have destroyed a city the enemy had
already conceded to us. We went gunning for Satan and wound up slaughtering
the innocents.
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an
editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. Respond
to this column at or visit his Web site at
commonwonders.com.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
.
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents |
03 Dec 2004 03:06:49 AM |
|
|
TV's George Washington Hayduke wrote:
Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents
By Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services
Thanks to them, George Orwell still has our number. "The nationalist,"
he wrote in 1945, "not only does not disapprove of atrocities
committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not
even hearing about them."
Actually, I think Orwell (who was quoted in an excellent piece
by Linda S. Heard, writing recently for al-Jazeera), is only half
right. We do disapprove of atrocities; Abu Ghraib, after all, was a
PR nightmare.
Orwell was 100% correct. Those of us that disapprove of atrocities are not
nationalists.
Public enthusiasm for war is a lot more iffy than it
used to be. That makes "not even hearing about the atrocities" all
the more crucial. It's a lot easier to support our troops if we don't
know exactly what they're doing.
The right-wing's enthusiasm for war never wanes, even in the face of
evidence of atrocity. Any behavior is acceptable, as long as it's in the
name of God/America/W.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents |
03 Dec 2004 12:37:46 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<31aol0F39n3gmU1@individual.net>...
TV's George Washington Hayduke wrote:
Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents
By Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services
Thanks to them, George Orwell still has our number. "The nationalist,"
he wrote in 1945, "not only does not disapprove of atrocities
committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not
even hearing about them."
Actually, I think Orwell (who was quoted in an excellent piece
by Linda S. Heard, writing recently for al-Jazeera), is only half
right. We do disapprove of atrocities; Abu Ghraib, after all, was a
PR nightmare.
Orwell was 100% correct. Those of us that disapprove of atrocities are not
nationalists.
Public enthusiasm for war is a lot more iffy than it
used to be. That makes "not even hearing about the atrocities" all
the more crucial. It's a lot easier to support our troops if we don't
know exactly what they're doing.
The right-wing's enthusiasm for war never wanes, even in the face of
evidence of atrocity. Any behavior is acceptable, as long as it's in the
name of God/America/W.
Remember those who excused or spoke approving of Abu Graib on Usenet
because the other side was allegedly worse.
Nationalism is a powerful disease.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents |
03 Dec 2004 11:15:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 03:06:49 -0600, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's George Washington Hayduke wrote:
Gunning for Satan resulted in slaughtered innocents
By Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services
Thanks to them, George Orwell still has our number. "The nationalist,"
he wrote in 1945, "not only does not disapprove of atrocities
committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not
even hearing about them."
Actually, I think Orwell (who was quoted in an excellent piece
by Linda S. Heard, writing recently for al-Jazeera), is only half
right. We do disapprove of atrocities; Abu Ghraib, after all, was a
PR nightmare.
Orwell was 100% correct. Those of us that disapprove of atrocities are
not nationalists.
And if we are not observed screaming as loudly as we can during the
daily Five Minutes of Hate, our names get listed in the Book Of Those
To Watch.
Public enthusiasm for war is a lot more iffy than it
used to be. That makes "not even hearing about the atrocities" all
the more crucial. It's a lot easier to support our troops if we don't
know exactly what they're doing.
The right-wing's enthusiasm for war never wanes, even in the face of
evidence of atrocity. Any behavior is acceptable, as long as it's in the
name of God/America/W.
What aren't those 53,000,000 Bush2-voters rushing to the Army
recruiting stations to sign up for a tour of "duty" in Iraq? What
could the hold-up be?
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
---
http://lastliberal.org
"Hey, I've mastered the art of levitating birds!" -- John Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
