Urinating on corpses and other costs of war
A couple days ago a forty second video went viral depicting US soldiers urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan. President Karzai has just condemned the video. Since then at least two of the soldiers have been identified by the Pentagon.
I take the event of urinating on dead soldiers to be an example of an EMA, an evil militaristic act. When EMAs surface in a war they tend to elicit one of two extreme responses.
Vindication. The first response is to offer a vindication of the soldiers and to count them heroes. Indeed there seems to be a sort of corollary relationship here: the more the soldiers are censured in some quarters the more forcefully they are vindicated in others. This was certainly the case during Vietnam when William Calley led his soldiers in the massacre of five hundred Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. After his actions came to light many people counted him a hero (albeit not many Vietnamese people).
This latest EMA has attracted its own defenders as one will find when visiting the footage posting on youtube. The first thing one notices is the list of views (at 76,525 for the video I viewed). Next one notices that the video has 168 likes. Admittedly that is a bit ambiguous. Do people like the video as in do they think the EMA is admirable? Or do they like that a heinous act has been exposed? Some likes may be the latter, but many are definitely the former as is clear by some of the comments people wrote which include statements like ”Piss on them!” and “God’s finest fighters pissing on pieces of shit.” and “Piss on more of them maybe they’ll learn there [sic] lesson!”. Some people describe the scene with the same kind of unrestrained enthusiasm that is typically reserved for the Iwo Jima War Memorial.
Vilification. As of my viewing the video had garnered 369 dislikes and the comment section reflected this with the marjority of comments unequivocally condemning the actions of these soldiers. But at this point the narrative of vilification often kicks in with people explaining that these soldiers were “a few bad apples” and “not true Americans” and “sick sociopaths”.
Both vindication and vilification serve as defense mechanisms. Vindication does it by explaining that the soldiers did not really commit an EMA after all. On the contrary, their actions were admirable and courageous. Vilification does it by explaining that the soldiers committed an EMA because they had a prior character defect.
The truth, however, is much more disturbing.
Two weeks ago Benjamin Colton Barnes, an Iraq war vet, shot four people at a party in the Seattle area before he drove out to Mt. Rainier National Park and shot and killed a park ranger at point blank range. Barnes wasn’t just a bad apple or a sociopath. He was an individual suffering from PTSD who was brutalized in combat and went on to brutalize others.
You can’t hire a guy to work 9-5 in a slaughterhouse and not expect that to affect how he interacts with animals during his volunteer time at the Humane Society. The same principle applies in war. People can only sustain the cognitive dissonance introduced by combat situations for so long before it bleeds into the rest of their character. The history of war is littered with victorious soldiers slaughtering, raping, eating and urinating on defeated soldiers. (Yes, eating too. Cannibalism is more common in combat than you probably realized.) As horrific as these actions may be they are explicable as defense mechanisms which serve to rationalize and legitimate the actions of killing others. The more degraded the enemy, the easier it is to kill them.
We see the physical casualties of war. Young people returning from battle missing limbs, for example, provides a great visual symbol of valor for the patriotic parade. The moral casualties are not so obvious. We can see people who lost their arm, but we don’t always see those who lost their soul.
Economist Joe Stiglitz famously estimated the cost of the Iraq War at 3 trillion dollars. Obviously he only counted what it is possible for an economist to count. What was the cost to Benjamin Colton Barnes who was transformed into a sociopath on a murderous rampage, and to the four soldiers who degraded themselves to the point of thinking that urinating on a corpse is a Kodak moment? And what is the cost to their many victims?
Until we learn how to factor the loss of soul into our calculations we will never fathom the true cost of war.
For further reflection see my review of the film “Body of War“.
Tags: Benjamin Colton Barnes, militarism, Taliban, war
61 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Zaak says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 4:41pm
I’m amazed at how the U.S. gov’t was so quick to condemn this act and at the same time completely ignore (in fact persecute the one who released this video) this act of murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 5:34pm
Amen. Great post. Tweeted it and hope it gets plenty of retweets.
Sean R Reid says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 7:22pm
Making a big deal out of stuff like this in the face of the REAL horrors of war is apparently what America does now. The cognitive dissonance of the public with regards to what constitutes “moral high ground” is nothing short of infuriating.
Apparently, torture and humiliation are only a problem when soldiers do it of their own accord (and get caught).
Jean says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 7:38pm
Those soldiers are only showing their disdain for the enemy.
Is it OK with you all for the Taliban, and other Muslim terrorists groups to do what they do in their jihad? If not, where is your outrage over what they do?
Where is your outrage over the Muslims’ persecution that can even result in death over those who convert to Christianity or a woman who is punished for the sins of a male family member that commits adultery?
Get real people. If you are going to critize America for her war sins then do the same with the Muslims and theirs.
Sean R Reid says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:02pm
The problem, as I noted above, is that Americans pride ourselves on being “above” that kind of behavior. Despite it being painfully misguided, we’re “better” than the jihadist precisely because we don’t perform acts of terror, mutilation and/or humiliation.
Now, as to whether or not that actually makes us “better” is purely subjective. However, if we’re going to adopt that kind of moral high ground in our speech and attitude then we damn sure need to make sure we do the same in our actions.
At the risk of over-simplifying, I’ll offer this: Batman could solve a lot of problems if he just shot the Joker in cold blood. However, he knows making that choice would puts him at risk of going down the same exact road as the evil he is trying to stop.
You can’t expect people to believe in your cause when you behave exactly like those whom you’re fighting against.
Jeff says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:18pm
Jean, some wise advice immediately comes to my mind:
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Jean says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:40pm
Same to you my dear friend.
Jeff says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 9:00pm
Jean, I’ll elaborate by repeating something I said earlier, on a different thread:
I’ve been accused by some of being anti-American for focusing primarily on the atrocities of the US government (and its agents), when in the minds of my critics I should spend equal or greater time pointing out all the atrocities committed by foreign governments as well. But as the saying goes, get your own house in order first, or as another saying goes, remove the plank in your own eye first. Insisting that “those other governments [or government agents, etc] are bad too,” true as that may be, is just a cheap way of diverting attention so as to preserve the ignoble status quo here in the US.
Grady says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:27pm
Take the log out your own eye, sport, before you remove the speck from Jean’s.
Jeff says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 3:09am
Thanks for the advice, Grady, but I wasn’t referring to any speck in Jean’s eye.
Jeff says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 3:15am
Just to be clear, I was saying that as subjects of the US government, we Americans ought to concern ourselves primarily with the atrocities of our own government (and its agents) rather than falling back on the defense mechanism, “but those other people are bad too!” I wasn’t referring to any specific person here, but rather was addressing Jean’s objection.
randal says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 4:05am
Jeff, you’re such a genial fellow gently attempting to clarify your position to a person who just advocated urinating on other human beings.
Jeff says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 4:14am
Zinger! Had to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes!
randal says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:42pm
I’m equally critical of anybody who thinks that urinating on a corpse is morally permissible behavior. I don’t have to wait and find out the nationality, religion, gender, or ethnicity of the corpse before I render my judgment. Apparently you do, which is sad.
Ray Ingles says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:50pm
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess “No”.
Well, the link above points to some. Here’s another. But I’ll note that holding U.S. soldiers to a higher standard than “not as bad as the Taliban” doesn’t seem out of line…
Grady says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:24pm
My nephew has been talking about joining the Marines…which I have discouraged.
If these guys suffer any serious discipline for this, after having risked their lives for Obama, I think he will see the light.
Grady says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:25pm
Oh, and as to the Taliban…piss on them, too.
The only think worse is a traitor or a collborator.
Kathy Brown says:
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 10:40pm
I am an American and I say what a huge embarrassment. I come from a family that has had a number of officers in the Coast Guard and the Army, and I can tell you this would be an embarrassment for them as well. There is no excuse for this behavior at all. As a nation, we were once great and highly regarded for our desire to defend those around the world who were oppressed. In particular we prided ourselves as the flagship nation in support of human rights. This seems quite contrary to a nation with that purpose.
For shame.
clamat says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 12:32am
“We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won’t allow them to write ‘fuck’ on their airplanes because it’s obscene!”
–Col. Walter E. Kurtz
randal says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 3:56am
I think Jesus called that straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Kathy says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:58am
So, the Americans should not have fought in the WWs?
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:03pm
Your question concerns just war theory.
There are two sets of criteria to consider in just war theory which must be met for a war to be just: jus ad bellum refer to the criteria that provide the right to go to war. Jus in bello refer to the criteria that must be observed during the conduct of a just war. I doubt that any war in history has met the widely accepted standards of jus in bello, and that certainly included the United States in the two world wars. In WW II the US committed some of the greatest atrocities including dropping atomic bombs on two civilian populations in Japan, fire-bombing the civilian city of Dresden, and using women as sex slaves in Japan to service the military from August 1945-February 1946.
Kathy says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:53pm
There were different actions taken in WWII. Certainly the dropping of the bomb in Japan was not a just action. It was not just unjust, but also stupid. However, it was necessary to do what we did in Germany. I don’t have any sophistication in terms of knowledge of theories of war. But in maturing over the years, I’ve thought that the reasons to go to war are complex. Personally, I think that sadly it is as much a matter of psychological maneuvering as anything, Men are fallible, and sometimes make the wrong choice as to what to do. There was reason, I believe, to take action against Japan. Reasons why it was necessary. I believe the action taken was the wrong choice.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 9:23pm
Kathy, the Allied RAF and USAF targeted Dresden precisely because it was full of refugees and they slaughtered approximately 130,000 civilians with intent and foresight as a way of creating psychological terror against the German population. This is the exact same method that they used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki except that fewer civilians were killed in Japan. Your comment suggests that you think the bombing in Japan was wrong but the bombing in Dresden was right. If that is your reasoning, how do you arrive at that conclusion?
Kathy says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 2:11am
Randal -
Do you ever think war is justified?
Kathy
randal says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 2:22am
As I said, there are two sets of criteria in just war theory: the criteria for going to war and the criteria for the conduct of the war. I take it that your question is directed at the first set of critiera. So to answer: yes, I think there are conditions where a state is justified in going to war.
Kathy says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 3:11am
I agree with you. (And my apologies fo sometimes losing track of things you have already said – waking up this aging brain is going to be so much fun….) There are conditions under which war is justified. I think that WWII presented those conditions. As for me, however, I am not trained in warfare. (I am thankful that I have not had to be.) As well, I am not aware of all the conditions under which decisions were made and the reasonings behind the decisions.
Based on my limited knowledge, the U.S. was compelled to fight in WWII. The nature of war assures the loss of lives. Most people agree on those things or some resemblance of those things. Where people usually disagree is on the chosen tactic or warfare employed. What is interesting about our conversation here is that I believe most people appreciated the result of the U.S. actions during WWII (at least in terms of the Germany part – not Japan).
The most obvious questions that come to mind with the picture you paint of U.S. actions in Germany are:
(1) Could Germany (most particularly – Hitler) have been defeated without that action?
(2) Could less casualties have been experienced overall in all senses without that action?
And there are probably a host of other questions as well that I am not aware of again because of my lack of warfare training and practical knowledge of the particular circumstances.
I have had the sense, though, that our motives were good and on target in Germany. Just my sense from various sources that are not all that official. I know that I could be delusional since I was brought up in America and would naturally be taught that our motives were good. But I get that sense not just from Americans, but from others as well. That doesn’t mean that mistakes weren’t made, but understanding everything that took place and all the decisions that were made would be far beyond my capabilities and frankly, I think far beyond most people’s abilities.
There were millions of Jews killed in an attempt to exterminate a race. There were 130,000 innocents killed in a warfare tactic – perhaps with the intent of sparing the lives of millions more. War is not where I want to be. I have no idea of all the factors, and I am quite certain I would have a hard time making the decisions that war requires (I’m clearly no Deborah). It is easy to second guess.
randal says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 4:26am
Countries rarely if ever go to war because it is the right thing to do. The book The Problem from Hell chronicles how western nations have repeatedly decided not to stop unfolding genocides around the world because it was not in their self-interest to do so. In the case of World War 2 it is important to keep in mind that western nations like the United States and Canada refused to take in the thousands of stateless survivors of the concentration camps, instead choosing to leave them in confined camps in Europe until 1948 when the state of Israel was finally formed. Every government is sinful and corrupt because the people that form governments are sinful and corrupt.
MattK says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 5:13am
Just an FYI, Barnes was a communications officer and was never in combat and the shootings probably had nothing to do with PTSD
randal says:
Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 5:26am
Thanks Matt. The initial reports suggested that Barnes was suffering PTSD. Regardless, one need not have seen combat to have suffered the effects of the military. Consider the first half of the film “Full Metal Jacket” which, according to an acquaintance who was a marine, is an accurate depiction of basic training. It is a process of dehumanization that very likely would have exacerbated any latent anti-social tendencies in Barnes.
More importantly we just need to look at the much higher statistics for spousal abuse, divorce, substance abuse, depression and suicide among war veterans. The main point surely stands.
Jeff says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:28am
Randal, you “pampered, bratty, spoiled little limousine liberal.” Steve Hays has sagely informed us that not only was the urination episode excusable, but it was actually laudable and, in fact, the Marines in question didn’t go far enough. They should have given the corpses over to the dogs and birds and beasts to eat, then they should have laid the corpses out as dung on the face of the field, and then the bones should have been spread out before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, as dung on the surface of the ground. Because, of course, the Marines were acting on God’s behalf, against the wicked agents of Satan himself.
What say you to that, you bratty liberal?!
Jeff says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:37am
Incidentally, I’d love to join in on the discussion over at Triablogue, but I’ve been banned. Apparently for airing verboten, “extremist” anarchist views. I was having a heart-to-heart with Jason Engwer (a discussion free of any ad hominem, btw) and then all of a sudden: poof! Criticized Mitt Romney a bit too harshly and that was it for me, I guess.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 4:31am
Steve Hays’ rants read like a Colbert Report send-up.
The only problem is that Hays isn’t trying to be funny apparently.
What a psycho.
Jeff says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 5:14am
It would have been pants-pissingly funny satire if that’s how he had intended it.
Not sure whether to laugh or weep…
Kathy says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:20am
Weep.
Ed Babinski says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 4:39pm
Randal, I asked Steve Hays, “Is it necessary for every Christian to rejoice at the thought of washing their feet in the blood of the wicked, or feel blessed/happy at the thought of the babies of one’s enemies being dashed against a rock? Is it necessary that every righteous Israelite must hate his enemies with perfect hatred, and be “cursed” if he refuses to bloody his sword instead of using it the way Yahweh commanded–to slice through man, woman and babe in one of Yahweh’s holy wars? Also, is it necessary that every Christian feel blessed at the thought of one’s enemies being tossed into a lake of eternal fire? Is that the only “true” kind of Christian?
What about the Christian who cites verses like these?
Proverbs 17:5b, 24:17, 25:21 (New International Version) Whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he s tumbles, do not let your heart rejoice. . . . If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Psalm 34:14b . . . seek peace and pursue it.
Matthew 5:5,7,9,44 I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, . . . Blessed are the meek. . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . .Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. . . .
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
2 Cor. 10:1 I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ– I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent!
2 Peter 2:21-23 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
Can Christians agree on which verses they should focus on most, and how best to interpret such verses?
The famed Scottish Christian, Thomas Erskine, put it this way:
The most zealous defenders of the verbal inspiration of the Bible admit that there are parts of it of less importance than others. This is a great admission, because another is involved in it, namely that we ourselves must be judges of the comparative importance of these different parts.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:51pm
You end with this quote: “The most zealous defenders of the verbal inspiration of the Bible admit that there are parts of it of less importance than others.”
Let me revise that: “The most zealous defenders of the verbal inspiration of the Bible interpret some parts of the Bible in light of other parts.”
In other words, the distinction is not importance but rather interpretive priority.
nick says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 6:39am
Just one quick comment about what Matt said about Barnes job in the army. He was in communications. I knew a man who went to the Korean conflict. His task was similar to that of barnes. He was informed that since communications were of vital importance his life expectancy was a matter of hours, not days. He was a prime target.
Also it is possible that Barnes would of heard live combat situations over the airwaves. That is going to elevate your stress levels. Especially when they are relying on you and your fellow soldiers be efficient at their job. One error could be fatal for those they were involved with. I would also think that Barnes would of been trained to increase his memory skills. It would be important to quickly remember accurately what one has heard. So, perhaps he also was tormented by some of these well stored memories where he could remember all the sounds he heard in that situation. If one reflects on what he might of heard then, poor guy.
it is also amazing that in the electronic age that they could think they could get away with this. Someone is not going to think this funny and here we are talking about it.
robert says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:48am
From my experience as an evangelical American Christian I admit this is emotional, stupid, and most likely apostate. But I hope for the day when people from either side of a “contest” are not put in situations where this can happen. I hope, and though silly, even pray for peace in the land. I cannot imagine what it is to be in combat so I dont consider myself able to comment on aspects of what people are driven to. I do know most of the soldiers served with distinction. Often in untenable situations.
Again as an Evangelical I understand war is part of the lot of human kind until Christ comes back. But being the apostate I am, I wish either, Jesus would hurry up, or we, as a species would learn to stop killing each other.
All my bluster aside, I just wish our soldiers would come home and our politicians would be more sober when putting soldiers in harms way.
PS I have no simple answers.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 2:54pm
As I was saying in the article, we set soldiers up to do monstrous things and then when they do monstrous things we court marshal them. The further we look at the problem the worse it gets. For example, consider all the recruiting from the lower socio-economic classes.
Kathy says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 8:18pm
I think you are way off base here. Of course, my experience is limited, and the times have changed. I will just say again that there is a way to fight with honour. You say that men are set up to do monstrous things. However, the awards worth getting in the military in the U.S. are those that involve what we would call “meekness” – that is, strength under control. My brother was in the Marines (with an unsuccessful career) and the one award he got, which was a high honour, was due to his self-restraint when attacked.
I’m not going to claim all leaders are good and operate in that fashion – there will always be those who reward disgusting acts as you have seen. But I can not buy the premises such as (1) you will never have to fight, or (2) you have to be monstrous to fight. And a host of others that come to mind with regards to this.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 9:32pm
“Way off base” about what? That there likely has never been a war that was conducted wholly within the confines of the widely accepted confines of just war theory?
You should watch this lecture that historian Howard Zinn (who fought in WW2) gave shortly before his death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SaQ3LK1b2Q
Zinn talks about three specific wars (what he calls “holy” wars” not in that they are “religious” but rather in that they are considered sacrosanct for a particular national narrative): the War of Independence, the Civil War and World War 2. It’s definitely food for thought.
Kathy says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 6:35am
I am totally with you on the fact that there is no war carried out in a perfect manner. None whatsoever. Where men are involved, there is error and injustice to be found strewn about even in a justified war….at least in my view.
I thought the video was very interesting. He would be an exceptionally interesting man to talk to. I think that there would be a lot that we would agree on – how to count the cost of war, the complexity of war, etc. I also totally agree that we cannot consider wars sacrosanct in that they should not be spoken of negatively. We are called to self-examine and consideration of all scenarios is required in that.
I totally get the difference between just cause and just war. And his other arguments as well. Though few, if any, alternatives were suggested. But to the extent he challenges the status quo, I am all for it. I don’t want wars.
He adeptly points out that there are atrocities that occur even in the way that some people, often already rich, profit from war. That’s definitely true, but is not relevant to the question of whether or not a war is just. I can’t imagine being a leader and having to consider all of these things, can you?
And I guess, although I was anti-establishment in the past, and still highly skeptical, at some point I reasoned that many, many presidents and leaders have had to deal with decisions surrounding war, and I did not figure that all of them had evil intentions, or desired the rich to get richer, or desired to coerce the lower classes to serve, etc. To my way of thinking, there are consequences to war, and not all are considered or even able to be considered prior to the end of the war.
I believe that for the most part, presidents ruminate about decisions to send men and women off to possible death – how could one not do so? I do not believe that all presidents who have engaged in war did so callously, without much thought, etc.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 10:30pm
Let me add one thing: I think you’re reading a lot more into my comments than I actually said. You say there is a way to fight with honor. I don’t deny that that is the case when it comes to individuals. But when we talk about just war vs. unjust war we are talking about the entire conduct of a war and that includes the actions of all combatants.
Kathy says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:58am
I don’t think I was reading anything into what you were saying – here is what was said.
“I think Jesus called that straining gnats and swallowing camels.”
It seemed to me when you quoted Jesus here, you were likening the act of soldiers urinating on the corpses of those they shot (or writing obscene words on airplanes) to “straining gnats” and the training of men to drop fire on people (i.e., go to war) to “swallowing camels”. With this statement, you related these two things and seemed to be saying that there is much ado about an act like defiling corpses when there is little ado about training men to go to war. The implication is that training men to go to war is a bigger “crime” in this case.
You have since said that there are conditions under which a state is justified in going to war. If it is agreed that the state is justified in going to war, then men have to be trained to go fight the war.
“I’m equally critical of anybody who thinks that urinating on a corpse is morally permissible behavior.”
From this, I took it that you, like me, think that defiling corpses in this way is reprehensible.
But if you apply the logic of straining gnats vs. swallowing camels, then if the war (and by necessity training the men to go to war) is justified, there is no problem with men defiling the corpses.
I was arguing that Jesus would in no way apply that quote to training men to go to war vs. the punishment of morally reprehensible behavior. I just don’t believe He would. There are just wars that require men to fight them. And yet I’m not sure that Jesus would condone defiling corpses.
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:07pm
Sad. The easiest way to make a better soldier is through humiliating the enemy. But that has to come AFTER the sickness of Nationalism that allows us to ignore our nations own shortcomings. Which comes after identifying differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’–best achieved by loud drumbeats of propaganda and lies.
For more on this disgusting cycle, read “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” by Chris Hedges.
randal says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 3:25pm
As you probably know an Iranian scientist was assassinated in Iran this past week. Everybody knows that either the CIA or Mossad were complicit. That’s what makes Hillary Clinton’s plausible denial this week so completely implausible.
The film Munich is a great complement to Hedges’ fine book. (Incidentally, Hedges was almost lynched in 2002 while speaking at a commencement address because he spoke out against the war in Iraq. He was literally pulled off the stage.)
Grady says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 6:50pm
Since the Iranian scientist was working on nukes that the Iranian leader has declared he will use on Israel, I no more feel sorry for him than if Hitler had been taken out.
randal says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 6:56pm
So is your view that every scientist who is involved with a nuclear weapons program should be assassinated as the moral equivalent of Hitler?
Grady says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:13pm
If they are working on a nuclear project for a man who has said he wants to wipe out the Jews, YES.
Jeff says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 2:14am
“Said he wants to wipe out the Jews…”
Ahmadinejad has never said any such thing. Check the quotation.
Look, I’m not making excuses for him. He seems like a pretty rotten guy, just like most of our politicians here in the US seem to be pretty rotten. But again I’ll ask you: what do you think would happen to Iran if its leadership decided to nuke Israel?
Jeff says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:38pm
Ahmadinejad (I’m assuming?) has declared he’ll use nukes on Israel?! What quote/speech/whatever are you referring to? And in any event, what do you think would happen to Iran if that happened?
Sean R Reid says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 8:18pm
That’s the rub Jeff. There IS NO EVIDENCE.
It’s a meme, all the political candidates not named Ron Paul have been parroting this ad nauseum. However, to date, I have yet to see any solid proof outside of speculation.
It’s sickening. There’s even less here than there was in the lead-up to Iraq. That we are so willing to buy the party line (myself included, sadly, back during the 2004 election) is really frightening.
nick says:
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 6:02pm
After reading Aaron’s comment, heres an outsiders view point. The self-image that the US presents of themselves in film etc, would led one to interpret certain things. One being how great their nation is and the authority, and perhaps superiority they have in many areas including internal and external affairs. Being exposed to this type of idealogical thinking the man on the ground could push the boundaries. So to ‘Piss on the enemy’ would seem to be a mark of their authority and power. “Look what we can do, and no one can stop us”. So to do a monstrous has to start from a common origin. They would be less likely to band together to do such a thing unless their was a fundamental idea.
Combat is going to effect people differently no matter their status. I agree with Randal at present the web of events surrounding the death of the Iranian scientist may not lead back to the US. But I am sure that they and their close accomplice Israel were somehow connected. Perhaps another demonstration of the assertiveness of the US. Did they not also freely encroach on Pakistani territory to get Osama bin Laden and other targets. Now, they may be aiding some greater good from their perspective.
Sean R Reid says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 3:17pm
Jumping back in after catching up on the discussion…
A strange thought occurred to me over the weekend. As noted above, there was the murder -done very “Mission Impossible” style- of the Iranian nuclear scientist. I’m almost certain, although I only have my suspicions and no proof, that this can be traced back to the US (State Dept. perhaps??) in some regard. Whether directly or indirectly, I’ll be more shocked to find out there’s not some thread, however thin, that connects us to this situation. At the risk of sliding into Alex Jones/Infowars-esque territory, I find myself wondering if this pissing event isn’t a minor distraction. A “Hey, look over there!” if you will.
It frightens me that my home country has allowed itself to sink to the level where such an idea seems not only plausible, but almost a certainty.
randal says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:15pm
You might call the urination incident the tip of a very big iceberg. But it is that tip which is going to be played on Al Jazeera and viewed on youtube ad nauseum thereby providing additional fuel for the fires of terrorism. In that respect it will have an impact all out of proportion to the atrocity committed.
Jeff says:
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:33pm
Sean, agreed. Randal, agreed.
Morrison says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 1:49am
Like Grady, I don’t lament the elimination of a scientist who is working on nuclear weapons for the Iranian regime.
How would the world be better off if they had nuclear weapons?
Here is a pretty balanced Wikipedia article with lots of references…and on balance it seems that the Iranian leader would like to see Israel eliminated. He does not see this as a second Holocaust since he denies the first one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
Its pathetic to see the excuses made for this guy, just like the liberals did for Hitler in the 30′s. (And to heck with “Godwin’s Law”.)
Jeff says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 2:15am
Morrison, who’s making excuses for Ahmadinejad?
Morrison says:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:49am
Jeff, guess!
Jeff says:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:18am
Morrison, you’re going to have to humor me. I’m a terrible guesser.
If there’s anything I’m going to guess about, it’s that you consider anything short of “Ahmadinejad=Hitler” to be a liberal excuse.