Greenwald: The Authoritarian Mind

[woo me with science]

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/the_authoritarian_mind_2/
Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:25 AM UTC


The Authoritarian Mind
Yet another Afghan family (and a bakery in Pakistan) is extinguished by an airstrike: unleash the justifications
By Glenn Greenwald

....
The LA Times identified the victims as “Mohammed Shafi, his wife and his six children,” and cited the statements from the spokesman for the Paktia governor’s office that “there is no evidence that Shafi was a Taliban insurgent or linked with Al Qaeda.” The Afghan spokesman blamed the incident on the refusal of NATO to coordinate strikes with Afghan forces to ensure civilians are not targeted (“If they had shared this with us, this wouldn’t have happened”). Also yesterday:

An American drone fired two missiles at a bakery in northwest Pakistan Saturday, killing four suspected militants, officials said, as the U.S. pushed ahead with its drone campaign despite Pakistani demands to stop. This was the third such strike in the country in less than a week. . . .The officials said the victims were buying goods from a bakery when the missiles hit. Residents were still removing the debris, officials said. All of the dead were foreigners, but the officials did not have any information on their identities or nationalities.

All of this is so widely tolerated, even cheered, among large factions of the American citizenry due to three premises:

(1) I have absolutely no idea who my government is continuously bombing to death by drone, but I assume they deserve it;
(2) when my government extinguishes the lives of entire families, including small children, as it often does, I know it’s all for a just and important cause even if I can’t identify it; and,
(3) we have to stop the Terrorists, because they keep killing innocent civilians.

That’s the Authoritarian Mind, and it appears everywhere the Imperial Mind does.

[Robb]

1. Is there a non-Salon link somewhere to read this?

Thanks.

[msanthrope]

11. The non-salon links indicate that the civilian deaths didn't happen,

which is why I suspect I hear crickets....see post 10, below.

[Robb]

61. Greenwald, by his paycheck, is an anti-union asshole.

He is not however a hypocrite, since most libertarians are anti-union.

[Odin2005]

2. It's OK when we do it!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Thank you, St. Greenwald the Pure. n/t

[SidDithers]

4. +1...

Libertarian clowns are the best clowns.

Sid

[dionysus]

62. i think we should send douchewald on a fact finding mission to kabul...

[Number23]

15. heh...

[PDJane]

5. I can hear the cry now. "But they HATE us."

Maybe if you weren't killing bakers and rounding up civilians they wouldn't??? What a concept.

[2on2u]

6. That yeast, some dangerous stuff, swells up and all that. Good thing

they took care of that little problem.

[quinnox]

7. Yup, they have a tendency to trust authority and "official" sources

Its pretty easy to notice these types. THey always think nothing is legitimate unless it has official approval, either from the government or the mainstream, and if it doesn't, well then, it must be dubious or untrue.

As if the government would never or has never lied to people, or that they don't keep secrets and cover shit up.

[Summer Hathaway]

20. It's just as easy

to notice the other types - those who accept anything their favorite blogger says (i.e. someone whose views they tend to agree with), despite the fact that he is expressing his opinion rather than fact.

They always think nothing is legitimate unless their idol (e.g. Greenwald) has opined on the topic - in which case they hold out his opinion as the unquestionable truth.

[EFerrari]

33. Is this your belief about "them" or is this what "some people" say?

LOL

[Summer Hathaway]

53. Exactly my point

Which "them" one believes, and which people are the "some people" who are listened to, are a matter of one's validation, as opposed to a matter of fact.

[EFerrari]

63. So, on what basis are you constructing this equivalency?

Or is it a talent for clairvoyance?

I myself appreciated Greenwald's contribution to getting that scum bucket Brennan off the short list for heading up the CIA, for his work on demystifying the FBI's bogus case against Bruce Ivins, for bringing to light the attacks on Wikiileaks and for being instrumental in getting Brad Manning out of solitary.

None of that is a matter of belief. Maybe you need to postulate a third group of well read people who enjoy being presented with facts to evaluate, a group that includes notorious lemmings like Chomsky and Amy Goodman.

[Summer Hathaway]

70. My point being

that many here who declare that some people don't accept what they hear/read unless it comes from an 'official source' are themselves apt to accept anything said/written by a blogger they agree with - and often do so without hesitation, in the same way others swallow the 'official version' of things without question.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. This is why I think Republican/Democrat is largely irrelevant anymore.

There are so many authoritarians in this party trying, with considerable success, to drown out or shout down the rest of us that participating becomes a thoroughly unpleasant experience. And that's what keeps the other party alive.

[Summer Hathaway]

23. Have you posted this sentiment

on Republican websites as well?

If you honestly believe that being a Republican or a Democrat has become largely irrelevant, it would seem only fair to apprise both parties' voters of your views on the topic.

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. I don't post at republican websites, why would I want to subject myself to that trial?

There is more than enough RW crap right here to satisfy my morbid curiosity.

I also never said being R or D was irrelevant, rather that the true defining characteristic amongst us all is whether or not we yearn for some hierarchical chain of command that can be used to beat others into submission. At least that was my intent.

[Summer Hathaway]

54. Huh?

"This is why I think Republican/Democrat is largely irrelevant anymore."

"I also never said being R or D was irrelevant."

Ah, yes, you did. Right there.

Your intent is clear - your contradictory delivery could use some work.

[nolabels]

57. Yep, the 1% gets your blessing

They might even vote for you with their dollars, you should run for office!

[Summer Hathaway]

71. So pointing out that someone

stated something, then denied stating it, means the 1% 'gets my blessing'?

Congratulations on winning this week's Complete Non-Sequitar in Replying to a Post Award!

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. You're right, I worded it badly. The parties, not their membership are irrelevant.

They are both working for the same people toward the same goals, and those goals are not beneficial to us.

[Summer Hathaway]

72. Thanks for the clarification

which leads to my re-asking the question: Do you post the same 'they're all the same' comments on Republican sites?

It seems that if both parties are working towards the same non-beneficial goals, Republican voters should have equal access to the information you're so anxious to share.

[sabrina 1]

32. I have accused Republicans of being sheep, following their leaders without question, not showing

an iota of compassion for the dead babies and other victims of the bombs they unquestioningly support, on their blogs, well, on mixed blogs which they used to dominate.

What I noticed most about Republicans under Bush was their complete inability to be moved even by dead children. When this was pointed out to them, they either changed the subject or blamed the parents for being wherever they were, even when it was a wedding party or a market. Totally irrational thinking was what I saw. They could not relate at all to the horrendous grief of a parent seeing their child blown to bits by bombs and drones.

Democrats otoh, during that time, mourned the innocent victims and condemned the indiscriminate killing. I was proud to be a Democrat and not one of them, heartless, cruel, ignorant and bigoted, that most of all. Because to them, only American lives are valuable. Iow, imho from my experience engaging them, I decided they were sociopaths.

[woo me with science]

43. And this sums it up.

Thank you for cutting through the bullshit.

[Odin2005]

59. Politics has devolved into a sport for the masses.

Policies no longer matter, all that matters is that "your" side wins.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. We have to keep killing Innocent civilians to stop the terrorists from killing innocent civilians.

Wow! Only freeper logic can rationalize that one.

[msanthrope]

10. Funny--Afghanistan has yet to provide evidence these deaths occurred. Greenwald was punked.

This was not an American-led 'drone strike' as Mr. Greenwald indicates in his bolded part, but a NATO cover strike that took place after insurgents attacked NATO forces...Using the link provided by Mr. Greenwald:

A large number of insurgents attacked NATO troops in the province, prompting them to return fire and ask for air support from a nearby base, said Maj. Martyn Crighton, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/afghanistan-violence/index.html

Funnily enough, as of last week, Afghanistan provided no evidence that the deaths even happened....

Kabul -- The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday disputed reports that eight civilians, including children, were killed in a NATO air strike in a remote part of eastern Afghanistan.

Afghan officials said an air strike Saturday night killed eight members of a family, but a senior NATO official said there is no evidence so far of civilian casualties. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/27/MNK41OODSR.DTL#ixzz1wloOF6BG

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/27/MNK41OODSR.DTL

Any actual evidence that the strike killed 8 civilians, or are we just taking the word of a biased regional spokesman?????

[Luminous Animal]

13. You are conflating two different stories. Greenwald clearly cites CNN that the family was killed

in a NATO operation in Afghanistan. In fact, this is his 2nd paragraph (he even bolded the sentence containg "NATO&quot :

A suspected NATO airstrike killed eight civilians — including six children — in eastern Afghanistan, a provincial spokesman said.

The reference to drones was about an entirely different incident in Pakistan.

Are we going to take the word of an ANONYMOUS NATO spokesperson. Funny how the west makes the claim of "no evidence" has to eat crow weeks or months later.

[msanthrope]

16. No--it's the same story...you note that I used Greenwald's own link.

Both links refer to the same incident. Karzai was supposedly sending some fact-finding mission to the province, but this story hasn't been updated since....wonder why....

[Luminous Animal]

17. Sigh. There are 3 links. The 1st 2 relate to one incident the 3rd to the another incident.

Story #1: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/afghanistan-violence/index.html
Afghan official: NATO airstrike kills 8 family members and
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/05/afghan-authorities-nato-air-strike-kills-eight-civilians.html
Afghan authorities: NATO air strike kills eight civilians


Story #2: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/05/26/world/asia/ap-as-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp
U.S. Drone Attack Kills 4 in Pakistan

[msanthrope]

19. And my second link is about the first incident....I make no reference to the Pakistani one.

Again....show me the proof of 8 civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

Show me....

[Luminous Animal]

21. It was you who stated this: "This was not an American-led 'drone strike' as Mr. Greenwald indicates"

I correctly pointed out that Greenwald clearly identified the strike in Afghanistan as a NATO strike.

Again your quote:
"This was not an American-led 'drone strike' as Mr. Greenwald indicates in his bolded part".

The bolded part that you seem to have problems with was NOT referring to the incident in Afghanistan reported by CNN and LA Times. It was referring a drone strike in Pakistan reported by the NY Times.

You are criticizing Greenwald for something he did not do.

I have no proof that those 8 civilians were killed in Afghanistan. Nor, do you have any confirmation that they weren't. What I do know is that Greenwald relayed information from mainstream news that reported on the deaths. As yet, NATO has not reported back with the results of their investigation. What I do know is that the U.S. & NATO regularly denying killing civilians then later admitting that they had.

[msanthrope]

27. Are you saying that the first story, and the first bolded point do not match up?

Who the frak taught Greenwald to write? If his legal briefs were written this way, no wonder he isn't practicing anymore.

[Luminous Animal]

30. What are you talking about?

1. Title of the article (note, does not mention drones).

The Authoritarian Mind

2. Subtitle of the story (note, does not mention drones).

Yet another Afghan family (and a bakery in Pakistan) is extinguished by an airstrike: unleash the justifications

3. First paragraph refers to an article he wrote yesterday and links to a CNN article (note, does not mention drones).

4. Second & third paragraphs provide a snip of the CNN article with clearly mentions a NATO bombing in Afghanistan (note does not mention drones).

5. Fourth paragraph provides a snip on the same story from the LA Times that also clearly mentions the NATO bombing. The last sentence provides a link of a NY Times article to an entirely different bombing of a bakery in Pakistan.

6. Fifth & sixth paragraph provide a snip of the NY Times article which does mention drones because this was indeed a drone killing!

7. The next paragraph and points #1, #2, & #3 address drones, killing families, and U.S. citizens justifications for #1 & #2.

[msanthrope]

34. Since you can decipher Greenwald, show me where the civilian deaths were confirmed?

Please note that Greenwald's own links indicate that Karzai was sending out a fact finding mission. Any update from them?

Bet there isn't one.

Now....take your analysis above.....

2. Subtitle of the story (note, does not mention drones).

Yet another Afghan family (and a bakery in Pakistan) is extinguished by an airstrike: unleash the justifications

7. The next paragraph and points #1, #2, & #3 address drones, killing families, and U.S. citizens justifications for #1 & #2.

See, it's right there...he reversed the order of discussion. Thank you for pointing that out. A better writer would have symmetry. The order of discussion would remain consistent throughout the piece. Here, Greenwald, in point 2 does afghanistan/airstrike/family then Pakistan/drone strike/militant, and then does reverse order in point 7. And I assumed he kept his bakery strikes consistent....

Be that as it may, do you have any confirmation from the Karzai government that civilians did die? I'm not talking about the regional spokesman, but the result of the fact-finding Mr. Karzai promised?

[Luminous Animal]

39. Hahaha!!!

You do amuse me!

No, I have found no confirmation and no denial, even from NATO. This is not unusual. Official confirmation usually happens long after the killing of civilians. Long enough to push it to the back of our minds. When the LA Times, the NY Times, CNN, the SF Chronicle, FOX News, San Jose Mercury, ABC News, Globe & Mail, NPR, Miami Herald, etc., do a follow up, I'll let you know. And, I am sure they will. They did a crackerjack job before and during the Iraq war so the MUST be doing a great job reporting on Afghanistan.

[msanthrope]

46. I would have thought the subject matter of the thread precluded laughter. nt

[Bonobo]

14. So here's an idea. Let's see if you can do this:

Try saying:

"If the US drone strikes killed an innocent person at a bakery, I utterly condemn them as a tool which is inflicting terror into ordinary citizens going about daily life."

Then, if we find out it is true, you can still maintain that you have some humanity while if we do not find out it is true, you can still feel like a "pragmatic kind of sort of middle of the road kind of guy"

[msanthrope]

18. No.

If actual civilian deaths happened, then I think it's disgusting and horrible. There's no excuse for civilian deaths.

But I'm going to wait until there are actual civilian deaths...not imaginary ones used by Mr. Greenwald, who simply does not give a flying frak about these deaths, but has a third-party agenda. His exact words...

26:18
And that’s the position that so many liberals and progressives have been in. Which is, you know, really finding Democratic policies to be repellant and yet at the same time, at the end of the day saying, well you’ve convinced me that they’re just a tiny, little bit worse. And the only way to break that is to say well, even though I know that by abstaining or supporting a third party, I’m going to be sacrificing some of my short term political interests; I’m going to be causing a few more Republicans to be elected than otherwise might be elected; on balance, I’m willing to sacrifice my short term interests in order to do something to subvert the stranglehold that these two parties have on the political process because electing more Democrats, even though it’s a little less scary, accomplishes nothing good. And everyone’s going to have to decide for themselves when they get to that point, and I think and hope that that point is pretty close. And if Obama does move to the center as the consensus is telling him that he should and starts doing things like cutting Social Security, which they’re revving up to do if they can get consensus on, in a very short period of time, I think you’re gonna see lots and lots of progressives and Democrats – even people who hated the Naderites for abandoning the party, start to entertain those options, and a lot sooner rather than later. And I hope that’s the case.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Who are you voting for in 2012?

[SidDithers]

22. Good post...

Sid

[msanthrope]

29. Thank you...that particluar talk of Mr. G ought to be quote mined each and

every time that Libertarian is posted here.

[Luminous Animal]

31. It should. Thanks for posting it.

[msanthrope]

35. You support his call for voting Third Party? Who are you voting for in 2012? nt

[Luminous Animal]

40. I support a robust political system that can engage its citizens with depth and breadth.

And my electoral activities are my own business.

[msanthrope]

41. Well, I think you've answered. Thank you . nt

[sabrina 1]

51. Interesting sig line.

Mario Savio:

On Free Speech: To me, freedom of speech is something that represents the very dignity of what a human being is. That's what marks us off from the stones and the stars. You can speak freely. It is really the thing that marks us as just below the angels. (1994)

On Freedom and Resistance:"There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop, And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all." (1964)

For some reason, following this sub-thread, it struck me as ironic.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Ironic indeed

Mario sums up why I have a hard time 'getting with the program'.

[sabrina 1]

69. It's our job to get our representatives in the Dem Party to stick to the program they ran on.

But we are told that is not a good idea to bother them whenever 'there is an election coming up'. And I have the exact opposite view. Lobbyists are flooding DC with bags of money representing their various bosses, special interests. Representatives are hearing from THEM every day.

The people do not have that kind of money or time to spend in DC. What they do have to bargain with is their votes. Therefore the very best time to influence them is when they need something from us.

The very worst strategy in any situation is to NOT play the cards you have at an opportune moment. I would love to know who the moron is who decided the people should just 'shut up and vote'. Talk about a losing strategy, for the people. Of course it works great for the Corps.

I doubt Mario would have gone along with such failed strategy, you'd almost think it was the work of the Corps. The people are basically ignored once the election is over, until the next one, when once again they will be told to 'shut up and vote'.

We should never allow them to think they can take our votes for granted. Even if they can. Which is why I see these demands to know who people are going to vote for, as questions that should not be answered. It's like 'showing your hand' which is a sure way to lose.

The people are 'out of aces' to quote Kenny Rogers in The Gambler and we need to play our cards right if we are to even break even. Let them sweat a little, it won't hurt them one bit, but it hurts the people when they listen to the guys with bags of money and ignore those they take for granted:

On a warm summer's evenin' on a train bound for nowhere
I met up with the gambler, we were both too tired to sleep
So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness
'Til boredom overtook us and he began to speak

He said, "Son, I've made a life, out of readin' people's faces
And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes
So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces
For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice"

So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow
Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light
And the night got deathly quiet and his face lost all expression
Said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right"

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done

Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep

And when he finished speakin', he turned back towards the window
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep
And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done

Every one is playing in this game, except the people. Political operatives, Lobbyists, Corporations, Politicians, all have a strategy to get what they want, all except the people.

I think actually We The People need to Incorporate frankly. Then WE TOO can have Lobbyists in DC speaking on our behalf, because right now, no one is. And that's the way they like it, so we need to change the game imho.


The base of the party have allowed themselves to be taken for granted. Even if they know that in the end the base will vote for them, it will make them just a little bit nervous and maybe more inclined to pay a bit more attention to them when they are not 100% certain. Which is why no one should show their hand when some out of line individual demands to know what cards they are holding.

Lol, sorry about the song, don't know why I thought about it after reading this subthread, but I had a vision of someone demanding to know what strategy a gambler was going to use before the game began, and what kind of reaction such a demand might get.

Mario would be appalled!

[whatchamacallit]

75. You're a trip Sabrina

A good trip

[woo me with science]

76. Hear hear.

This reminder cannot be given often enough.

[sabrina 1]

42. There are documented civilian deaths from drones since the Bush years.

This is just the latest. In Pakistan, and yes, the victims have names and there are ongoing lawsuits in Pakistan for the loss of life of loved ones, including children. They all were disputed by the US in the beginning, but nearly all eventually, had to be confirmed in the face of so much evidence. It's hard to raise children from the dead.

This will be confirmed eventually as were all the others. It was easy to call those brown people 'liars' no Rightwinger was ever going to dispute that. But Democrats have always held to a different standard. The facts and the truth matter and dead children matter even if they are considered to be disposable by some in this society, for political purposes.

Here are just a few links to help you catch up to the killing of civilians with drones. There is no shortage of news stories of these tragic events going back to 2004. It's hard to believe anyone who has been awake, thinks Glenn Greenwald is the only person who ever mentioned them so therefore no civilians were ever killed.

The first graphic description of a drone attack came from a British journalist, who happened to be present when it happened, back during the Bush years. Every decent person in the world was horrified by his description. It was hard to read, and hard to express the anger it evoked, pieces of children, mothers fighting over them, in order to have something to bury. No decent human being condones this.

Just three of the thousands of links available.

Drone operators blamed in airstrike that killed Afghan civilians in February

As many as 23 people were killed in the attack in Uruzgan province, where a strike intended for what military officials believed was an insurgent force hit a civilian convoy. The incident was condemned by the Afghan cabinet as "unacceptable," and it prompted Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, to apologize to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The U.S. military said in a statement that four senior officers were reprimanded and two junior officers were admonished in connection with the strike -- disciplinary actions that could damage their careers.

That was in 2010.

C.I.A. Drones Kill Civilians in Pakistan

The civilian death toll appeared to be among the worst in the scores of strikes carried out recently in Pakistan’s tribal areas by the C.I.A., which runs the drones. Local residents and media reports said as many as 40 people had been killed in all, though the intelligence official disputed that.

That was 2011

Drone attacks in Pakistan

A compilation of various strikes and various different claims of how many civilians have died. Official CIA sources believe NO civilians have died. To them every foreign, brown person young and old, is a terrorist.

I think every American should be appalled that this is going on their name. But the Right jumps for joy every time we kill some 'ayrabs' and the left who used to be appalled has suddenly gone silent, except for a few.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Here is Tom Dispatch during the Bush years...

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174975/slaughter_lies_and_video_in_afghanistan

Tomgram: Slaughter, Lies, and Video in Afghanistan

Each of these events was marked by something else -- the uniformity of the U.S. response: initial claims that U.S. forces had been fired on first and that those killed were the enemy; a dismissal of the slaughters as the unavoidable "collateral damage" of wartime; and, above all, an unwillingness to genuinely apologize for, or take real responsibility for, having wiped out groups of celebrating locals.

And keep in mind that such disasters are just subsets of a far larger, barely covered story. In July alone, for example, the U.S. military and NATO officials launched investigations into three air strikes in Afghanistan in which 78 Afghan civilians (including that wedding party) were killed.

Since the Afghan War began in 2001, such "incidents" have occurred again and again. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration, in combination with the Pentagon, has devised a method for dealing with such happenings. After all, the Global War on Terror is premised on an unspoken belief that the lives of others -- civilians going about their business in distant lands -- are essentially of no importance when placed against American needs and desires. That, you might say, is the value of none.

[sabrina 1]

47. It's ludicrous and disingenuous for anyone who has been half awake since this drone program began

to pretend that civilians have not been killed. Even 12 year olds I know are aware and horrified by it. And the pattern is and has always been the same. The US denies civilians were killed, foreign journalists sometimes arrive and check the evidence, officials and tribal leaders and of course the missing children etc, not to mention that they are intelligent people, end up making it impossible to deny.

[sabrina 1]

50. I remember those reports very well.

civilians going about their business in distant lands -- are essentially of no importance when placed against American needs and desires.

Despicable. I remember someone went to Iraq before the invasion and took photos of many Iraqi citizens, mothers, fathers, children, going about their business. They were gracious to their visitor and posed smilingly and happily for the photos.

The photos were put online with the question 'what will happen to these people if we go to war in Iraq'. Later, there was an attempt to try to find them, but as far as I know, it was not possible once the war began.

There was also a website set up after the 2004 with many Americans holding signs telling the world 'We are sorry'. No one can say that we on the Left did not try to stop all this horror, but we failed.

[msanthrope]

45. "Those brown people?" I think you should edit, or make clear what you meant. nt

[sabrina 1]

49. Excuse me?? They are not white people, are they?

My Iraqi friend considers himself brown and he's proud of it. What on earth are you talking about?

Bigotry is a hallmark of our 'foreign policy'. Would you like me to quote some of our 'hero' Generals' words regarding the people whose countries we invaded? Here's a sample from Gen Miller: 'Treat the Iraqis like dogs' or when asked how many human beings had died in some of the bombing, another US General: 'We don't do body counts'. Well of course, why would you count the bodies of such lesser beings? They DO count the bodies of Americans.

And don't forget ever that in order to dehumanize them even further so that killing them and their children (I have lots of photos I can show you, I followed this massive war crime from day one) would be easier, it had to be pointed out that they were not white, that they are different, the other so they are 'ragheads', 'camel jockies' 'sand n*****s' etc. etc. Yes, our wars are pure bigotry aside from from all the other things they are.

Do you still deny that drones kill innocent civilians, btw? I can provide lots more evidence, fathers, mothers, lawsuits etc. the stories are endless, because the victims are many, and they were loved and cherished by their families, just as children here are loved and cherished by their families. The grief of an Afghan mother is not different from the grief of any other mother.

Women do suffer so much from our wars, brown women mostly, you would think that American women would stand up in solidarity with them and rail against the harm being done to them. Some do, and that is women's movement I am interested in.


Now that you know innocent civilians including children are being killed, you will condemn it as you said you would, I'm sure.

.

[woo me with science]

77. Oh for fuck's sake.

Sheesh.

[DeSwiss]

12. K&R

''Power never takes a back step, only in the face of more power.'' ~Malcolm X

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. The Authoritarian Mind he describes seem to be on display here.

[bvar22]

25. Amazing, isn't it.

The clowns never know when to stay inside their little car.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Octafish]

68. Don't cross the national security state.

They hate that, en Dude masse.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. in spades, too.

darkly amusing, but the show gets old for long stretches. and if anything they're at least good at filibustering something to exhaustion. still has absolutely zero bearing on being right, though. tragic, they'll never see that; like an endless litany of the bad SNL sketches over the ages.

[Oilwellian]

26. It's time to end this war

Even here, on a democratic website, you see those who will defend these appalling attacks on civilians. It's hideous to witness the defense of war crimes and doesn't forebode well for the democratic party.

K&R

[whatchamacallit]

37. Reading the responses in this thread

it's apparent some "liberals" believe everyone we've killed deserved the shit out of it.

[woo me with science]

38. Talk about a weird flashback to Republicans under Bush.

All the same responses and attitudes. It's nothing short of nauseating to see it here.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Even the terrorists disguised as children 'deserved' it. I really

hope I don't need to use the thingy.

But you never know here in 'Extra-Judicial Executions-R-Us'-Land.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. Whatever it takes to defend Obama......

even the killing of innocents...it seems.

Sickening.

[_ed_]

56. Some Democrats only care about supporting the Personality of the Day

Others care about actual principles. That's the difference you see in this thread. I'm sure all the people criticizing Greenwald were in full support of Bush Unitary Executive theory, right? Or else that was all a show to get the other political party elected, regardless of what they do in office. It makes me sick.

[Odin2005]

58. "It's OK when WE do it!!!"

Fuck that attitude!!!

[raouldukelives]

65. The Authoritarian mind knows no boundaries. nt

[cosmicaug]

48. Civilians.

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

I believe as long as they are males of a certain age, they are considered combatants by our fearless leader as long as it is thought that there was an insurgent in the general vicinity (and the reports say 4 were killed*). I guess that makes Mohammed Shafi a combatant for sure.

Black is white, by the way. So says the newest memo.

* It looks like I mixed up my stories. Anyway, I'm sure that Mohammed Shafi fellow must have deserved it.

[Odin2005]

60. And the resident authoritarians have arrived to prove him right.

[Electric Monk]

67. It's funny how they seem oblivious to the irony.

[boppers]

73. Who would challenge Greenwald's authority on this issue?

The irony is thick, indeed.