March 21, 2006

Juan Cole on the Top Ten Catastrophes of the Third Year of American Iraq.

Staggering.

posted by Chyren 18 years ago
  • Kids throw rocks at US soldiers in convoy. Soldiers express the desire to shoot at the kids (Google video). Yeah, you're in real mortal danger from the rocks, you fucking asshole.
  • Over the radio: "Two-zero now has a busted windshield. Thank you for not authorising force." I can't possibly come up with a comment for this that's coherent, on account of how incredibly pissed off and depressed that video made me. Jesus. I'm going to go curl up in a corner and cry for the state of the world.
  • He was a Bad Man! I am ashamed of you people, especially as you were absolutely right.
  • That's what the helmets and body armour are for, you thick twat.
  • If those kids would've been American college students, and over a hundreds yards away, they would've been shot.
  • Not if they were white.
  • It's happened before. Yes they were white.
  • You think I haven't heard of Kent State? That kind of shit probably wouldn't happen now. Not because that the powers that be have any more regard for human life these days, but that they are tremendously more conscious of media and bad publicity. Media is much more influential in actual politics now. Today, you could not stop footage and stills hitting the net and flooding the wires; you would have it in real time. Back in those days they still fucking segregated people & it was considered ok; Kent State was all hippy students disobeying authority.. society was different. Now, you might get contractors aka mercenaries hired in to do a bit of shall we say population control in the case of a major disaster, such as Katrina, but you would never hear about it except in the conspiracy pages. If they ever start shooting into crowds in the US today, I'll expect martial law to already have come into full effect.
  • I don't know man. Katrina showed that they think they're immune to bad publicity and the media. Hell every action they've performed before Katrina helped prove this was the case. They have been immune. No matter the scale of the fuck up, they still get good press. If they just walked onto a campus and started shooting indiscriminantly, the news would point out how it was a necessary step in stopping terrorism. (It occured to me that it was unfair of me, and kind of shitty, to assume you were aware of a US-centric event that happened over thirty-five years ago. That's why I linked it.)
  • mesa apologise for being snappy.
  • I dig. I was just trying to point out that when there's a cultural mindset that says it's okay to shoot your own citizens for the trivial act of throwing rocks from a great distance, it should be of no suprise that there's a desire to shoot enemy civilians for the trivial act of rock throwing at a close distance. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if their superiors continuously send them to that spot to do U-turns (that is what they did there, and he did make it sound like they are sent there often), just so they do get desensitized to the idea of killing children.
  • I'm going with Mr. Knick on the "shoot and get a medal" theory. Especially that bullshit with the Gretna police department during Katrina. The Gretna City Council passed a measure of support for the Chief of Police's decision to block the bridge, which continues to be a topic of controversy in Greater New Orleans. Fuckholes.
  • They have been immune. No matter the scale of the fuck up, they still get good press. If they just walked onto a campus and started shooting indiscriminantly, the news would point out how it was a necessary step in stopping terrorism. I agree with Mr. Knickers on this point. Bad publicity is no longer a concern for this administration, if it ever was. All they have to do is say, "it was to protect the country from terrorism", and that makes it a-ok. Look at the wiretapping scandal. Americans are ready to lay down their rights in order to be "protected from terrorism", even though there's no evidence that any protection is provided. /choking_on_own_rage
  • I do think this blantant contempt will advantagous for us in the long run. It's taken a long time to get the ball rolling, but it is starting to role. It took a couple years after watergate for the public to swallow how shitty Nixon was. The public has a larger pill to swallow now, and it taken sometime for it to work its way down. But the pill's been swallowed, and has started to dissolve into the bloodstream— we should start feeling the effects soon.
  • I'm not so sure the ball is "starting to role" (sic). In the Nixon era there was an agressive, investigative press that was responsible for the undoing of a morally corrupt Republican white house. Today there is the bizarre juxtaposition of a media said by most to be liberal, while Rush Limbaugh and Fox News thrive, and while no one in the white house press corps will ask the tough questions and demand meaningful answers. The majority of US citizens feel that Bush is doing wrong, the majority or world citizens feel that Bush is doing wrong, what more do we need? Democracy honors majority, the US constitution provides a manner in which to oust a President that is seen unfit, so why do we wait?
  • I think all of the people who were very in favor of this invasion/occupation have been very forthcoming in admitting that the many arguments against such actions were in fact correct. Furthermore they have readily admitted that the neoconservative positions and their methods to achieve this war were unscrupulous at best.
  • Wait, wait - ha ha! - Oh man what am I saying. No they haven't. They've been reality-defying, crass, arrogant, insane assholes about it. As usual.
  • Great article, hom-man. Now I feel happy.
  • WELL SAID!!