Another view of Dying US Marine Photo

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Sep 8, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. US Hypocrisy Astonishes the World


    by Paul Craig Roberts
    Recently by Paul Craig Roberts: Americans: Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs

    Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

    US War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a US Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

    The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency."

    The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a "stunning lack of compassion and common decency."

    To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the War Secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: "insensitive," "offended," and the "anguish," "pain and suffering" inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

    Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals – Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the US Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

    Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the US government and a significant percentage of the US population believe that the US has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

    For the American War Secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

    The exceptional "virtuous nation" does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On September 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the "insensitive" photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a US/Nato air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

    "‘Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in."

    What does the world think of the United States? The American War Secretary and a US military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

    The US government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated US law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the US Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the "criminal disclosure" of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

    The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

    Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

    The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the US and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the US and its allies.

    Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

    This is the way many Americans think. America über alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

    The attitude of the "freedom and democracy" US government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Senator Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about "irreparable damage" to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those "back stabbers" who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Senator Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

    This is where the US government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

    Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

    September 7, 2009

    Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail], a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts271.html
     
  2. Mr. Roberts may need another layer of tinfoil on his hat.

    This is the same guy who says 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy and that the towers could not have fallen based on the damage from the planes and fires.

    On 9/11 I was at work and the men in the next two offices are both experienced civil engineers. As we watched the events together that morning the engineers started saying "Oh no!, the whole structure will come down" I said that the fire was up top and heat will rise but they started into engineering issues and said the buildings would fail structurally and pancake down. They, sadly, were correct.
     
  3. Merely an example of what we suspected would happen, the liberals using the tragic death of a soldier to further their own agenda.
     
  4. OOOOoo-kay then. :roll: I never heard of this guy before but it doesn't take long to see where he's coming from. :twisted: He believes in the black helicopters piloted by black ninjas from the CIA. :threaten: "US War Secretary Gates" :? I've never heard him called by that name before nor has the US had a War Department since WW II.
     
  5. Well there is no doubt which side of the fence he is on, I alomst expected the author to be a radicalised British Muslim/George Galloway. It seems the US has its own white extremists. The only part I agree with is the fact that taking a photograph did not of itself injure and kill the marine. Is its release any better/worse than the famous Vitenam photo of the girl running and screaming in pain?
     
  6. Even he does not know where he is coming from. He is an extreme right wing libertarian nutjob. At some point in the politican spectrum the right wing nutjobs and the left wing nutjobs seem to meet up.
     
  7. It is interesting how that occurs and yet they never seem to collide! :D
     
  8. Foaming nuttery aside, he does have a point on the hypocrisy of US officialdom. When did you last hear an official of any administration criticise the publishing of photos of Iraqi of Afghan dead on the grounds of the 'distress' it would cause to their relatives?
     
  9. For what it is worth I know the senior lawyer in the DoD responsible for such matters and I can assure you it is his adamant position that such things not be published consistent with our treat obligations.
     
  10. But those are two different things. This is a private newspaper being criticised for publishing a photo of a dying US serviceman when similar organs have published photos of dead and dying enemy combatants/foreign civpop with no similar condemnation from US officials.

    I didn't in any way intend to say that official US sources would publish photos like that of non-US pax. I'm not aware of any situation of that kind.
     
  11. I can't speak to what is anything DoD did regarding such pubilications other than I recall some efforts in that vein in GW1.
     
  12. I hate to see any pictures of any coalition troops wounded, dying or dead, but surely we, the West, can't moan when we publish pictures of terrorist and civilian wounded, dying and dead.

    edited to make sense.