DO SOLDIERS DESERVE SYMPATHY DANNY AND OTHERS
notowar | 05.09.2006 19:42 | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | World
I recognise what Danny is saying, the innocents as he calls them, this may be true - I remain open to these forms of discussions of even the inklings of our humanity and our true nature. I know of an RAF doctor and a UK soldier and quite a few ex-US soldiers who left the army because they did not want to kill, torture and participate in something they knew was wrong. But I think I am asking a separate question, do I want to cry over the death of a solider, no, as that is one less soldier killing innocent people, waging an illegal war, participating in an illegal invasion.
I also know people who use to have the views some of Danny's friends did - but guess what they woke up to something a bit courageous, its called a conscientous, humanity and choosing not to kill or be killed as a way of life. If the soldiers are innocent, naives, why can that not apply to the Labour activists? You cannot have one set of rules for one group because they are your friends and then target the rest who do not correspond with that category, a man with a gun against my head has as much power as the desk killer when it comes to firing the trigger. I have seen a policeman throw down his weapon and vow never to do that again. That is courage. Aren't the Labour idiots fed the same kind of rubbish, do they not fall for the same lines?
One of the posts used the word civilisation as some kind of justification. Just to err on the caution and make sure my education has not failed me on the description, I looked it up. Civilisation is a society with a high level of culture and social order but a high level of prejudice and killing. I hope you find it one day.
I think you have to say war is wrong and the soldiers who engage in an illegal war are wrong. Those who leave cannot be blamed, they truly are innocents but those who stay are something else, I do not know what they are if they have the views Danny claims. I know none so cannot comment.
All I am saying is where is the sympathy for the dead civilians, why can we not talk about them. I do not think it is right that the families of dead soldiers engaging in illegal battles expect sympathy from the ordinary public - after their sons or daughters have gone into a life of killing or being killed knowingly and with their consent. I do not wish their death but do not ask me to understand their plight as I would not ever want to do the same and if I did kill another human being, I hope I did not live in this world again.
Fortunately I do not know anyone who wanted to join the army - so I do not understand but I just see it as a life of state operated machinery working against liberty and democracy.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A81506
6. Our Role in the Genocide in Rwanda
Awards to: David Corn, AlterNet.org; Ellen Ray, Covert Action Quarterly AlterNet.org columnist David Corn examines a low point of Bill Clinton's foreign policy: the alleged U.S. collusion in the genocide of more than half a million Tutsi people by the Hutus in Rwanda. Corn noticed a modest news story in The New York Times which said that the Organization for African Unity had issued a report critical of the United States -- especially of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- for handling the Rwandan genocide so poorly. "But the story did not go into details," Corn wrote, "[even though] the report demolished the Clinton assertion that he had not been fully aware of the genocide when it had been under way." Ellen Ray's lengthy article about the Congo in Covert Action Quarterly echoed this condemning assertion.
Other mass killings have occurred during Rwanda's brutal history. However, under the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, once a genocide is recognized, the nations of the world are obligated to prevent the killings and to punish the murderers. A story that strongly suggests that our government knew about this horrible rampage, and might have prevented it, deserves significant media followup.3. Army Propaganda Team Worked at CNN
Award to: Alexander Cockburn, Counterpunch The corporate media has long relied on government spinmeisters to produce news during times of war. The army has entire units of men, called "psychological operations" groups, devoted in part to spreading information and propaganda to news organizations. From them, media outlets get insider, official information without having to do much reporting.
But the military took the principle way too far when it actually placed army psy-ops personnel at CNN's TV, radio, and satellite bureaus during the Kosovo war. Through a program called "Training With Industry," the army stationed five psy-ops soldiers as interns at CNN's Southeast bureau. Later, in a closed-door army symposium, a psy-ops commander said the cooperation with CNN was a textbook example of the kind of ties the American army wants to have with the media.
"The U.S. Army ... confirmed to me that military personnel have been involved in news production at CNN's newsdesks," said Abe De Vried, who first broke the story in a respected Dutch newspaper. "I found it simply astonishing. These kind of close ties with the army are, in my view, completely unacceptable for any serious news organization."
As award-winner Alexander Cockburn speculated, "It could be that CNN was the target of a psy-ops penetration and is still too naive to figure out what was going on."
One of the posts used the word civilisation as some kind of justification. Just to err on the caution and make sure my education has not failed me on the description, I looked it up. Civilisation is a society with a high level of culture and social order but a high level of prejudice and killing. I hope you find it one day.
I think you have to say war is wrong and the soldiers who engage in an illegal war are wrong. Those who leave cannot be blamed, they truly are innocents but those who stay are something else, I do not know what they are if they have the views Danny claims. I know none so cannot comment.
All I am saying is where is the sympathy for the dead civilians, why can we not talk about them. I do not think it is right that the families of dead soldiers engaging in illegal battles expect sympathy from the ordinary public - after their sons or daughters have gone into a life of killing or being killed knowingly and with their consent. I do not wish their death but do not ask me to understand their plight as I would not ever want to do the same and if I did kill another human being, I hope I did not live in this world again.
Fortunately I do not know anyone who wanted to join the army - so I do not understand but I just see it as a life of state operated machinery working against liberty and democracy.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A81506 6. Our Role in the Genocide in Rwanda
Awards to: David Corn, AlterNet.org; Ellen Ray, Covert Action Quarterly AlterNet.org columnist David Corn examines a low point of Bill Clinton's foreign policy: the alleged U.S. collusion in the genocide of more than half a million Tutsi people by the Hutus in Rwanda. Corn noticed a modest news story in The New York Times which said that the Organization for African Unity had issued a report critical of the United States -- especially of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- for handling the Rwandan genocide so poorly. "But the story did not go into details," Corn wrote, "[even though] the report demolished the Clinton assertion that he had not been fully aware of the genocide when it had been under way." Ellen Ray's lengthy article about the Congo in Covert Action Quarterly echoed this condemning assertion.
Other mass killings have occurred during Rwanda's brutal history. However, under the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, once a genocide is recognized, the nations of the world are obligated to prevent the killings and to punish the murderers. A story that strongly suggests that our government knew about this horrible rampage, and might have prevented it, deserves significant media followup.3. Army Propaganda Team Worked at CNN
Award to: Alexander Cockburn, Counterpunch The corporate media has long relied on government spinmeisters to produce news during times of war. The army has entire units of men, called "psychological operations" groups, devoted in part to spreading information and propaganda to news organizations. From them, media outlets get insider, official information without having to do much reporting.
But the military took the principle way too far when it actually placed army psy-ops personnel at CNN's TV, radio, and satellite bureaus during the Kosovo war. Through a program called "Training With Industry," the army stationed five psy-ops soldiers as interns at CNN's Southeast bureau. Later, in a closed-door army symposium, a psy-ops commander said the cooperation with CNN was a textbook example of the kind of ties the American army wants to have with the media.
"The U.S. Army ... confirmed to me that military personnel have been involved in news production at CNN's newsdesks," said Abe De Vried, who first broke the story in a respected Dutch newspaper. "I found it simply astonishing. These kind of close ties with the army are, in my view, completely unacceptable for any serious news organization."
As award-winner Alexander Cockburn speculated, "It could be that CNN was the target of a psy-ops penetration and is still too naive to figure out what was going on."
notowar
Comments
Display the following comment