Sunday, April 28, 2013

If You Want To Be A Superhero


You must fight supermonsters.

If no supermonsters are available, you need to invent them.

From Mr. Glenn Greenwald (emphasis added):
“I don’t think there is much difference [between the Boston bombing and drone strikes.] You could certainly say that one difference, and this is what people would typically say to defend what the United States does and to distinguish it, is that we are not deliberately killing civilians while the people in Boston did. And I’m not sure how true that is. There certainly are cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians.”
There are many, excellent reasons for opposing America's drone program. You could condemn it on the grounds that it is morally wrong to ever kill or injure civilians, which is certainly valid, but can just as certainly be applied to every war ever fought.  You could oppose it on grounds that it's antiseptic nature makes it too tempting to use even when the intelligence is sketchy and the consequence on the other side of the world are bloody and tragic.  You could oppose it on the simple grounds that it's stupid; that however efficient the technology might be, the net effect of the program is creating legions of otherwise ordinary people who will now passionately hate this country for their rest of their lives.  

All good points.  All worthy of discussion.

But these are not the points Mr. Greenwald is raising here.

Flensed of the weasel-wording, Mr. Greenwald's is clearly trying to assert that it is the policy of the Obama Administration to deliberately target and kill as many innocent civilians as possible, as publicly as possible.  His words admit no other interpretation which means that somewhere in the White House there must necessarily exist a Directorate for Slaughtering Innocent Civilians which is staffed by sadists who endlessly scan the Muslim world looking for random clusters of innocent men women and children (especially children) to blow to bits for no reason whatsoever beyond terrorizing the maximum number of bystanders.

Because for The League of Extraordinarily Pure Gentlemen, it is not enough that their opponents be wrong or foolish or blind.  To feed their belief in their own perfect rightness (and, conversely, to justify their skreeeeching contempt for anyone who does not agree with them 100%) they must always up the moral stakes.

For them, only cartoon villains made of pure, unalloyed evil will do.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

"And I'm not sure how true that is."

I'm pretty jaded and that STILL really pisses me off...

HitandMiss said...

Glen is really reminding me of Frankie Boyle these days;

"During the programme, and referring to the war in Afghanistan, Boyle said: "Basically, we are murdering a load of shepherds. What gets me is our callousness as a society when we read out our dead on the news first, because our lives are more important. Other people's aren't worth as much."

He then adopted a newsreader's tone, saying: "A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis."

The comic said later: "The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was the Ministry of War. 'Hello Ministry of War, department of nigger bombing, how can I help?'""

And this guy was a comedian who was drummed of the air for saying those jokes, Why? because he said some un-Pc things. The very idea that England was deliberately killing Black and brown people was offensive over here, and that was the spin used to ignore the heart of his message, that the death tole isn't really debated.

Anonymous said...

but wait...
Even more shitty shit happens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijkxlzSYQ5E

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Toll. death TOLL.

Anonymous said...

> "And I'm not sure how true that is."

And that means he thinks it's 100% true, because the words "not sure how true" admit no other interpretation.

I think your reflexive GG hate is weak and silly. No other interpretation is possible.

mahakal said...

I think his words admit of another interpretation. That is, the words that followed the words you highlighted, but which you even quoted yourself:

"There certainly are cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians."

I think that's a considerably different interpretation than, "it is the policy of the Obama Administration to deliberately target and kill as many innocent civilians as possible, as publicly as possible."

Recklessness is not the same as deliberate targeting is it?

thwap said...

Every post you type about Greenwald is an interesting case study in the bankruptcy of US liberals.

You have absolutely no idea how idiotic you sound.

Very briefly, in this single post, you take his quote:

"You could certainly say that one difference, and this is what people would typically say to defend what the United States does and to distinguish it, is that we are not deliberately killing civilians while the people in Boston did. And I’m not sure how true that is. There certainly are cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians.

and twist it (somehow) into this:

"Flensed of the weasel-wording, Mr. Greenwald's is clearly trying to assert that it is the policy of the Obama Administration to deliberately target and kill as many innocent civilians as possible, as publicly as possible. His words admit no other interpretation"

How do "cases where the United States has very recklessly killed civilians" translate into "deliberately target and kill as many innocent civilians as possible"?

Seriously?

And, as for "as publicly as possible," if you were able to read Greenwald correctly, you'd know that one of his chief complaints about Obama's murderous drone program is how Obama self-servingly manipulates revealing its very existence.

There are two funny/sad things about you.

Over and over (you cretin) you accuse Greenwald of being a purist who cannot tolerate anything but 100% devotion to his values and ideals. And yet, you yourself, in your drooling nit-wittery, believe that Greenwald is a total buffoon, clown, asshole, psychotic, because he disagrees with your hero.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse Greenwald of, and for a much lesser purpose.

The second funny thing is how your hero Obama appears (if we're to take the word of James Carville) to appreciate the opinions of David Brooks, a writer whom you spend almost as much time trashing as you do Greenwald.

You twist yourself up in knots defending Obama, and he repays you with you contempt. In the end, decent people look at you and shake their heads in despair.

Anonymous said...

As long as the targets for your distinctions are the sensibilities of your readers and strategically forgetting whatever sensibilities of the people being blown up by drones, then you fine points and very fine indeed. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

http://thisisnthappiness.com/post/49123474263/the-public-is-not-to-see-where-power-lies-how-it

Anonymous said...

I am just wondering...have you discovered some unknown revenue that may be accrued from posting the same stupid comments from the same group of asinine trolls?
Because its starting to seem like you are just setting them up at this point...Bobby Sherman and Greenwald in succession...?
Poking hornets nest for the pleasant buzzing noise?

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

They're not trolls, they are graduates of The Purity School Of Reading for (Mal)Comprehension.

Also a few acolytes of the Greenwald At All Costs Flying Monkey Brigade.

Most of them, of course, operating under anonymous mufti, as they are too pure and unsullied to actually acquire nyms. Also, it makes things very confusing, which helps.

Fritz Strand said...

I have to side with Greenwald on this one. There have been mutliple reports of secondary drone strikes on people who are attempting to clean after a primary strike.

If you want to stick with the literal text so be it, but the underlying context is the callus indifference to death and destruction. And we are the one who are suppose to be the more noble, the more civilized.










Spike said...

You really should back away from this. In a podcast, you already said you don't know where you stand on the issue due to not having enough information. You're literally mimicking a republican who can't believe people in their party is trying to oppress votes.

Second thought, that's not fair, because you do know bad things happen in our name, but you want to give Obama the benefit of a doubt on why it's happening.

I don't fault GG for the framing. What's the difference between innocent and guilty? Though we don't believe in this anymore, you're innocent until proven guilty.. We're not allow to know why we're targeting people because there's a war, so technically it's not insane to think they all may be innocent.

You need to have faith to give Obama and his actions with drones a benefit of a doubt, them being blind, wrong, or mistaken doesn't soften the result.

gratuitous said...

Well, that's a comfort and relief! We're not blowing people to bits through drone strikes with malice aforethought and careful deliberation. We're doing it because we just plain don't give a rip. And, while there are several legitimate reasons to object to raining down sudden death from the skies on unsuspected people who can't fight back or get away, if you invoke the wrong reason, your objection lacks foundation and is overruled. So mote it be.

The corpses are looking less dead and mangled already! Can't imagine why those hotheaded foreigners get all up in arms about this little program. *We* certainly don't give it much thought.

This contrivsoversy really needs to be retired, DG.

MosesZD said...

Nothing Greenwald said could be, by a reasonable person, construed to the conclusion to which you arrived.

Further, this is ample evidence that the drone program does target first responders in hopes to get any possible henchmen that may return to the scene. Another drone-warfare tactic is to bomb funerals that, sadly, have women and children present.

So, Greenwald's right. YOu're way, way, way, way, way off-base in your reflexive Greenwald hate. Which, btw, I've noticed from the Obama-bots.

The guy is a mixed bag. Pretending he isn't is worse because it's excusing what should be inexcusable behavior.

Beleck said...

what a shame. all that hate.

Beleck said...

wow, you really really dislike Greenwald, apparently just as much as you dislike David Brooks.

i have really liked listening to you and Blue Gal. this kind of "stuff" you have against Greenwald is really off putting, to say the least. while i find Greenwald too argumentative and highly esoteric, i find your attacking him creates a kind of "off-putting" viciousness. this "manner" is not welcoming to me as longtime reader. educating me to Greenwald's errors the same way you do with David Brooks' insanity is the way to undercut Greenwald if you disagree with him. as i gather, there's no "there" there with Greenwald.

a shame, i enjoyed your podcasts with Blue Gal immensely. i have followed you as you have so thoroughly proved most of your points on all sorts of things and political outlooks, mostly. this manner is what i find unwelcoming, this has a "you're not a member of the club" irony to it. Greenwald is so much more intelligent than a hundred David Brooks. criticizing Greenwald the same way you do Brooks doesn't work. i don't read Greenwald anymore due to his argumentativeness, lawyers can be so "particular" in the way they debate/talk. i find he has some valid points which i respect him for making, yet disagree with the manner he goes about making them.

I, like another commenter, don't see the "errors" you fault Greenwald for, in your writings, that is. i find this disconnect a shame after enjoying this blog for such a long long time. you have such a great blog with such a respect for details, truth and links to back up what you post on, and have been so spot on so many things for such a long time after i discovered your blog. i do thank you.

Spike said...

After taking some time, I believe understand DG's problem. With someone like GG, there's no middle ground on this particular issue and how he talks about Obama might lead to the conclusion that Obama is Hitler.

The way GG talks gives no benefit of doubt.. that Drones 'could' be useful and only focuses on its misused.

But I think GG is right, and that in our name, we're basically blowing up innocent people and calling them terrorist. We already know about signature strike, where they just bomb anything that looks fishy.

On this issue about how we use drones.. it's wrong and there is no excuse or middle ground for it.

I'm assuming there are people who follow GG and when someone tries to have a discussion on Obama, people who follow GG will shut it down and say "about the drones".

Though in truth, the drone program is something the administration has complete control over. There's an out for explaining why we gotten a weak health care bill, why we have weak gun laws, and why wall street is allow to run wild. But for this issue, it's all Obama.

kfreed said...

Which Glenn was this again? Greenwald or Beck?

I can no longer tell them apart.