Monday, October 24, 2005

Your latest Weasel Boy/wanker idiocy.


Sorry, folks, but the delightful timing here is just too delicious to pass up. Witness my very recent piece here, in which I explain how the right wing likes to leave out salient details in their sputtering outrage.

So what's got Jinx stroking himself under his bathrobe this morning? This:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An angry mob of insurgents attacked a convoy of American contractors last month when they got lost in a town north of Baghdad, killing four and wounding two, the U.S. military said on Sunday.

...

The Telegraph reported that two of the contractors not killed in the initial attack were dragged alive from their vehicle, which had been badly shot up. They were forced to kneel in the road before being killed.

"Killing one of the men with a rifle round fired into the back of his head, they doused the other with petrol and set him alight," the paper reported.

"Barefoot children, yelping in delight, piled straw on to the screaming man's body to stoke the flames."

The crowd then "dragged their corpses through the street, chanting anti-U.S. slogans," the report said.

Say, I know -- let's go to the original article and see what was so carefully excised by those ellipses, shall we (emphasis added)?

An angry mob of insurgents attacked a convoy of American contractors last month when they got lost in a town north of Baghdad, killing four and wounding two, the U.S. military said on Sunday.

The Sept. 20 attack in the mostly Sunni Arab town of Duluiyah, about 45 miles north of Baghdad, was reported for the first time on Saturday by the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph and confirmed by the military on Sunday.

The convoy, which included U.S. military guards riding in Humvees, made a wrong turn into Duluiyah and insurgents opened fire with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, Maj. Richard Goldenberg, a spokesman for Task Force Liberty in north-central Iraq, told The Associated Press.

I'm sorry -- the convoy included U.S. military guards riding in Humvees? What the fuck were they doing the whole time? Gee, you'd think it's their job to, you know, take care of contractors under their protection, no?

And what else did Jinx so delicately remove from that article? Oh ...

The Telegraph reported the contractors killed and wounded were employees of the Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, the biggest U.S. military contractor in Iraq. But Goldenberg could not confirm that.

And suddenly, your sympathy vanishes like fog in the early morning sun. Sorry, folks, but if you fake data to justify invading a helpless country, killing its civilians, stealing its resources and remaking its political structure entirely, you have to expect that some of them are going to take it badly and are going to fight back, sometimes in very nasty ways.

It's called "war," as you so frequently keep reminding us. And, frankly, the last people I plan on feeling sorry for is military contractors from Halliburton, if you catch my drift.

See what you can learn when you take the time to follow the links?

BY THE WAY, a couple more observations on the level of dishonesty in the reporting and careful editing of the news by certain members of the wankersphere, which applies to many right-wing wanks, not just Weasel Boy.

First, re-read Jinx's selective quotation here once again. Note carefully that he does not reproduce anything which suggests that there was a military component to that convoy. Check that again to make sure you see what I mean. So why does that matter?

Because if you get the impression that this was a convoy of nothing but civilian contractors, you're probably going to be outraged. But once you learn that there were U.S. soldiers and Humvees in the procession, well, that makes it a military target under the rules of engagement, doesn't it? And if the blowhards on the right keep yapping on about the "War" on "Terror," then they have no right to complain when that war happens to descend on them like a million pound shithammer, do they?

The next bit of sleazy journalism had to do with omitting the contractors' affiliation with Halliburton. And why does that matter? Because it's guaranteed to reduce the sympathy you feel for those folks.

Make no mistake -- if those contractors had been from the U.N., or CARE, or OXFAM, or the Red Cross, their affiliation would have been splashed front and center across Weasel Boy's blog. But Halliburton? Hmmmmm ... maybe just leave out that detail, readers don't really need to know that, it's just extraneous detail, nothing to see here folks, come on, move along.

Finally, of course, there's the complete myth that Jinx is "sickened" by the thought of someone being pulled from a vehicle and burned to death. And yet, where is the outrage for a "coalition" airstrike that hit a Baghdad neighborhood, killing dozens and wounding dozens more?

Make sure you prepare yourselves for the right-wing wankfest that's going to surround this story of the contractors' deaths. Four dead contractors? "Sickening." Dozens of Iraqi civilians killed in an arbitrary airstrike on a populated Baghdad neighborhood? Hey, shit happens, ya know? We call that "collateral damage."

This is war, remember?

6 comments:

Ricia said...

Add to it that Brown & Root / Halburton have (for generations now) a tidy, well-represented, participatory relationship with the Bush Admin and the CIA (eg: World War II, Bay of Pigs, etc)... and well, it does change the flavour of the article.

The news piece reads as though it surfaced from the US military ta-boot - they love to tell just such stories. The same crew whom invented "Private Jessica Lynch", claim that they "don't do body counts", cry foul if indie's capture images from the otherside of the US front- line, and who claim that every attack on US personnel are acts by "insurgents".

Some folks are really busy trying to justify their support for this war.

Jason said...

You're right, CC. The facts that guards were included in this convoy and that these people were employed by that evil, sovereign nation-invading, oil-stealing Chimpy McBushhitler's Halliburton mean these deaths aren't a bad thing. In fact, they're a GOOD thing. Yes, I shall not shed any tears for them or the families they left behind. In fact, I shall laugh at them and mock their deaths just as you do. Ha ha ha! Thank you for setting me straight with your oh so superior morality, CC. You are such a shining beacon of love, compassion, tolerance, holier-than-thou-ness, and everything else that makes liberals just the greatest people in the world.

stephen harper said...

I'll agree that these mercs are not the most admirable characters and I have been admantly opposed to the Iraq War since ever. But like countless helpless Iraqi civilians those two mercs were brutually murdered. You can't shoot prisoners - Both sides have violated this -http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1524257

War is abhorant and every death in Iraq as a death in any war is an outrage.

Who is ultimatly resposible for the Iraq War - the Bush Administration, the US Congress (esp DNC), and the corporate media. And sadly they will never be punished for their crimes.

Anonymous said...

Let me count the differences between an enlisted trooper and a mercenary:

1. The enlisted trooper is there under orders.

2. The enlisted trooper is obliged to carry out an ugly, nasty job, whether or not he wants to.

3. The mercenary has contracted to go into a war zone.

4. The mercenary is doing an ugly, nasty job because they want to.

When an enlisted man is killed or wounded in action, his blood is upon the hands of his command, and their political masters.

A mercenary's blood is their own responsibility. They can always walk out of their contracts.

Is it tragic when anyone is killed in war, yes. Am I going to shed any tears for the mercenary? Probably not, since I think the Iraq war is illegal, immoral and unjustifiable. Where the enlisted man is concerned, I hold the political masters of those troops responsible for what has happened in Iraq. Their blood is on the hands of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others.

I don't know how you come up with the DNC having much culpability vis a vis Iraq. Since Republicans have controlled the legislative body since midway through Clinton's second term, and have controlled the presidency as well since 2000, it seems to me that Bush and the rest of the republican party hold direct culpability for the decision to invade Iraq.

- Grog

stephen harper said...

Grog-

The DNC has had huge responibility for Iraq. With main party leaders and canidates such as Kerry, Liberman, Edwards, and Clinton being even more hawkish then Bush as they believe there should be more troops should be in Iraq. They have nothing worng with the military- industrial complex as they want to control it and not dismantle the American war machine.

Even 'anti-war' Dean has does not support a "bring them home now" message and he supports military action against Iran. The DNC controlled MoveOn.org did not even explictly support the recent Sept. 24 gaint DC rally and other peace vigils.

The Democrat elite have never been opposed to war esp. since the beginning of the 1990s. This alienates much of their base and conservative libertarians (antiwar.com)

Anonymous said...

Stephen -

I'm still missing something here.

How does that render the DNC culpable for Bush policy?


- Grog