Henry Kissinger Dead

[laughing dog]

“Blatant disregard for basic humanity”

Now estimated that 80 percent of Gazans have been internally displaced.

Massacres have consequences.

View attachment 44832

The problem is that Hamas did the fucking around and the people do the finding out.

The Palestinians are victims--but of Iran, not of Israel.

The Palestinian civilians of Gaza are victims of Hamas, Iran and Israel.

 

[Derec]

The problem is that Hamas did the fucking around and the people do the finding out.

Yes, but at the same time the 10/7 attacks enjoy overwhelming support among Palestinians.

The Palestinians are victims--but of Iran, not of Israel.

Iran is pulling the strings, yes. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the Houthis are all puppets of IRGC.

 

[Derec]

That’s nice, Derec. So you approve of Israel slaughtering vast numbers of innocent Palestinians, most of them children,

First of all, "most of them children" is not accurate. Even Hamas numbers put the number of "children" (by which they mean everybody under 18, not just true children) at 40%. Which is hardly "most". Note that <18s are ~50% of the population, and therefore minors are actually underrepresented among the victims. Consider also that many of the Hamas fighters are teenagers under 18. Therefore, just being a minor does not necessarily mean "innocent civilian".
That said, I do not rejoice at killing of civilians. But civilians coming to harm is a necessary evil of war, esp. urban warfare. Ultimately all of this is the fault of Hamas, who not only started this war with their unprovoked attack on Israel, but also are hiding and placing their weapons next to and under civilian infrastructure.

for the terrror attack perpetrated by a few?

Hamas is not really "few". It is estimated that there have been ~40k Hamas fighters in Gaza before 10/7. IDF says they killed ~5k and I hope that's an underestimate - plenty are buried under the collapsed tunnels no doubt. But 40k represents ~10% of Gazan military age male population, which is not a small fraction. Much less "a few". Add to that all those who support Hamas but are not fighters - that is probably around half of the adult population, if not more.

No wonder you love Henry Kissinger.

Did I say I love him? No. I just don't hate him.

Were going to ignore the important little history lesson I gave you, Derec?

Too many threads to respond in a timely manner, I'm afraid. I am behind on at least half a dozen.

 

[Derec]

This is so silly for another reason: if you read the journalism/books that detail Kissinger's impact on the Laotians, the Chileans, etc., it's in the context of Nixon's administration. It's Nixon + Kissinger doing these things. So...are we going to posit antiQuaker plus antisemitism? You'd have to show me a record of any serious commentator anywhere referring even tangentially to Kissinger's Jewishness. I haven't seen it. Source this, or realize that it's just right wing smoke.

Nice try, but rags like the Jacobin are not writing vitriolic screeds about Nixon. And when Nixon is criticized, it is mostly for Watergate, and not SE Asia or opposition to the Chilean Marxist dictator Allende.

 

[Derec]

Because by your logic, anyone who opposes Putin's invasion of Ukraine must have a problem with nations that have the largest land area.

No. For two reasons.
1. You would have a point for people who opposed Russian invasion of Ukraine but did not care for any other invasion. Singling out Israel and imposing unrealistic standards on them (like that they should not have responded with armed force against the 10/7 attack) is the point here.
2. There is no long-standing hatred for "countries with the largest land area". Antisemitism has a centuries-long history. If somebody opposes Russian invasion of Ukraine, but would not oppose Chinese invasion of Taiwan or Venezuelan invasion of Guayana, then something like hatred of Slavic people is more likely than hatred of "countries with the largest land area". For example Hitler hated Slavs almost as much as Jews.

Every state is the only state that X, for some X. That doesn't imply that if someone opposes their policy Y, they are secretly opposed to X.

And you are ignoring the history of antisemitism. Also, can you really claim that this is not antisemitism and merely criticism of Netanyahu?
White House blasts protest of Israeli restaurant in Philadelphia as 'unjustifiable'

 

[Derec]

Would you also agree to the observation that a lot, and probably most, or opposition to #BLM is due to racism?

I would not, because it is not true.
What I would agree with is that a lot, and probably most, of the support for #BLM is due to just uncritically look at their name/slogan (often combined with "white guilt") and do not critically look into their founding, statements and behavior.
Here a #BLM activist is celebrating the Marxist cop murderer Joanne Chesimard (nom de guerre: Assata Shakur) who has escaped justice and is being given aid and comfort by the Cuban dictatorship:

There is have a place for a conversation about police violence. But #BLM, due to being an extremist group, are not the ones to lead it. On the contrary, they are doing a lot of damage to the discourse.

 

[Derec]

when he had his semi-annual erection, as Hunter S. Thompson described it, I believed they shipped him off to Walter Reed Medical Center to have it deflated.

Maybe that should be done with y'alls hate priapism too.

But he sure had a love boner for Henry Kissinger, because the two of them schemed in secret to widen the war in Vietnam and carpet bomb Cambodia. Now, those of us who deprecate Kissinger, deprecate Nixon just as strongly. Did you somehow overlook my indictment of Nixon upthread?

I must have missed it. Maybe you hate Nixon just as much as Kissinger. But that is not universal. Nixon usually gets derision for Watergate, not his misadventures in SE Asia.
What do you think was the motive for extending the war into Cambodia? As far as I remember history, weren't Viet Cong using it and Laos as a base of operations to attack South Vietnam from?

That would make widening the war into Cambodia a legitimate military objective and mot a "war crime". Not dissimilar to attacking Taliban positions inside Pakistan during the Afghanistan war.

Nixon gets just as much hate for these misdeeds as Kissinger (see above) and in fact that love pair was solely responsible for these war crimes.

Maybe from you, but not universally. And why no hatred for anybody else? Surely the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs are more directly involved in military campaigns than SecState.

And calling the deaths of some three million people as a result of the Kissinger/Nixon polices “alleged” war crimes does not speak well of you.

US has a war crimes statute. If there was evidence he was guilty of war crimes, why was he not prosecuted? There is a big difference between using "war crimes" as part of a political screed and the actual crime that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I put Kissinger first in the couplet because he was the evil genius behind their raging barbaric war hard-on.

And he used blood of Cambodian babies in his family Matzo ball soup recipe too, I am sure.
Do you think Nixon and Kissinger (and not involving anybody else in the administration including SecDef or the military chain of command) were mustache-twirling villains doing it for the evulz, or do you think they had a non-evil reason for what they did?

Because he was responsible for the deaths of some three million people. Do the deaths of three million people not trouble you, Derec?

He was certainly not solely responsible. He would not be responsible for the tactics on the ground or for individual firing decisions. But it can be argued that extending military operations where Viet Cong have refuge is a legitimate military objective.

Nixon was dispatched to the tender ministrations of Satan some three decades ago.

Are you kidding me? If there is a Hell and Satan, Kissinger has surely staged a coup against the bastard by now.

Prove it.

I have already provided reasons for why I think that. I will leave proofs to distilleries, math classes and the courtroom. Not internet fora.
Take protesting a Jewish restaurant in Phiiladelphia and the mob yelling that they "charge [him] with genocide". Not antisemitic?
Calling for genocide against Jews and the tacit approval of this by the heads of Harvard et al? Not antisemitic?
Heads of 3 top US colleges refuse to say calling for genocide of Jews is harassment
Give me a break!

There is, of course, a huge difference between Israel and Ukraine,

Not as much as you think.

starting with the fact that Palestinians were evicted from their own land in the late 1940s to make way for Israel, which of course is the reason for this whole ongoing conflict.

Not really. Just like there was Jewish immigration into the Holy Land under the British Mandate, so there was Arab immigration. Hell, even Hamas leader Fathi Hamad admits that Palestinians are from elsewhere. The UNRWA only states that Palestinian refugees must have an ancestor who lived in the area between 1946 and 1948. Mere two years for refugee status in perpetuity. Only one reason why abolition of UNRWA is long overdue. One more word about refugees. There were Jewish refugees in 1948 too. But they were integrated into the Israeli society. They (and their descendants for perpetuity) were not kept in refugee status for decades in order to be used as a cudgel like Palestinian "refugees" are. Look at all the propaganda around "refugee camps" like Jabaliya.

There are many other dissimilarities besides, but for now I’ll just leave the issue at its most salient point.

More a straight line than a salient, I'm afraid.

You mean reclaim Palestinian territory, maybe?

That's what Hamas says. They claim all of Israel. There is no peace possible as long as many Palestinians insist on destroying Israel.
Do you agree with the Hamas position here? You seem to.

rec. No one I know supports or condones in any way the Hamas atrocity on October 7. What we reasonably object to is Israel’s response: mass and indiscriminate slaughter of innocent Palestinian citizens, a great many of them, and perhaps most, children.

The pro-Hamas protest in NYC happened a day after the 10/7 massacre. The Israeli counterattack has hardly begun and yet DSA and other leftist and Muslim groups were screeching about being "all out for Palestine" and demanding Israel stop defending itself (aka "ceasefire now").

Also, do you not think the yellow signs and the big red one are justifying the 10/7 massacre as "resistance"? Note that Hamas literally means "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Hamas spokespeople and supporters refer to Hamas as "Resistance" when communicating in English.

What about saying "by any means necessary"? "Any means" including murder, rape and kidnapping.

 

[laughing dog]

Would you also agree to the observation that a lot, and probably most, or opposition to #BLM is due to racism?

I would not, because it is not true…..

It is more true than your risible accusation of anti-semitism against critics of Mr Kissinger.

 

[Politesse]

I was thinking today about the Meditations, and it seems they do apply here:

“It is natural that certain things should be done by a certain kind of person; it is a matter of necessity ... But by all means bear this in mind, that within a very short time both you and he will be dead; and soon not even your names will be left behind."

 

[Derec]

It is more true than your risible accusation of anti-semitism against critics of Mr Kissinger.

Criticism is one thing. Vitriolic hatred another. As are claims that Kissinger is almost single-handedly responsible for 3M dead during the Vietnam War. Which is amazing, since estimates of the Vietnam War dead are all over the place, and many are below the 3M total. According to Wikipedia, "Total dead: 1,326,494–3,447,494".
  Vietnam War

 

[laughing dog]

Criticism is one thing. Vitriolic hatred another. As are claims that Kissinger is almost single-handedly responsible for 3M dead during the Vietnam War. Which is amazing, since estimates of the Vietnam War dead are all over the place, and many are below the 3M total. According to Wikipedia, "Total dead: 1,326,494–3,447,494".
  Vietnam War

Ignoring the fact your interval includes 3 million, if vitriolic hatred is the standard, then my observation about criticism of #BLM and racism is valid.

 

[Derec]

Ignoring the fact your interval includes 3 million, if vitriolic hatred is the standard, then my observation about criticism of #BLM and racism is valid.

Ignoring the fact that it is ludicrous to blame one man for the entire war, even if the 3M figure is accurate. Vietnam War started because the communists from the North, aided by USSR and Communist China, wanted to conquer the South. And the war started in the 1950s. US Involvement began under JFK, years before Nixon was elected or Kissinger appointed.

I still thing antisemitism has a lot to do with why Kissinger is so hated, and that supernatural abilities to cause war megadeaths are attributed to him. Military chain of command? Phuh! They have no effect whatsoever on how a war is prosecuted. Neither do SecDefs. Commies who started the war in the first place? Innocent of anything. French? The only thing they are responsible for are the bánh mìs. JFK and LBJ administrations? Are you kidding? It's all Kissinger due to retrograde causation!

Somehow still Kissinger's fault, obvs.

 

[Politesse]

It is more true than your risible accusation of anti-semitism against critics of Mr Kissinger.

Criticism is one thing. Vitriolic hatred another. As are claims that Kissinger is almost single-handedly responsible for 3M dead during the Vietnam War. Which is amazing, since estimates of the Vietnam War dead are all over the place, and many are below the 3M total. According to Wikipedia, "Total dead: 1,326,494–3,447,494".
  Vietnam War

So you feel that if the actual number were, say, 2 million rather than 3, Kissinger's moral culpability is somehow ameliorated by the miscalculation?

 

[robnisch]

Ignoring the fact your interval includes 3 million, if vitriolic hatred is the standard, then my observation about criticism of #BLM and racism is valid.

Ignoring the fact that it is ludicrous to blame one man for the entire war, even if the 3M figure is accurate. Vietnam War started because the communists from the North, aided by USSR and Communist China, wanted to conquer the South. And the war started in the 1950s. US Involvement began under JFK, years before Nixon was elected or Kissinger appointed.

I still thing antisemitism has a lot to do with why Kissinger is so hated, and that supernatural abilities to cause war deaths are attributed to him. Military chain of command? Phuh! They have no effect whatsoever on how a war is prosecuted. Neither do SecDefs. Commies who started the war in the first place? Innocent of anything. French? The only thing they are responsible for are the bánh mìs. JFK and LBJ administrations? Are you kidding? It's all Kissinger due to retrograde causation!

Early American Involvement in Vietnam (1954–62) | Encyclopedia.com

Early American Involvement in Vietnam (1954–62)In 1954, France gave up its colonial claims on Vietnam. But even as France prepared to leave the region, the United States and other democratic nations continued to assert influence on the internal affairs of the country. Source for information on...

www.encyclopedia.com

The first troops landed in 1965. But, US involvement started a bit earlier.

I still think JFK's death was partly due to the fact that he knew in was a lost cause.

 

[Derec]

The first troops landed in 1965. But, US involvement started a bit earlier.

No doubt all orchestrated by a certain Jewish immigrant from Fürth, Germany.

I still think JFK's death was partly due to the fact that he knew in was a lost cause.

And Kissinger was on the grassy knoll? I mean, he is being blamed for everything else and the kitchen sink in this thread.

 

[Derec]

So you feel that if the actual number were, say, 2 million rather than 3, Kissinger's moral culpability is somehow ameliorated by the miscalculation?

I am saying that no matter the total dead of the Vietnam War, it is ridiculous to blame him for all the Vietnam War dead. Especially since he wasn't even in office for most of the war. That is not only saying that US military officers and soldiers played zero role in Vietnam War dead, but also gives a pass to Viet Cong and all other parties involved in the war.

Do you think pood is right for blaming all the Vietnam War dead on Kissinger? Note that he didn't become National Security Advisor until 1969 and the war was going on for over a decade by then.
Again, this is what pood is claiming:

Because [Kissinger] was responsible for the deaths of some three million people. Do the deaths of three million people not trouble you, Derec?

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the fact your interval includes 3 million, if vitriolic hatred is the standard, then my observation about criticism of #BLM and racism is valid.

Ignoring the fact that it is ludicrous to blame one man for the entire war, even if the 3M figure is accurate. Vietnam War started because the communists from the North, aided by USSR and Communist China, wanted to conquer the South. And the war started in the 1950s. US Involvement began under JFK, years before Nixon was elected or Kissinger appointed…..

Ah, I see. If some critics are uniformed ior exaggerate, then most are guilty of done imagined bigotry.

Application of that standard to the critics of #BLM indicates most are racist.

I suspect many of Kissinger’s critics are unaware of his Jewish heritage. Do you have zny evidence that they are aware of his Jewish heritage?

 

[robnisch]

The first troops landed in 1965. But, US involvement started a bit earlier.

No doubt all orchestrated by a certain Jewish immigrant from Fürth, Germany.

I still think JFK's death was partly due to the fact that he knew in was a lost cause.

And Kissinger was on the grassy knoll?

NM

 

[Elixir]

He's been retired so long that you now have to be a history buff or have lived through his era to have an opinion. It would be like button-holing someone in Kissinger's government days and asking what they thought of Henry L. Stimson (one of Hoover's Secys. of State.)
I can't get out of my head this moment from an old SNL skit on The View.
Molly Shannon (as Meredith Vieira): Now, Barbara, what were you doing when Nixon resigned?
Cheri Oteri (as Barbara Walters) (with lusty enthusiasm): I was in a hot tub with Henry Kissinger and Juliet Prowse! We speculated about our nation's future...listened to some Harry Chapin...and made sweet love 'til the mornin' sun!

We're still fighting the damned wars he colluded in starting. People are always in such a hurry to "let the past be the past", even while the victims of the events in question are still breathing. Or not breathing, leaving their descendants to pick up the tab. No, you do not have to be "a history buff" or to have been alive at the time to wonder whether your nation might be better off without having been reduced to rubble or international peonage. The list of Kissinger-Nixon's planned interventions is a list of some of the poorest, most desperate nations in the world. That is not a coincidence or accident. The Tapes are full of conversations between the two men, casually discussing the deaths of thousands like they are only important relative to odds of re-election next term; pragmatic, never moral, considerations.

The very worst of my nation.

And Stimson had a lot to answer for, too. Are you seriously saying that no one now living has a reason to care about how World War freaking II ended? Or the Japanese concentration camps? Or the Stimson Doctrine, which is a major influence on our current policy, especially vis-a-vis Russia? Let alone the Nixon administration, which was actively trying to deal with the very literal wreckage Stimson had left behind. I would be appalled to learn that any American official lacked an opinion of Henry L. Stimson, even now, except that I've grown jaded by eight years of Trump appointees who seem to know nothing about history whatsoever and don't want anyone else too, either. Wonder why.

Jesus, you jumped over that anthill like it was an obstacle at Belmont. My comment applied only to the general lack of historical depth that people seem to have these days.

They have obstacles at Belmont?
No wonder there hasn’t been a triple crown winner for a while.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I just bet on 'em. I don't watch 'em.