Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
The murder of another human being is forbidden by every religion and outlawed by just about every civilization in the history of the world. “Thou shalt not kill” is supposed to be non-negotiable. Of course we’ve been negotiating it forever.
There’s the “just war” tradition, a long series of awkward arguments to the effect that a soldier can slaughter thousands without a technical violation of the commandment, so long as the war was declared for good reasons by morally superior people — which of course we had, and are, and they didn’t, and aren’t.
British imperial forces in 18th-Century America sanitized their souls with the doctrine that firing a volley in the general direction of an enemy force that was lined up and firing at you — and that was how everybody was supposed to fight — did not constitute murder, should you actually hit someone. But when Indians and frontiersman began shooting at the British from behind cover, requiring the soldiers to actually aim their weapons at individuals — well, that required a whole new series of ethical gymnastics.
Throughout history we have always found a way to muddle our way through to justifying war while simultaneously proclaiming our moral superiority. The idealists say we have to do it to defend freedom, the cynics say we have to do it to get the oil, but just about everybody agrees that war, like taking out the garbage, is a dirty job that someone has to do.
But as easy as we’ve been on ourselves with regard to war, we have generally set some limits on the barbarities we permit ourselves. Until quite recently, we did not torture prisoners, execute soldiers who surrendered, deploy chemical weapons, deny medical treatment to wounded enemies — and most especially we did not assassinate individuals outside of battle conducted in a declared war.
The premeditated killing of a specific individual commander for what they have done on the battlefield or what they may do has been prohibited by the law of armed conflict dating from the Hague Conventions of 1907, and by a protocol of the Geneva Convention in 1949 saying “it is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by perfidy.”
There also has been a U.S. executive order in place since 1976 forbidding the U.S. government from carrying out political assassinations. The order came into being after revelations that the CIA had organized or sanctioned assassination attempts against foreign leaders including Fidel Castro. The executive order states: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
Thus, under national and international laws and treaties, if we were at present engaged in a declared war with Iran and fighting pitched battles with its military forces, it would be illegal to assassinate an individual commander or government official by ambush.
We are, of course, not engaged in such a war. Yet our government ambushed and killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani while he was driving away from Baghdad International Airport, which you will recall is in Iraq, on what the Iranian foreign minister said was a diplomatic mission.
We are told by our government that he deserved to die, either because he was responsible for hundreds of American deaths in the past, or because he was planning an imminent attack on American forces in the region. Apparently the past deaths are charged against him because of the allegation — widely debunked — that Iran supplied Iraqi irregulars with sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices) which they used against Americans. And the notion of an imminent attack was based on — well, we just don’t know.
But the thing to remember here is that American forces are in the region — 50,000 of them — because we invaded Afghanistan with scant justification, Iraq under false pretenses, Syria under no legal pretense at all, are enabling the murderous Saudi war in Yemen, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands, including countless civilians, women and children, “collateral damage” to our “surgical” drone strikes.
Yet it is Soleimani, who has assisted in the defeat of ISIS in the region, who “deserved to die.” Who decided that? After what trial? Under what laws? And if we now stand before the world as a lawless country with an insane leader, contemptuous of laws, treaties and customs, what do you suppose is going to happen next?
“Bombardment Memorial at Night” by geog is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
Very well said and a rational, thinking humanity would be receptive. In this case, many Americans are not. We have the power to kill Soleimani–and all bad guys–without repercussions; the Iranians don’t have the power to slay the Orange King while he is on a foreign junket. If they did, they’d be nuked, which would be justified under international law, I suppose.
“what do you suppose is going to happen next?”
Willful ignorance will be proven to be no shield against justice.
Mr. Barrows, we only believe we have the power to kill without repurcussion. The fervor with which one believes a lie has no impact on the lie.
Good point, especially in the long run. Not that the world has a chance to be more peaceful, but castrating the American Empire would be a good first step
I’m guessing this “escalation” was done mainly to try and temporarily boost oil prices. Especially fracking which at current prices has to produce 80% of its 2010s production just to pay for itself.
The Keynesian bombing of the lesser races… validating boomers’ opinion of themselves since 1950.
There’s a reason why I hate war epics, especially if they’re about wars between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and all the more so if they make wars look squeaky clean by removing all the disturbing details. That’s why I consider both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings to be epic (pardon the pun) insults to my intelligence.
With all due respect, I really don’t think all religions forbid the killing of another human being. The religion of the Aztecs requires the routine taking of human lives. Then there are the godforsaken (how ironic) Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam, which have caused endless bloodshed right down to the present day — and the core texts of which actually sanction such things. Just read the Books of Joshua and Deuteronomy from the Old Testament, in the case of Judaism.
Judaism — the grandfather of all the Abrahamic faiths — may in fact be the worst offender of all religions as far as taking human lives is concerned. A number of Jews themselves admit this, such as contemporary authors Israel Shahak and Ron Unz. Ample evidence exists that many wars were funded by Jewish bankers and that they had a large hand in the Bolshevik Revolution (which resulted in tens of millions of deaths), and just how they’ve treated Palestine needs no elaboration. Even today the American Neocons are heavily Jewish — and where they’re leading America and the world again needs no elaboration. Ron Unz has gone so far as to say that ‘the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close…’
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/09/04/washingtons-belligerence-can-produce-a-world-holocaust/
What a wonderful world we live in.
All of the Abrahamic religions forbid murder. It’s literally in the ten commandments. People interpreting religious texts to suit their needs is a fairly well accepted sociological fact.
And last I checked most neocons are WASP not Jewish, so is the evangelical Repub base. It’s fucking amazing how your standard of what constitutes an evil religion is circumspect enough to only condemn Jews.
Nothing to it but that you read what Ron Unz, Israel Shahak and Paul Craig Roberts have had to say on the matter. What claims did they fail to substantiate? What sources did they misquote or misinterpret? Once you have carefully gone through the literature and found serious gaps in it, come tell me.
I don’t really care about paleoconservative claims about “Judaism”. But I did refute the premise of *your* primary claim about Jews being mass-murderers, namely that American neocons are “heavily Jewish”.
Also, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians doesn’t represent the opinions or character of Jews in general any more than Apartheid represented those of white people. Thinking it does, is antisemitic neo-nazi propaganda. Ironically, it’s also US and Israeli propaganda. “Zionism” in the sense it’s commonly employed is a total fabrication, and also US, Israeli and neo-nazi propaganda.
Against all signs to the contrary, I’m going to assume you’re acting in good faith and recommend you watch this Abby Martin interview of an ex- Israeli soldier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkxJd88xkBU
Maintain civility please.
My condemnation is directed towards the religion, not the people. If a Jew happened to be born into and raised in, say, a Thai Buddhist family, then I’m sure he would adopt very different values upon growing up.
You can read Israel Shahak’s book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, in which he maintains that the hostilities perpetrated by Jews against non-Jews — and there are many — are part of their religion. In Jewish thought, non-Jews are little more than cattle and have no moral status, and can be manipulated and used as a Jew sees fit. Another book you can read is Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion.
We can turn a blind eye towards things which disagree with our cherished beliefs, but sometimes the truth simply hurts and we just have to face it.
https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Political/dp/0745328407/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=shahak+jewish+religion&qid=1578632453&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Zion-Jealous-Promised-Civilizations/dp/0996143041/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_img_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZBAW9A4F6FFNYB7Z88A4
True, Joshua and Deuteronomy are classic studies in genocidal mania. God orders the Israelites to put ALL of the inhabitants of Canaan to “to the sword”, with the occasional exception of women and female children. We’re talking about a hundred thousand people or more. This, in seeming violation of His own dictate to Moses regarding killing. But the Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians (among others) were equally bloodthirsty in the endless resource wars of the ancient Middle East. Expanding populations need water and arable land, and will do what is necessary to obtain these essentials – religion notwithstanding.
AFAIK the Persians and Babylonians stopped engaging in their wars centuries ago, but today the Zionists are still happily slaking their bloodlust on the blood of Palestinian children, among others.
To consider just Iran, her national religion was originally Zoroastrianism but she was forced by hostile aliens to adopt Islam. And during the 1950s she had a democracy but Uncle Sam blew it away. Contemporary analyst Chris Hedges said as much.
Two points:
(1) Christianity, Islam and post-100 BCE Judaism borrowed much from Zoroastrianism – especially the concept of Dualism. There remains a remnant body of Zoroastrians to this day, but, in the competition for the hearts and minds of the peoples involved, Christianity and, latter, Islam proved more compelling. This is the Darwinism of cultural competition.
(2) There is no question that the US interfered with Iranian democracy – I believe it was 1953 when the US installed the Shaw as its puppet in this strategic region. This is how empires behave.
I’m not really sure if it was any intrinsic value on the part of the Abrahamic faiths that made them more compelling or appealing to the people of Iran than their own native religion. Just because something is more widely accepted than something else doesn’t automatically make the former something of greater worth. The modern industrial way of life and thought is now well-nigh universally adopted — and just how good a thing it is, I’m sure I don’t have to elaborate on.
“Yet it is Soleimani, who has assisted in the defeat of ISIS in the region …”
ISIS was like a small ant colony, in the middle of hot driveway, and the US was the guy with a flamethrower hooked up to a gasoline truck, trying to exterminate them, but failing to do so due to an endless series of inflammable ant miracles.
Does anyone out there truly believe that the US military has become so incompetent, they can no longer seek and destroy Toyota pick-up trucks, the main battle implement of the ISIS army, with laser-guided missiles?
Hell, we didn’t even have to seek em. They were out in the open in full view of our satellites, 24/7.
General Soleimani was the man most responsible for eliminating, what was in reality, an American asset, and that is the main reason he was placed on the termination list.
@SomeoneInAsia, Judaism is used to justify the policies of the Israeli fascist regime and by extension the West. Likewise Christianity, Hinduism, Wahhabism, etc.
Religion is a means, not an end. Either the heart of a heartless world, or an excuse for imperialism, exploitation and war. An excuse for carz bearing proud Amerikkkan consumers, for Starbucks gift cards with a free Frappucino extracted from the blood and bones of Ghanaian cocoa farmers. And last but not least, an excuse for the PCs and ifones lily-white antisemitic conspiracy theorists can purchase @ $800 instead of $8000 and use to learn all about why the Jews are evil on the internet.
That, as opposed to “Abraham bad”, is the reality. Sorry if it upsets you or whatever.
You mention the British forces in 18th century America. A youngish George Washington was a Major in those forces during the French and Indian War, and learned some harsh lessons in asymmetrical warfare from the natives of ‘Ohio Country” – lessons that were to come in handy several years latter when fighting the British army and their Hessian mercenaries during the American War for Independence.
Washington lost most of his conventional battles, but, rather than surrender his army and his sword, and exchange awkward pleasantries with his gentlemanly British counterparts, he and his forces simply hightailed it into the wilderness – indian style – there to live, and fight another day. Additionally, Washington’s Christmas surprise attacks at Trenton and Princeton were way out of line with European war-waging protocols. Upon hearing about all of this, Cornwallis was aghast!
Apparently Washington was no European gentleman, and not much of a Christian either. He was an odd hybrid – an American.