"Rusty" Calley is sorry, so sorry."There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai," former lieutenant William Calley told members of the Kiwanis Club of Greater Columbus, Georgia. "I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families. I am very sorry."Vietnamese "were killed," passively. American soldiers were "involved." Not quite. Say it, Rusty. Say, "I ordered the deaths of hundreds of civilians, I'm a murderer."
Wikipedia claims
Ultimately, Calley served only three and a half years of house arrest in his quarters at Fort Benning.& the AFP adds
The exact toll of the massacre still remains in dispute, but US estimates suggest that between 347 and 504 unarmed citizens were massacred that day.So Rusty does three & a half years hard time in his quarters for 350 to 500 deaths, & this Lockerbie bomber whose release has been such an outrage (Had anyone asked, we would have been all for letting him die in prison, but no one asked.) killed 270 & did eight years in an actual prison. Where's that outrage again, America?
7 comments:
Somewhere behind the pizza pops.
Just found this blog. Good stuff. Obviously, yes, the fact that many Americans forgive murder by army officials or just the murder of foreigners (extra points if they're dark-skinned foreigners) and even think that such crimes are patriotic is shameful and hypocritical.
You know, the left's pet cause not long ago was Darfur, and while the crimes of the Sudanese government were rightly condemned, the rebels, who also committed atrocities, were given a free pass by organizations like the Save Darfur Coalition. My point is that this type of hypocrisy occurs on the left too.
"The Left" Editor Responds:
Hypocrisy & atrocity know no bounds. Two wrongs don't make a right.
In the case of Darfur, though we hate to type anything like "They started it!" we think there may be a pretty clear indication of who's right & who's wrong there, even if both sides are atrocious.
"Pet" cause? Condescend much?
Also Editor Adds:
Our mother is dead, Deontologist!
(In response to the Bugger™ profile.)
"'Pet' cause? Condescend much?"
Yeah, I guess "a popular cause among folks on the left" would've been a better way to say that.
"...we think there may be a pretty clear indication of who's right & who's wrong there, even if both sides are atrocious."
It's perfectly clear that the Sudanese government was responsible for the most numerous and atrocious crimes against humanity during the crisis in Darfur. It's not even up discussion. But I think that makes it even more important for the Darfur advocacy movement to realistically highlight rebel crime. See, in the past, their failure to mention rebel crime has gotten them accused of racism and oversimplification of the conflict. It's even been suggested that the U.S. advocacy movement's apparent "support" of the rebels is what made the rebels unwilling to sign peace agreements that would have quelled much of the violence. The thing is, since rebel crimes pale in comparison to Khartoum's crimes, highlighting them wouldn't have detracted from the advocacy movement's core message. That is, they could have practiced responsible advocacy by truthfully reflecting the situation on the ground without sacrificing the strength of their message.
I'm sorry about your mom.
Orphans Editor Opines:
It's OK, our parental unit made it to 85. We just liked the "interest" in your profile.
It's a damn shame, & makes life more difficult, when things aren't as black or white as we wish.
And even more of a shame when every thing has to be framed as Perfect Good vs. Absolute Evil.
Humans! Feh.
Post a Comment