Confronting Intolerance

When I was  just a callow youth, it seemed to me that the only thing we can legitimately be intolerant about is intolerance itself.


I was young and idealistic, so don’t be too hard on me.  After all, which of us in our teens has not been all taken up with the things we  read, by the ideas flooding in on top of us from all directions, by the notions we’re soaking up by the million from the books we’re reading and the  conversations we’re having with our peers and by whatever interesting, educated mentors we can manage to corner and interrogate, like Pepe le Peu amorously grasping a cat?

It’s ok.  That’s the way teenagers are, or at least those teenagers who care about ideas, and I’m delighted to see that thinking kids still give a shit about the things that matter.

But as the years have passed, that countless flood of years piling wrinkle upon wrinkle and disaster upon disaster, can I still stand over the assertion I made with pride to nobody in particular, since nobody, quite rightly, gave a flying toss what I was trying to say?

Was my intense nineteen-year-old long-haired nerdy self correct in suggesting that the only thing we can legitimately be intolerant about is intolerance itself?

Maybe.  And then again maybe not.  Nineteen-year-olds don’t do nuance, but I suspect I might have stumbled onto something by accident, the notion that extremism is not amenable to debate, and as time passed, I became more and more convinced that some people are simply not receptive to openness, tolerance, debatingness and general touch-feely come-on-in-and-we’ll-have-a-chatness.

Why?  Because some people don’t give a flying fuck how tolerant you are.   Some people are out to kill you or rob you no matter how many organic ethnic kaftans you’ve woven using the braided knee-hair of naturally-deceased bees from  the  Dalai Lama’s personal hive.

Some people are unthinking, murderous violent bastards who do not give one flying shit about you or anyone else.

Debate?  They don’t care.

Discussion?  They don’t care.

Reconciliation?   Here.  Have a bullet in the head.

We’ve seen these movements throughout history.   We saw it in Cambodia.  We saw it in Europe during the Forties.  We saw it in Yugoslavia only twenty years ago.  We saw it in Rwanda.

If you were a Palestinian, you might, with good reason, think that the Israeli government was such a movement and yet you’d be wrong.  For all their faults and for all their violence, for all the murders they have inflicted on Gaza, they don’t come anywhere close to the demented, ideological, religiously-driven Islamic State, a movement that has attracted every maniac in the Middle East and from further afield.

These people represent the embodiment of intolerance, in my view.  They don’t respect the right of anyone else to have an existence.  They will never negotiate, they will never debate, they will never compromise, because these people are driven by an insanity deriving from religion and nationalism, the two worst infections that ever afflicted humanity.

They’ll kill you if you let them, and this brings me back to my teenaged assertion.

Should we tolerate people who don’t care what we think?

Yes, we should.

Should we tolerate people who have utter contempt for our beliefs, or our lack of belief?


Should we tolerate those who think we should be dead?

We should.

Should we tolerate people who set up an army, who try to exterminate everyone they feel contempt for and who have no interest in debate?


What we should do with such people is precisely what Colonel Kurtz, who led the same sort of group,  recommended at the end of Apocalypse Now.

Drop the bomb.   Kill them all.

I don’t say it with any sense of satisfaction or superiority.  I don’t say it because I think religious ideologues need to be killed.  I don’t say it because intolerant people need to be killed.  I don’t say it because extreme people need to be killed.

I say it because killers need to be killed.

I say it because if these killers are not killed, they’ll go on killing.


Here’s the problem, of course, the overwhelming question.  How can we possibly ask the Americans to do this after all we said about them?


The answer is easy.  The answer is printed there on every display in every kitchen shop and every craft outlet:

If you break it, you own it.


It’s that simple.


Britain and the US broke Iraq.   Their misguided invasion created ISIS and now they need to put down the wretched creature that their actions spawned.  There’s no way out of this for the self-named Coalition of the Willing.  Having stormed into Iraq and having awoken this monster, it falls to them to return it to its crypt, by extreme, overwhelming violence.

This time, there will be no free oil-fields for them to plunder.  This time, they simply have to face the thing they created and put it down.

Sometimes, the only answer to intolerance is intolerance.




ISIS, a direct result of ignoring history






US Pulls Out of Iraq

Well, that seems to be that.  No more surge.  No more Shock ‘n’ Awe.

How many Iraqis have been killed?  I don’t know.  Some say a million, some say 100,000.  Take your pick.

What have the Americans achieved?

Well, they deposed a brutal dictator — one of the hundreds of brutal dictators all over the world — and in the process, they radicalised a secular society, replacing it with a militant, Islamic one.  They achieved something thousands of years failed to do, destroying priceless antiquities from the place where our civilisation was born.  They sacked Nineveh, drove tanks through  the Garden of Eden, flipped burgers in Babylon and pissed in the Tigris.

What did the National Guardsmen and women know of culture or pride?  Nothing.  Most of them didn’t own a passport.  Most of them had never read a book.  And these were the brutes who disrespected and abused an entire nation that had done nothing to them, dragging men out of their beds and humiliating them in front of their families.

Is it any wonder they became insurgents?  If a bunch of ignorant, illiterate, loudmouth thugs were burning my town, I’d be an insurgent too, and come to think of it, we had such a gang of killers in our land.  We called them the Black and Tans.

What have the Americans achieved?

Well, they now have a new enemy and a stronger Shi-ite influence in Iraq, something years of Iranian warfare against Iraq failed to achieve.

Have they reduced the threat to their own country?  No, since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Did anyone benefit?  Yes they did.

The Blackwater private army grew even stronger and made Erik Prince even richer, while at the same time slaughtering Iraqi civilians for daring to live in their own country.

Dick Cheney’s Halliburton made a fortune from the  oil wells and from feeding the armed forces.

George W Bush made a fortune from his involvement in arms companies.

Who lost?  Everyone else.  Iraq.  The world.  Civilisation.

And all because Saddam was going to start trading his oil in euros instead of dollars.

Imagine that.


All Bock posts about Iraq

Politics World

9-11 And The New Big Lie

9-11 wasn’t the first time an administration saw an opportunity to inflict a big lie on the American public.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the Big Lie that political hawks used to precipitate the disastrous Vietnam War, though it didn’t happen in a vacuum.

In 1964, the United States was involved in covert action against a country thousands of miles away, just as it has been in the Middle East in subsequent decades.  And in the very same way as today, its actions were determined by doctrines.


Belief systems named after infallible wise men like Dulles and Eisenhower.  It was quasi-religious, which isn’t too surprising in a country so fervently believing in the supernatural.

American warships were involved in an engagement with Vietnamese torpedo boats, which they damaged, though you would have to ask what these warships were doing in the waters of a country thousands of miles away.  Subsequently, when the Vietnamese attempted to recover their damaged vessels, the US navy reported in error that there had been a second fight, which had never happened.

Back in Washington, the erroneous report was seized upon by those who wished to invade this remote country on foot of Dulles’s insane domino theory.   The American people were told that their forces had been attacked, which was untrue, and so began the big push against Vietnam, a push resulting in an ignominious withdrawal, the deaths of millions, an entire generation of Americans traumatised, and an entire generation of Vietnamese people crushed or killed.

Iraq, though run by a very unpleasant dictator,  had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.  Afghanistan, although ruled by a very unpleasant bunch of religious fanatics, likewise had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.  Saudi Arabia, run by an extremely ugly dictatorship, and which supplied most of the conspirators and the funding, had everything to do with the atrocity.

So who did the United States attack in response?

Did they attack Saudi Arabia,  the country from which the attack originated?

Of course they didn’t.

First they attacked Afghanistan, and then they attacked Iraq, the cradle of western civilisation.  They sent their redneck reservist battalions in there, people with no respect for tradition or civilisation,  and they  destroyed those countries.

Of course, such a thing can’t be achieved without a Big Lie, but luckily, Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Liar.

They had Cheney, and they had Rumsfeld, two accomplished liars.  And of course, they had Bush, the idiot.

Cheney has extensive business interests in both Afghanistan and Iraq through his involvement in Halliburton.  Afghanistan is important strategically as a route for the gas pipeline, while Iraq, with its vast oil resources is Nirvana for companies like Halliburton.

And so it was that this triumvirate began to hammer home the message that Iraq and Afghanistan somehow had something to do with the 9-11 attacks.

They didn’t, but that mattered nothing to Bush’s puppet-masters who continued, in statement after statement, to mention Iraq and Afghanistan in the same sentence as the World Trade Centre attacks, reinforcing the belief among Americans that they had sonehow been involved.

This was nothing short of treason.  Even if you care nothing for all the Iraqis killed in these senseless invasions, they threw away American lives on the basis of a huge lie.

I have an American friend.  A good guy that I like very much, and an honest man.   I once asked him how many people died in the Vietnam war and he replied, Sixty thousand.

Now, of course, he reacted immediately and corrected himself, but still, it’s a salutary illustration of how easy it is for demagogues like Cheney and Rumsfeld to stir up hatred and war in the pursuit of profit.  And of course, needless to mention, neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld were sending sons or daughters to risk their lives in either invasion.

In doing what they did, by plunging Americans into two wars against countries that had never attacked them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bremer and all the rest of the filthy, dishonest, self-serving clique spat on the memory of those who had been murdered in the 9-11 attacks.

This is the legacy of the Bush years.



9-11 and the World Trade Centre Attacks

war World

Bush Gets The Boot

I love this. 

Bush has to duck twice as an Iraqi journalist flings shoes at him, with impressive accuracy.  Afterwards, in his stupidity, he fails to realise that throwing shoes in the Muslim world is not a protest but an insult.



Shoe-thrower beaten in jail

Humour Politics

Cheney — The Parallel President

I see this fella Barton Gellmann has written a book about Cheney and I hope he exposes the bastard for the lying, murdering swine he is.  A vicious bully who set up a parallel presidency to launch an illegal assault on a sovereign State which had never attacked the United States.  Of course, it’s never that hard to set up a parallel presidency when the real president is a fucking chimp.

Do you know what the constitutional responsibilities of the Vice-President are?

Nothing. That’s what they are. Nothing at all, except waiting for the president to die or get kicked out, and for settling the occasional argument in the Senate.

Specifically, the Vice-President’s role is this: take over as President should the President resign, die or get very sick, and act as presiding officer of the U.S. Senate, using the casting vote when necessary.

He has no other role.

That’s it.

So how the hell did Cheney end up running a war and being in charge of America while the chimp was hiding on Airforce One?  How did Cheney end up intimidating and dominating the chimp’s most senior advisers?  How did a representative of a multinational company end up taking charge of the United States and steering its military into a war from which his multinational company made a fortune?

Was this not treason, or would you be able to suggest a different word for it?

Did I ever tell you about the friend I have who works for Hallibastard?

I don’t like to embarrass him too much, so let’s just call him [Firstname] [Lastname].

He’s been with Hallibastard a long time now, and they keep promoting him because I imagine he’s very capable at what he does, whatever that might be when you’re part of a company that owns the Vice President of the United States.

How and ever.  Let’s leave politics aside for a minute, which, when you think of it has to be the stupidest thing anyone ever said.  How the fuck could I leave politics aside for so much as a nanosecond?  You might as well say, look, let’s just not talk about anything that anyone does or anything that ever happened.  Ever.  Instead, let’s talk about dry meaningless shite like solid pine fucking lampshades and stupid bastards who pimp your garden on television and make you look like a complete twat.  You complete fucking twat.

So we won’t.  All right?  We won’t leave politics aside, because politics is what we are.  Politics is what we do and what we think, and in the final analysis, politics is Cheney’s minions justifying the mass murder of Iraqis to make him even richer than he already was, the murdering, cynical two-faced bastard.

Anyway, after slapping myself sharply across the face, I somehow manage to drag this rant back on track.  Cheney does that to me.  Sorry.

I was telling you about my friend [Firstname] [Lastname], who works for Hallibastard and who has this incredible expanding business card.  Last time I met him, I think he was the Chief Deputy Vice-Primary Overlord Chief Operational Grand Vizier and Technical Operational Intergalactic Vice-President (Exploration)(Andromeda Nebula).  Or something.

Oh wait.  Hold on.  I found it from an earlier post.  This is what his business card says:

Hyper-mega-vice-deputy-assistant President,
Halliburton Asset-stripping Division,
Northern Hemisphere
The World
The Universe

So there you are.  The game is up and his first name isn’t [Firstname] at all.  It’s Joe.

He used to email me, complaining that I called Denis Leamy a Limerickman, and other matters of world-shaking importance, and I used to write back to him at his work address: joed’arab AT  I once wrote back saying Hi Joe.  Thanks for reminding me for the thirty-eighth time that Denis Leamy is from Cashel. You know what?  Fuck Denis Leamy.  By the way, if you’re at work today would you mind calling Cheney a fat cocksucker for me?  Thanks very much.  Bock.

The email bounced and that was the last time I ever managed to get an email through to Hallibastard.  I understand that Bock the Robber is now listed as a terrorist-lovin’ Jesus-hatin’ unAmerican dangnabber at minus 272.99999K on a gigantic supercomputer beneath a glacier in Argentina.

You’d never think that a huge multinational asset-stripping operation like Hallibastard would be so touchy about a Tipperary rugby player, would you?

NAMA Politics war World

Peace, Freedom and Democracy

With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them.

That’s what Col Nate Sassaman of the 4th Infantry told the New York Times in 2003.

Now, although I recoiled initially when I read this quote, I have to confess there’s a certain grim logic in there somewhere — a sort of logic the Americans are good at. The comment reminded me of the immortal statement by a US officer in Vietnam: it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.

Operation Iraqi Freedom? No. It isn’t a joke: that is what they actually called the invasion. Americans don’t do irony, which is both their strength and their weakness.

The strength lies in the fact that they’re able to breed hundreds of thousands of people who can say Sir, step away from the car without laughing.

The weakness is that they never know when they’re making complete fools of themselves, as they have been doing in Iraq for nearly five years, but the problem doesn’t stop there. Americans’ lack of irony also makes them blind to another fact: their entire nation has been hijacked by Bush and Cheney with a view to making money for themselves, and it doesn’t matter how many American troops or Iraqi civilians are killed in the process. Just as long as Bush, Cheney and, of course, Halliburton, make a lot of cash.

It doesn’t matter that they had a valid war of necessity in Afghanistan where the Taliban were harbouring the people who had directed the attacks on New York. It doesn’t matter that Bush chose to pursue a war of choice against a country that had nothing whatever to do with the 9-11 attacks: Iraq. It doesn’t matter that in doing so he stressed his forces to breaking point and diluted their power to tackle al-Qaeda. It doesn’t matter that he turned the formerly-secular Iraq into a breeding ground for Islamic zealots. It doesn’t matter that the world was teeming with brutal ruthless dictators, each one of them just as bloodthirsty and repulsive as Saddam, and that Bush cared not a jot about them.


None of that matters in America once you start pushing the buttons. Patriotism. Our troops. Global war on terror. Peace. Freedom. Democracy.

I see Bush has been at it again in recent days. Now he’s worried about Pakistani democracy.

Pakistani what??

Listen, George, I know you have a room-full of highly-paid advisers, and I know that every last man-jack of them will have more Harvard degrees than you could shake a cruise missile at, but I need to point out one thing to you. There’s no democracy in Pakistan. There never was and there never will be.

And I’ll tell you something else: the Pakistanis don’t care.

Pakistan is a tribal nation, just like Iraq, just like Syria, just like Afghanistan, just like the United States in many ways, and when George sees elections, he thinks he’s looking at democracy, but he’s not. He’s looking at assemblies of serfs pooling their votes to get their feudal lords into high office. Nobody in Pakistan is weighing up the options. Will I vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? The PPP’s supporters are so upset because their feudal champion has been killed and they don’t know who’s going to look after them now. Benazir Bhutto was a huge feudal landowner in Sindh and it was through the votes of tenants that she formed her power-base.

You don’t believe me that Pakistan is a feudal society? You think the PPP is an ordinary democratic party just like any other? Right then. Tell me of another party where the leadership can be passed on to a nineteen-year-old boy through somebody’s last will and testament.

And you know something else? It’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a feudal, tribal society. It works in many of the Gulf States. It worked for the First Nations until the Americans came and slaughtered them. You could even argue that the Republicans and Democrats have many characteristics of tribes and that their four-yearly presidential elections are no more than a show to cover up the fact that feudal lords rule the US. You think not? You think perhaps, that a poor man could be President of the USA? Well, all right. Bush is a poor human being but he isn’t a poor man.

The United States has been fairly selective about the feudal, tribal societies it wants to bring peace and democracy to. For example, it was in no hurry at all to bring peace and democracy to its friends in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the majority of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, funded by Saudi money. Likewise, though the US made great play of the famous Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — which turned out to be non-existent — there was another brutal dictator, who was known to have nuclear missiles, and who, that same year, was threatening to fire them at an ally of the US. Of course I’m talking about North Korea. Did you notice anything in the news about Operation North Korean Freedom? No. Funnily enough, neither did I. Just like we never heard of Operation Chinese Freedom.

On the other hand, the US hasn’t been too keen on some democratically-elected leaders. Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile in 1970, but because the US didn’t like the stripe of his politics, he was deposed and killed in a CIA-backed coup three years later.

Let’s not forget the United States’ active support for other vile, ruthless dictators. For example, we had the appalling Noriega, the military dictator of Panama, a cocaine-dealer and money-launderer who was on the CIA payroll for many years. Eventually, the Americans deposed and arrested him, but it wasn’t because he was a criminal, murdering drug-dealer. It was because they thought he might be spying for Cuba.

Then there’s the support for the ridiculous and corrupt Somoza of Nicaragua, and their continuing support for the Contras after the Sandinistas took over. You might recall this was the time Ollie North was selling arms to Iran and passing the money on to the Contras to get around a Congress ban on funding them.

They supported the vile Reza Pahlavi, self-declared Shah of Iran, who wrought terror throughout his domain through the medium of the dreaded Savak secret police.

In South Vietnam, they supported an absolute crook Ngo Din Diem, who came to power through a ludicrously-rigged election. They supported him militarily and after his assassination they went to war in his country, visiting misery and destruction on the people there for no good reason and with no gain for anyone. Muhammad Ali refused to join the Army:- Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?

The administration even supported the Khmer Rouge, for God’s sake, after the Vietnamese overran them and ended the slaughters of the killing fields.

But would you like the ultimate proof that they don’t mind who they support? Well then, I offer you one Mr Saddam Hussein, whom the Americans cheerfully backed for decades, until it became expedient to drop him. (Expedient for Halliburton, I mean).

Now. Let’s just get back to this freedom business for a minute. What exactly, I wonder, does George have in mind when he talks about freedom?

Let’s take the United States itself as a yardstick. I know the US is the freest nation in the world, because I’ve seen all the Bruce Willis movies.

So, in the US, are you free to take a picture of a factory that you think might be polluting a river? No. You’ll get arrested under the Patriot Act.

Well then, surely you have more religious freedom? Nope. At least not if you want to open an Islamic school.

Ah, but they surely have a constitutional safeguard for the sanctity of human life? Eh, that’d be a no. They have one of the highest judicial execution rates in the world.

But your skin colour doesn’t matter? Oh gimme a break.

They must have guaranteed health care like in any civilised democracy, mustn’t they? Yes, if you can afford it.

And education? The same.

Oh right. And these are the people invading countries that didn’t attack them? In the name of freedom? And lecturing people like you and me when we voice misgivings or dare to disagree with them?

These are the people who, in the name of peace, reduced Iraq to a smouldering, bloodied wreck, multiplied the misery of its people a hundredfold, spat on their dignity and customs, installed a bunch of crooks in government and proudly declared Iraq a free, democratic land.

I see.

As Judge Judy says, Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Cheney’s Thoughts on Invading Iraq

Greenspan’s View

Winning Hearts and Minds

Saddam’s Hanging

The War on Terror

Politics war World

Saddam Killed Nelson Mandela

Even I wouldn’t believe Bush could be this stupid if I hadn’t heard it for myself.

Here’s Dubya in his own words:

“I heard somebody say, Where’s Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.”

You don’t believe me?

OK. I wouldn’t believe me either without evidence, so here you go. Listen to President GW Bush in his own words.

UPDATE: I received a couple of insightful replies to this.

You are an idiot, says Jimmy the Dhimmi of Tufts University, in his thoughtful academic way.

Dom helpfully explains that Bush really meant Saddam had killed everybody of Mandela’s character in Iraq. Isn’t it a good thing Dom is on hand to interpret Dubya for the rest of us?

He also explains that this was a joke story, though I’m not quite clear if he means the video is a forgery.


UPDATE 2: I’m overwhelmed by the love coming from America for this post. Some guy by the name of Steyn linked here and it’s resulted in every Bush sycophant on the face of the planet spamming me. Hey, no problem! Everyone’s welcome here. I was so touched by the love that I felt the need to post a thank-you HERE


UPDATE 3: What’s really strange is, nobody defines exactly what I wrote that they disagree with. It might be a good idea if somebody would quote the offending words. Perhaps Mr Steyn would oblige.


It’s been an interesting experiment and I think the reaction exposed something they didn’t intend to reveal (perhaps even to themselves).

It seems to me that they were most angered by what was in my mind at the time of posting, rather than what was actually posted.

They didn’t want me to take down the post, but rather to recant and be remorseful for my “error”.

At times, it was closer to a mediaeval heretic hunt than a 21st century discourse, and it goes to show how far America has moved away from freedom of thought, never mind freedom of speech.

Don’t forget, these are the same people who would lecture you about defending freedom, peace and democracy.

kick it on

Politics war World

Greenspan Speaks Out

I see Alan Greenspan reckons the Iraq war is all about oil.

I see.  Would that be Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and not some other Alan Greenspan?  Maybe it’s Alan Greenspan, a raving overthrower of all that is decent and good and American and freedom-loving in this world?

No.  It would be the first Alan Greenspan who thinks the Iraq war is all about oil.  You know?  The guy who was head of the Federal Reserve private banking cartel that runs American fiscal policy?

Yes.  That  Alan Greenspan.

Anyway, Alan Greenspan, in his memoirs, has said that he thinks the Iraq war was for oil, and not because Iraq threatened the USA in any way, which of course, as we all know, it didn’t.  At all.  Ever.

I can’t wait for the reaction.

What’s Cheney going to do?  Shoot him?  Maybe they’ll treat him to a spot of extraordinary rendition, or maybe they’ll patriot-act him.

Maybe they’ll call him a Commie, the unpatriotic, radical old former-head-of-the-federal-reserve.

Jesus, when these bankers retire, they sure turn into dangerous old terrorists, don’t they?


 kick it on

Politics war World

Invading Iraq: Cheney’s Thoughts

Here’s what Dick Cheney said in 1994 about invading Iraq.

(Thanks to Grainne for the link.)

Meanwhile, here’s General Anthony Zinni’s take on how he saw things in the lead-up to the invasion. American Generals don’t come any more senior than this guy.

=============================kick it on

Crime Politics war World

Winning Hearts and Minds

. . .if you find something, then you’ll detain him. If not, you’ll say, ‘Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening.’ So you’ve just humiliated this man in front of his entire family and terrorized his entire family and you’ve destroyed his home. And then you go right next door and you do the same thing in a hundred homes.

That’s an extract from an article in The Nation magazine, where fifty American military veterans of Iraq are interviewed.

I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, ‘A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi’ … Spc. Jeff Englehart

There was a little boy … about 10 … with three donkeys. A military convoy … killed them all … Judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. Sgt. Kelly Dougherty.

Every good cop carries a throwaway (weapon), If you kill someone and they’re unarmed, you just drop one on them. Cavalry Scout Joe Hatcher

We’re approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously because it’s doing its job, and my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. The family is sitting right there with three little children, and a mom and a dad, horrified. Spc. Philip Chrystal

You go up the stairs. You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall. You have junior-level troops, PFCs, specialists will run into the other rooms and grab the family, and you’ll group them all together.
Sgt. John Bruhns

I just remember thinking to myself, ‘I just brought terror to someone else under the American flag’. Sgt. Timothy Westphal

I’ll tell you the point where I really turned. I go out to the scene and there was this little, you know, pudgy little 2-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs, and I look and she has a bullet through her leg. An IED went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me, wasn’t crying, wasn’t anything, it just looked at me like–I know she couldn’t speak. It might sound crazy, but she was like asking me why. You know, Why do I have a bullet in my leg?… I was just like, This is — this is it. This is ridiculous. Spc. Michael Harmon (medic ).

Read the whole article here:

The Nation

kick it on