Last Straw

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve run into right-wingers who seem to have an unwavering belief that the crimes of their foes are to be loudly proclaimed and harshly punished while their own crimes are to be wholly justified in the pursuit of their ideology. The ends justifies the means apparently.

With such people in mind George Orwell once wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage—torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians—which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Now let me introduce you to David Farrar, a New Zealand National Party member and a popular blogger among right-wingers in New Zealand.

In the comments section of a recent post stirring up Islamophobia, David responded to one of his readers:

Oh dear every apologist is out today. David Blake says there is no difference between accidential civilian casualties in a war and deliberate targetting of civilians.

What David Blake actually said was this:

Whether civilians are being killed by suicide bombers … or by the latest and greatest military tools … makes no difference to me. It’s still killing innocent people … to further an agenda.

As you can see David Farrar took the liberty of adding “accidental.” You see it’s “accidental” because the killers are on his side. It doesn’t matter what the facts might be, it is an unquestioning presumption. And a presumption that doesn’t fit the facts.

While there are many horrific instances throughout recent history that could be used as an example, such as the bombing of Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, here’s a well documented one I came across while reading William Blum’s now infamous book:

The most common argument made in NATO’s defense, and against war-crime charges [with regard to the bombing of Yugoslavia], has been that the death and devastation inflicted upon the civilian sector was “accidental”. This claim, however, must be questioned in light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO’s air war, Lt. Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point:

“If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, “Hey, Slobo, what’s this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?”" [1]

General Short, said the New York Times, “hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade.” [2]

At another point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea added: “If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO’s five conditions and we will stop this campaign.” [3]

After the April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building—which housed political parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies and more—the Washington Post reported:

“Over the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing the hope that members of Serbia’s economic elite will begin to turn against Milosevic once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to resist NATO demands.” [4]

Before Missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled out the risks: “Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250—Apts in expected blast radius.” [5] The planners were saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings might be killed in the bombing.

What do we have here? We have grown men telling each other: We’ll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even if B does in fact result, we’re saying beforehand—as we’ll insist afterward—that it was unintended.

In short, it’s a great big pile of stinking shit to believe that these people, who are trying to rule the world, are in any way interested in the welfare of those who can’t supply them with more wealth or power.

David Farrar, like so many other right-wingers these days, is blinded by his ideology, which itself thrives on a fearful and confused population. In accusing others of being an apologist, he is proving to be precisely that himself.

Note: 51, 52 and 54 of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1) are the relevant articles if you’re interested.