The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Accusing Assange of Being a 'Narcissist' Misses the Point
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards,” and “ha, ha, I hit them” say the pilots of a US Apache helicopter in jubilant conversation as they machine-gun Iraqi civilians on the ground in Baghdad on 12 July 2007.

A wounded man, believed to be the Reuters photographer, 22-year-old Namir Noor-Eldeen, crawls towards a van. “Come on buddy, all you have to do is pick up a weapon,” says one of the helicopter crew, eager to resume the attack. A hellfire missile is fired and a pilot says: “Look at that bitch go!” The photographer and his driver are killed.

Later the helicopter crew are told over the radio that they have killed 11 Iraqis and a small child has been injured. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into battle,” comments somebody about the carnage below.

Except there was no “battle” and all those who died were civilians, though the Pentagon claimed they were gunmen. The trigger-happy pilots had apparently mistaken a camera for a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Journalists in Baghdad, including myself, were from the start sceptical about the official US story because insurgents with weapons in their hands were unlikely to be standing chatting to each other in the street with an American helicopter overhead. As on many similar occasions in Iraq, our doubts were strong but we could not prove that the civilians had not been carrying weapons in the face of categorical denials from the US Department of Defence.

It was known that a video of the killings taken from the helicopter existed, but the Pentagon refused to release it under the Freedom of Information Act. Plenty of people were being killed all over Iraq at the time and the incident would soon have been forgotten, except by the families of the dead, if a US soldier called Chelsea Manning had not handed over a copy of the official video to WikiLeaks which published it in 2010.

The exposure of the Baghdad helicopter killings was the first of many revelations which explain why Julian Assange has been pursued for so long by the US and British governments. The claim by Theresa May echoed by other ministers that “in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law” is clearly an evasion of the real reasons why such efforts have been made to detain him on both sides of the Atlantic.

Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say that the affair is all about “the extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.” But, within hours of Assange’s detention, it was clear that nobody much cared about innocent people dying in the streets of Baghdad or in the villages of Afghanistan and Assange has already become a political weapon in the poisonous political confrontation over Brexit with Corbyn’s support for Assange enabling Conservatives to claim that he is a security risk.

Lost in this dog-fight is what Assange and WikiLeaks really achieved and why it was of great importance in establishing the truth about wars being fought on our behalf in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed.

This is what Daniel Ellsberg did when he released the Pentagon Papers about the US political and military involvement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967. Like Assange, he exposed official lies and was accused of putting American lives in danger though his accusers were typically elusive about how this was done.

But unless the truth is told about the real nature of these wars then people outside the war zones will never understand why they go on so long and are never won. Governments routinely lie in wartime and it is essential to expose what they are really doing. I remember looking at pictures of craters as big as houses in an Afghan village where 147 people had died in 2009 and which the US defence secretary claimed had been caused by the Taliban throwing grenades. In one small area called Qayara outside Mosul in in 2016-17, the US air force admitted to killing one civilian but a meticulous examination of the facts by The New York Times showed that the real figure was 43 dead civilians including 19 men, eight women and 16 children aged 14 or under.

These are the sort of facts that the US and UK governments try to conceal and which Assange and WikiLeaks have repeatedly revealed. Readers should keep this in mind when they are told that Assange has narcissistic personality or was not treating his cat properly. If his personal vices were a hundred times more serious than alleged, would they really counterbalance – and perhaps even discredit – the monstrosities he sought to unmask?

The US government documents published by WikiLeaks are about the real workings of power. Take the Hillary Clinton emails published in 2016: much of the media attention has plugged into conspiracy theories about Russian involvement or, until the recent publication of the Mueller Report, the possible complicity of the Trump election campaign with the Russians. Many Democrats and anti-Trump journalists managed to persuade themselves that Assange had helped lose Hillary Clinton the election, though a glance at a history of the campaign showed that she was quite capable of doing this all by herself by not campaigning in toss-up states.

But look at what the emails tell us what the way the world really works. There is, for instance, a US State Department memo dated 17 August 2014 – just over a week after Isis had launched its offensive against the Kurds and Yazidis in Iraq that led to the butchery, rape and enslavement of so many.

ORDER IT NOW

It was a time when the US was adamantly denying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had any connection with Isis and similar jihadi movements like al-Qaeda. But the leaked memo, which is drawn from “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” tells us that they really knew different. It says: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”

This is important information about the level of priority the US gave to keeping in with its Saudi and Qatari allies while it was supposedly fighting the “war on terror”. This had been true since 9/11 and remains true today. But in much of the British media such issues are barely considered and the debate is focused firmly on the reasons why rape charges were not brought against Assange by Swedish courts and his culpability in taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Anybody who highlights the importance of the work which Assange and WikiLeaks has done is likely to be accused of being light-heartedly dismissive of the accusations of rape.

Assange is likely to pay a higher price than Ellsberg for his exposure of government secrets. The Pentagon Papers were published when the media was becoming freer across the world while now it is on the retreat as authoritarian governments replace democratic ones and democratic governments become more authoritarian.

The fate of Assange will be a good guide as to how far we are going down this road and the degree to which freedom of expression is threatened in Britain at a time of deepening political crisis.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Absolutely clear-headed.

  2. Mike-SMO says:

    Great story. Except for omitting that the photog was taking pictures of a US unit nearby and sharing the images with a crowd that included people with what were probably AKs and RPGs. The child, as I recall, was up front in a van that was delivering military age males to an apparent ambush zone. The child was camoflauge and “expendable”. The photog didn’t bother with distinctive clothing nor was the car labeled (“PRESS” or “TV”).

    It wasn’t like the helos were a surprise. The armed players were “hiding” their weapons for a reason (which is why they only appear briefly in the full video).

    “No uniforms”? Big Whoop! Mob with weapons in a “hot” area is a “uniform”, and a target. Pilot chatter? You should hear an emergency room or surgery.. Real “civilians” were at home with Momma and the kiddies,, maybe peaking out a window. The “mob” were “players” waiting for a chace to take a shot and then run and hide.

    Try watching the entire video and not just the out-takes.

  3. The judge who called Assange a “narcissist” is a cunt. Right? Narcissist is a pejorative used by cunts. Assange is a roll model. The people persecuting him are excrement.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  4. Sean says:

    The fate of Assange is the same as every young man who tries to be a hero, and sleep with as many girls as he can. RD Laing had a anecdote about Stokely Carmichael coming over a Dialectics of Liberation event, and how he could not get out of London and over to Sweden to get Swedish fucks fast enough.

    Ellsberg ‘s revelations were about a war that youths were being conscripted into the army and sent off to die in. When they got back from Vietnam they found out that unwashed hippies were getting all the floozies, and their major fantasy, former Miss US Army Recruiting,Jane Fonda, was calling them criminals. In a way the North Vietnamese were not without

    There were non-combatants killed on 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden’s main objective was to get the US army out of Saudi Arabia and in a roundabout way he succeeded. Yes the US, backed local forces; so what was expected to happen after 9/11 had shown how dangerous it was to have a state that sheltered international terrorists, as Syria, Iraq, and Iran had done?

    Namir Noor-Eldeen was killed by volunteers, who joined the American armed forces of their own free will, and are not exactly traumatized by killing. The world has seen irrefutable evidence wrongly targeted dead and appallingly injured non–combatants including children hundreds times, and it does not make any difference. Women like fearless soldiers, and young men know that. Come to think of it Assange is not so different from those who join the Army, he did not worry too much about causing the deaths of Iraqis whose names were in the unredacted data that he wanted rushed as an information dump against the concerns of professional journalists at the Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

    David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro’s, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.

    Very few soldiers have had as many women as Assange, whose serial brief encounters took acquaintances aback. And he was not lonely in the Embassy either. You can’t live like that though.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Jeff Davis
  5. Sean says:

    Having WikiLeaks publicise emails hacked from the inboxes of Ecuador’s president and his wife was hardly a smartest of moves by Assange if he wanted to stay in their embassy. I think he is tired and wants to get it over with.

    • Replies: @hamtok
  6. Sean says:

    The narcissistic jibe was probabally because Assange sat in the dock reading Gore Vidal while, through his lawyer, he made allegations that the previous judge was biased against him because her husband was affected by Wikileaks. Great thinking, annoying the Judge. The computer intrusion charge he is facing in the US has 5 years max.

  7. @Mike-SMO

    >with what were probably AKs and RPGs

    Lemme guess.

    You’re “probably” an apologist for the Israel-driven American coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Amirite?

  8. @Sean

    Let’s see …

    * Red herring (of sexual proclivity),
    * Tu quoque of “innocent civilian deaths”, and
    * Conflating opposition to aggression w/aggression

    Keep on truckin’, Dr. Sean. Gotta keep the loonies on the path.

    • Replies: @Sean
  9. @WorkingClass

    Each age (and place) have their word labels to pin on who doesn’t toe the line.
    The words change, the rationalizations behind them do change too, but the actual behind-the-surface are as changeless as the actual, deep drives of humans and their societies.

    Have power and/or toe the line drawn by power: good.
    Have no power and/or be inner-directed: bad.

    “Narcissism” and “narcissist” are rather prominent within the word basket for “bad”.
    One can imagine psychiatrists and psychologists like the clergy of today — or at least part of today’s clergy. It falls on them to invent labels to be pinned on the inner-directed, who are every society’s culture’s first enemies.
    As to the it figures not a few hang on its pages, and refer to it with the same deference once given to the Bible: it is its contemporaneous functional analogue. It tells them what is reality, the good and the bad. What they need to see as good, it reassures them it is good; what they need to say as bad, it reassures them it is bad.

  10. @atlantis_dweller

    As to the it figures not a few hang on its pages

    As to the DSM.
    Hang upon its pages.

  11. Sean says:
    @AnonStarter

    He was consistent in wanting to release a ready made death list on US informants in Afghanistan, which we know from Guardian journalists he was working with. He was trying to be anti Bush, not morally universalist. The people who supported him are those who resented Bush. His sexual proclivities and insouciance about others safety make him no better or worse than anyone who joins the army or becomes a tatted up neighbourhood gang member. His place was in his own country looking after his family, not trading on his anti-Bush credentials to dupe and dick as many women as he could. Sweden is not just anti US intervention, it is most feminist country on the planet. Only an egotist like Assange could think he has been picked on. The Ecuadorian President and his wife’s e-mails were hacked, and released by Wikileaks, which is the reason the old London ambassador was sacked. Cannot blame the CIA for that. Wikileaks also hurt Hillary, which seems to indicate Assange not considering the effect that would have on his support base, but being keen for a spectacular coup. (maybe he sees anything antiCIA as ok so did not worry about appearing to be the cat’s paw of the GRU).

    The other day he was defaming one British judge to another through his lawyer while sitting reading a book in court instead of giving testimony in his own defence. The police stationed outside the Ecuadorian Embassy cost millions over the years He brings it on himself, and narcissistic is a pretty accurate characterisation I am afraid. The US extradition request for Gary McKinnon was denied, but he was a consistently hapless UFO and false flag 9/11 autistic, whereas Assange is a malevolent troll on the make.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  12. @atlantis_dweller

    She has her passive aggressive liberal hate which she expresses with a psychiatric diagnosis. She has a college degree so she cant just say he’s crazy. I hate people like her just like they hate me.

    So I insult her in my own vernacular. Red Neck profanity.

    She persecutes a man who’s worth is infinitely greater than her own. Then she spits on him. She is a hateful cunt. If she was a man she would still be a cunt.

  13. @Sean

    Oh, those poor, poor Afghani snitches! Let’s all clutch our pearls and say a prayer to protect them against the invidious Mr. Assange!

    LOL!

    Look, Dr. Sean … If you want to run interference for ipso facto zionist aggressors, that’s fine by me. Just don’t pretend that they didn’t have it coming for invading and occupying someone else’s country. And anyone who sleeps with them? … Yeah, I can see why Assange considered them fair game as well. Completely rational realpolitik, if you know what I mean.

    Heck, you yourself aren’t really in a position to whine about it. So all of your bluster about Assange this and Assange that is about as valuable as the conspiracies peddled about him here.

    That is to say, not at all.

  14. The “narcissist” description might not be relevant to Assange’s legal case, but it is a succinct explanation of how and why his life has unraveled.

    It was in the public interest to release the video of US forces killing Afghan civilians. Assange could have stopped there.

    Instead he decided to to release documents that identified Afghans who had co-operated with American forces (see comment 4), an action that made him a legitimate target for US law enforcement. If he had lived more carefully, he could have made the US authorities’ job more difficult; but he ignored advice, he traveled in countries that have extradition treaties with the US, and he mistreated the women who threw themselves at him.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  15. Anon[341] • Disclaimer says:

    May I simply add this one from Chris Capps-Schubert (Operation Iraqi Freedom 2005-2006):

    ”Is this who you want to have in your backyard? Is this so vital to your economy you would allow a military force that invades, tortures, and has lost it’s conscience to remain?”

    ”this Army as an institution seems to have completely lost its mind and any sense of decency, some soldiers here have truly lost their mind after repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and may never be the same person again, while military culture has become so corrupt its values have allowed something as unthinkable as torture to become acceptable. ”

    On a final note, I will leave you with this , here are some of the kinds of abuse that was documented in the US Army´s own investigation regarding Abu Ghraib but which the US Army itself never prosecuted:

    “I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

    [MORE]

    a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

    b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

    c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

    d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

    e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

    f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

    g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

    h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

    i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

    j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

    k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

    l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

    m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.”

    (ANNEXES 25 and 26)

    The report also stated:

    “8. In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

    a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

    b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

    c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

    d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

    e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

    f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

    g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

    h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.” (more)

    Many of the people who did this are still in the Army, some still in Germany, and all of them walk among us as free people today because of the US Army´s lack of accountability.”

    Chris Capps-Schubert took part at Operation Iraqi Freedom 2005-2006. He deserted afterwards from U.S. army. Currently he is European Regional Coordinator of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and member of DFG-VK.

    https://en.connection-ev.org/article-840

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  16. @atlantis_dweller

    “Narcissism” and “narcissist” are rather prominent within the word basket for “bad”.
    One can imagine psychiatrists and psychologists like the clergy of today — or at least part of today’s clergy. It falls on them to invent labels to be pinned on the inner-directed, who are every society’s culture’s first enemies.

    When you actually meet someone with a Cluster B personality disorder (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, or narcissistic) you quickly learn that these are not mere labels invented by a priestly class. They are real disorders that are extremely damaging to a person, and make life a living hell for the people around them. Being “inner-directed” is not part of the disorder.

  17. @Anon

    Don’t tell Dr. Sean about any of this. He’s too concerned with the lives of Afghani sellouts to bother with it.

  18. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mike-SMO

    You are a despicable piece of human excrement – nothing personal.

    • LOL: Biff
  19. @Mike-SMO

    I hope that if Britain were ever invaded by a hostile military force, that Brits would take up arms against the occupation.

    For once, a Cockburn article I can wholeheartedly agree with.

    • Replies: @Anon
  20. @James N. Kennett

    >Instead he decided to to release documents that identified Afghans who had co-operated with American forces (see comment 4), an action that made him a legitimate target for US law enforcement.

    Nowhere in the indictment against Assange is this “action” mentioned. Ironic that the attorneys prosecuting Assange don’t agree with you.

    If the Taliban are “psychopaths” — as Mr. Cohen of The Guardian so glibly describes — what does that make America, a nation intent on coercing the majority of the people of Afghanistan to submit to the government of its choosing?

    And here we thought “democracy” was an integral part of the “nation-building” in which America has been so fruitfully engaged for … Oh, yeah. … That’s right: the longest period of time it’s been engaged in any war.

    Please spare us the myopic rationales for detaining Assange, who’s only real “crime” was exposing America’s seedy underbelly to the world.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  21. @AnonStarter

    Nowhere in the indictment against Assange is this “action” mentioned. Ironic that the attorneys prosecuting Assange don’t agree with you.

    They are likely to agree that Assange’s actions make their case a legitimate one. Because Assange is not a US citizen they cannot charge him with treason for releasing the documents, and they have to make a case that he has broken US law – hence the computer charges. They may yet file more charges, such as inciting Chelsea Manning to break US laws.

    Please spare us the myopic rationales for detaining Assange, who’s only real “crime” was exposing America’s seedy underbelly to the world.

    And spare us the black-and-white thinking. Assange did perform a public service, but he went way beyond that, not checking or even caring whether releasing the other documents would do harm.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    , @AnonStarter
  22. @James N. Kennett

    What is the harm of which you speak?

    Is it harmful to release documents the contents of which reveal that certain Iraqi individuals had cooperated with the war criminal Americans?

    Is it not a public service to let the world know the identities of individuals in a country who have betrayed their families and their clans in order to help the invading marauder?

    Spare us the phony “its more complicated than that” superficial thinking.

  23. Is it not a public service to let the world know the identities of individuals in a country who have betrayed their families and their clans in order to help the invading marauder?

    If these Afghans betrayed anyone, they betrayed two invaders – the Taliban (created by Pakistan’s ISI), and the Arab fighters of al Qaeda – to a third, the USA.

    Spare us the phony “its more complicated than that” superficial thinking.

    You appear to be suggesting that betrayers have got it coming – if they are friends of the USA. If they are Julian Assange, apparently they haven’t got it coming. Tell me again about phony, superficial thinking?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AnonStarter
  24. @James N. Kennett

    >They are likely to agree that Assange’s actions make their case a legitimate one.

    Likely? It’s certain they would. After all, any little splinter will do for the log-eyed prosecution.

    But it’s peculiar that they don’t include this exposure of individuals in the current indictment, particularly if it’s as egregious a violation of law as you claim it is. The DoJ needs to pick up the slack and show us, the people whom it purports to represent, exactly how detestable the myriad offenses of Mr. Assange are, not pull punches like some pantywaist.

    >And spare us the black-and-white thinking

    I’ll spare you the black-and-white thinking when there isn’t an adversarial system in which are tried cases and controversies such as the present.

    Until then, good day, counselor.

  25. @James N. Kennett

    >invaders – the Taliban

    That’s a nice joke for all the Pashtuns out there. I’m sure they’d thank you for the laugh.

    ISI may have assisted the Taliban in order to improve relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but ignoring the reality of cross-border tribal affiliations in the ascent of the Taliban would be fatal to your analysis. And FWIW, bin Laden and company weren’t considered “invaders” by Mullah Omar, then the leader of 90% of Afghanistan.

    By every indication, the occupiers and their lackeys are losing and losing badly by the hour. Perhaps you should pay attention to this fact before providing some alphabet agency-tortured definition of “invader.”

  26. Anon[570] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Londonistan has been invaded by hostiles, and Brits are prohibited from taking up arms against the occupation.

  27. @James N. Kennett

    >betrayers have got it coming … [i]f they are Julian Assange

    “Betrayal” necessitates broken alliance.

    Exactly with whom do you claim Assange was allied that you imagine he betrayed them?

    >Tell me again about phony, superficial thinking?

    It comes and goes, though a cup of coffee usually does the trick.

  28. “Except there was no “battle” and all those who died were civilians, though the Pentagon claimed they were gunmen. The trigger-happy pilots had apparently mistaken a camera for a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Journalists in Baghdad, including myself, were from the start sceptical about the official US story because insurgents with weapons in their hands were unlikely to be standing chatting to each other in the street with an American helicopter overhead.”

    A bit of context is helpful here to clear up a few small errors in this piece.

    First, the Collateral Murder incident occurred in the midst of a fierce Sunni-Shia civil war that broke out in Baghdad after Sadam’s police, military, and intelligence services, which had previously kept the Shia suppressed, had been defeated and disbanded by the US military.

    In the midst of that civil war, various local militia units of the different sectarian communities — Shia and Sunni — we’re compelled to arm themselves in order to defend against attack. Inspection of the collateral murder video shows that there was one individual carrying a short barrel AK-47 and one carrying a loaded RPG launcher. But it is also clear from the video that they were not engaged in any kind of active military violence. There was no “battle”. Just a group of men walking around, two of which were armed. Armed, in order to be able to defend the group against attack, as necessitated by the violence occurring in Baghdad at the time.

    Second, while they were aware of the Apache helicopters, an inspection of the video shows that the helicopters were approximately a mile away, not overhead. That said, there is a moment in the video when one of the cameramen, from around the corner of a building, points his “long lens” at the helicopters. I assess that this specific action was interpreted — misinterpreted — as an aggressive act, which, along with the two men carrying weapons, triggered the attack.

    Without question the Americans were bloodthirsty and looking for an excuse to play American hero — “What fun!” — with their Apache death machines. Bradley — now Chelsea — Manning was right to be horrified, and s/he and Assange were right to blow the whistle on the ongoing war crime.

  29. @Sean

    If the US was invaded, and certain US citizens helped the invaders, you would want to know who they were, and if given the opportunity, I have no doubt that you would have approved of, if not enthusiastically taken part in killing them as traitors. But when the US is the invader, and “helpful” Iraqis are the traitors, then exposing them to what traitors deserve, is somehow some kind of offense.

    Double standard. Hypocrisy. Fail.

    • Replies: @Sean
  30. Assange is NOTHING of a narcissist.

    • Replies: @Sean
  31. Sean says:
    @Stefan Reich

    I just watched the documentary Julian Assange : Risk on BBC4 When the Sweden thing became public Helena Kennedy the QC was trying to explain to him that when publically maintaining his innocence he must always do so in a way that showed him to be respectful of feminism and women’s’ right to bring charges when speaking in public. Assange kept interrupting her saying things like one was a lesbian and they other was a radical feminist and they tagged teamed him with the aid of a certain policewoman. Eventually Kennedy just stopped trying to make the point. To me, she seemed dumbfounded by his arrogance and you could see the wheels in her her head turning about where he was going to land himself.

  32. hamtok says:
    @Mike-SMO

    What isn’t an out-take is the commentary by the crew enjoying this turkey-shoot not doing something distasteful or even necessary. That speaks volumes.

  33. hamtok says:
    @Sean

    Your reasoning makes more sense than the story of the President of Ecuador eating lobster in bed pix.

  34. Sparkon says:

    It’s just glorified name-calling by people infatuated with cool-sounding words they heard from someone they admire, but which they’ve never encountered in context in their limited reading, primarily because they do so little of it. Reading that is, not name-calling.

    Whether or not Julian Assange is a real narcissist depends entirely on the opinion of the person applying the label because, unlike numbers, many words, particularly pejoratives, have no precise, incontrovertible definition, but many people seem to take delight in name-calling anyway, probably for that very reason.

    When Assange says that 9/11 is “a false conspiracy,” he loses all credibility in my eyes and qualifies for the phony label, in my opinion.

    Also in my opinion, no real narcissist would ever grow such an ugly, ragged, scroungy beard, nor would any truly narcissistic dude allow himself to be carried into the street in such an undignified manner.

    • Replies: @Sean
  35. Sean says:
    @Sparkon

    Also in my opinion, no real narcissist would ever grow such an ugly, ragged, scroungy beard, nor would any truly narcissistic dude allow himself to be carried into the street in such an undignified manner.

    We all think we are special because you’ve got to play to win and our genes want us winning (and not using condoms). I think a real narcissist is someone who has an opinion of himself too high for him to effectively navigate the world. In that sense Assange isn’t. He got to be famous, have lots of women and live like James Bond. Who would not want a life like that?

  36. Sean says:
    @Steve Hayes

    He says they they were a cabal of lesbians. He revealed things about America; true, but why would the US want to get him to Sweden of all of all places. The UK would be far more likely to extradite him to the US on espionage charges than Sweden. It seems to me the that he came to London to get away from Swedish rape charges, not extradition to the US.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr