Rolling Stone's negative obituary for Henry Kissinger | Hacker News Reader

Rolling Stone's negative obituary for Henry Kissinger

rollingstone.com

69 pointsaxiologist27 comments

For background Spencer Ackerman is pretty serious and well-regarded national security and defense journalist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Ackerman

Thanks, following some links:

https://foreverwars.ghost.io/my-kissinger-obit-for-rolling-s...

This is great context, good find. Loved this line: “If the piece feels like it takes too long to reach its end, well, I'm just marrying form and content.”

The title should be: "Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America’s Ruling Class, Finally Dies"

I think this is actually one of the scenarios where deviating from the original title IS appropriate. I think the current title is reasonable for Hacker News.

I don't understand why. The original title seems perfectly descriptive of the content.

It is good to see honesty about Henry Kissinger. I hope the same is done for George Bush who oversaw the Iraq War lies:

https://jacobin.com/2023/03/george-w-bush-iraq-war-crimes-li...

I hope the same is done for every US president who have all been complicit in an unethical military industrial complex at the expense of tens of thousands of lives and millions of people displaced from their homes

That's a little reductive don't you think.

i mean if you want to sympathize over the murder (cough, killing, sorry) of people in massive numbers over control of oil, then sure there's nuance to it

That's a little reductive don't you think.

https://archive.ph/GP9Qw

Circa OT, but what's the dynamic for flagging an article?

Specifically in this case, what's the probable reason - other than being the moderation equivalent of "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room"?

I read Kissinger's "On China" a few years ago. He comes across as quite likeable. But his willingness to shrug off the worst massacres is disturbing.

I'm referring to his comments on Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge.

"In a 1998 interview, Kissinger said: 'some countries, the Chinese in particular supported Pol Pot as a counterweight to the Vietnamese supported people and We at least tolerated it.'

Kissinger said he didn't approve of this due to the genocide and said he 'would not have dealt with Pol Pot for any purpose whatsoever. ... But I suspect we closed our eyes when some others did something for Pol Pot.' "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...

Well, he did commit some atrocities. I don't think he should be celebrated as some American hero

If they think he’s that evil why aren’t they publishing glamour shots and rationalizing his actions? Maybe they have changed,

Given that most claims about war crimes by Kissinger focus on south east Asia and the sort of governments there, I want to ask:

Dear internet, it Hitler had never dissolved the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would Churchill's obituary have been "Churchill - the butcher of Hamburg and Dresden has died"?

Or would it be "(((Churchill))) - the butcher of Hamburg and Dresden has died"?

They are a horrible rag, but they have some very good points.

Questionable ethics by the author as well. It's fine to believe Kissinger is a war criminal and to call him such, but to omit that he never actually was convicted as such and to draw direct comparison to someone who was legally convicted of murder is akin to kicking the corpse. It's fine to seethe at someone you hate but at least be upfront about it.

The US is notorious for special treatment by the politically connected. The lack of justice and accountability doesn’t make the war criminal allegation less accurate

Huh, he goes into exactly how a war criminal was protected from prosecution by the US ruling class. Kissinger was free to turn down the protection of the US and go to trial.

There's enough nonsense about Kissinger the beloved statesman to let one article violate the every issue has a Republican and Democratic viewpoint for someone who was beloved by the psychopathic hawks on both sides.

Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government domestic terrorist that bombed the FBI building in retaliation for the US Government's actions both domestic and abroad. No doubt he was a racist, but he didn't commit his crimes in the name of White supremacy. He gained much of his anti-US sentiment abroad when he was deployed in Iraq and became disillusioned.

TFA's first ten sentences are narrative shaping garbage that are clearly trying to gaslight anyone who reads it into believing that he acted in the name of White supremacy. Why would the author try to do that?

The guy was briefly a KKK member and carried snippets of The Turner Diaries around in his car. If you want to believe a maniac's claims about motivation that's your call. Other people choose to look past the babbling to try to discern for themselves what drove him.

The article didn't say he committed his crimes in the name of white supremacy. It referred to him as "white-supremacist terrorist Timothy McVeigh".

That's why it's gas lighting and narrative shaping.

Yet they would never refer to Darrell E. Brooks Jr. as "Black supremacist terrorist Darrell E. Brooks Jr."

Utopians will be upset that all nations are required to deal with unsavory regimes and persons, and that nations act in their own self-interest amongst the anarchy of nations where there isn’t a global police force that will protect the weak from the strong.

Kissinger, like everyone, made mistakes, and it would be naive to place the entire burden of foreign policy blame on someone when the actions of the U.S. are an integration of tens of millions of micro decisions.

First, I'm surprised that anyone could hold a position that boils down to "leaders can't be held accountable for their orders because somebody else carries them out" as a coherent one, this is even more absurd than the "I was just following orders" excuse heard at many a war crimes tribunal. Second, I'm confused that you consider the global force of that time which stood with the bloodshed and torture of the Pinochet regime and many other barbarous anti-democratic dictators and military juntas to be a "global police force that will protect the weak from the strong". If there is an anarchy of nations, Kissinger was an anarchist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com