Supporters of the war don’t want to talk about civilian deaths. Opponents of the war don’t want to talk about patriotic bravery.

Interesting angle by Agricola. I gather he means that the war supporters don’t want to talk about civilian deaths because it makes the situation look too grim. If even civilians who are helping in the re-building of Iraq can be kidnapped and cold-bloodedly murdered,—by Iraqis themselves—then what hope is there for our overall effort to help build a self-governing society there?

I suppose that it could be argued that the murder of the Italian guard took place in the midst of, what, over 100 American KIAs the past two weeks. BTW, speaking of opponents of the war who appear to have gone *completely* mad, there is Paul Craig Roberts, who, these days, seems to politically stand somewhere b/w Pat Buchanan and Julius Streicher. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/caesar.htm

If Paul C. is suggesting that the recent high combat U.S. fatalities meant that the murder of a civilian hostage didn’t matter or should not have mattered to the American public (not only the American public, but the British public and, it seems, all publics excerpt for the Italian public), then I disagree. This was an earthquake. Capturing a civilian, making him a prisoner, and then cold-bloodedly executing him transgressed some new boundary. It should have shocked all world opinion about the nature of the people we’re fighting in Iraq. But, once again, outside of the Italian press, it was either ignored or treated as virtually a routine event.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like typical American self-centeredness and parochialism. Mr. Quattrocchi was not an American. There has been extensive press coverage of American civilian contractors who were taken hostage recently and are still alive; one freed and one still captive, I believe.

God bless Mr. Quattrocchi.

Hmm… it was front page news in the Boston Herald.

Just why would anyone be shocked about the murder? This is precisely the way muslims have been behaving for quite some time. The only people who should be surprised are the pollyannas across the globe who thought they were going to create a democratic oasis of tolerance, enlightenment and civilization on the Euphrates.

I don’t understand where Paul C. is coming from on this. First he says that the murder of the hostage is such a routine event that it should have no impact on us at all. Then he says that the only people who should be surprised are Pollyannas. But in fact the Pollyannas in this country are not shocked by it, they’re ignoring it, or, rather, they’re not being told about it, which is perhaps the reason they’re still Pollyannas. Perhaps the reason they’re not being told about it is that news editors share Paul’s cynical view that “we already know this, so why bother making a big deal about it.” In other words, the Pollyannas remain Pollyannas because the Cynics in charge, having decided that “this doesn’t matter, because we’ve seen it all before,” don’t bother telling them the truth of what’s happening.

Second, the question is not whether the murder is “surprising,” but how and whether the world should react to it. By Paul C.’s reasoning, we should ignore all murders, rapes, and other crimes, since murders, rapes and other crimes have been going on since the beginning of time. In other words, by equating the _existence_ of certain kinds of acts with a supposed lack of any _moral meaning_ of those acts, he’s veering close to nihilism. Furthermore, if he’s saying it doesn’t mean anything, then how could the world learn anything from it now? Which brings us back to the problem of Cynicism feeding Pollyannism.

In any case, the fact is that prior to this event, in the year since the overthrow of Hussein, civilian employees of the Coalition Authority have _not_ been kidnapped and murdered in cold blood, after being forced to dig their own graves. This is not a routine, expected event. It is a shocking event. Paul’s C.’s cynical stand, far from leading us into a realistic understanding of the situation we’re dealing with in Iraq, would merely deaden us to it.

Here is an e-mail I got from a correspondent on this. He says the lack of coverage is no surprise, but, unlike Paul C., he doesn’t claim that this means the act ought to be ignored because, after all, only Pollyannas don’t already know this stuff. Quite the contrary.

“The lack of news about Quattrochi’s murder does not surprise me.

“Most American media organizations have become increasingly insular over the years. You are both aware of how coverage of foreign affairs has diminished as bureaus in foreign cities have been shut down. The major papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post may be exceptions.

“Beyond that, there seems to be a consensus among the powers that be that Americans are to be shielded from the brutal realities of war. They probably call it tactful discretion. I call it a sin of omission, a form of deception to be sure. If American citizens are to exercise their responsibility (the few that still care), they need to see the harsh consequences of decisions made and actions taken.

“For that reason, the tape of Quattrochi’s execution should be shown, just as the complete footage of Daniel Pearl’s murder should have been. People need to understand that the world is full of vicious killers and sundry murderers. I don’t think it really hits home unless you see the blood splatter the lens. Anything less is just a commercial break between Survivor and American Idol.

“P.S. I once saw a videotape on the Net taken by Muslim rebels in Chechnya. They had a young Russian soldier on the ground. The cameraman filmed a comrade unsheath a Bowie knife and then behead the Russian, his death gurgles clearly audible. It was one of the most horrible things I have ever seen and I will always remember the image. That brought home to me the reality of that war like nothing else.”

Just where did I say the murder ought to be ignored? You have decided to put words into my mouth for some reason. My observations are that, observations of fact. First, the American media *is* preoccupied with American KIAs. Second, muslim behavior towards captives is no surprise—this is the exact sort of thing they did in Lebanon, and it’s what they have done to Israeli Jews since 1948. Finally, go back and look at the response of the American public to the Madrid bombing. They were largely indifferent about THAT, too. The only reason a furore arose was, a few days later, because of the way the bombing affected the Spanish elections. Now, am I saying the lack of response by the American public was what SHOULD have happened? No. But it was what did in fact take place. Finally, I was amongst the first, if not the first, when I came to this board to say that muslims needed to be good and well smashed to pieces and have the fear of God put into them. I posted it last August or July and received no shortage of criticism from participants, here. So, no, I’m not surprised by events in Iraq. I am sorry, however, that leaders, generals, and pundits didn’t have the common sense to see what this war would require. The Iraqis are being bold enough to take these hostages and kill them, because our conduct has been soft and sent the message that they could get away with it. And I bet they do get away with it.

If Paul C. feels he is being misunderstood, he set up that misunderstanding by the way he expressed himself. The topic of this thread was (1) the shocking and savage nature of the crime, both as a crime in itself and as a harbinger of the impossible difficulties that may be faced by foreigners working in the Iraq reconstruction effort, and (2) the shocking fact that Western media outside Italy has not given the crime and the victime its just attention. When Paul C. wrote dismissively that there’s nothing shocking or surprising about the crime, he was, first, saying something that was not accurate, since nothing like this had happened in the year of the Coalition’s presence in Iraq, and so it represented a major escalation of what the insurgent forces are willing to do. Second, since my subject was the moral nature of the crime and what I called the shocking lack of outrage and sympathy for the victim in the West, Paul’s “it’s not shocking or surprising” comment could only be taken to be suggesting that, since the crime is _not_ shocking or surprising, the media’s lack attention to it is not objectionable, and my shock about that lack of media attention is off-base. Thus a reasonable reader could easily conclude that Paul is, indeed, saying that there’s nothing wrong with the media’s relative downplaying or outright ignoring of this crime.

Mr. Auster earlier stated: “But, once again, outside of the Italian press, it was either ignored or treated as virtually a routine event.”

It *is* in fact a routine event, a typical abduction/murder by muslims. I didn’t need to wait for the very first time for it to occur in Iraq not to know that it is a pattern of behavior stretching from the Sudan, Egypt (with the Copts), Lebanon, and the “West Bank” to Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Moscow. And, btw, I’m not “dismissive”; I’m cynical. From the beginning this has been a war against “terror” (an abstraction), instead of the concrete enemy facing us (muslims). You might, for example, want to ask yourself just why the images of the collapsing World Trade Center towers have become more rare than reruns of My Mother the Car on television. Or, for another example, why the footage of real, live, recognizable human beings jumping from burning 100 story buildings has *never* been shown on TV. From the very beginning, government and media has tried to soft peddle the true nature of islam. Why are you, Mr. Auster, shocked they are doing so, now?

Paul C. writes:

“It *is* in fact a routine event, a typical abduction/murder by muslims. I didn’t need to wait for the very first time for it to occur in Iraq not to know that it is a pattern of behavior stretching from the Sudan, Egypt (with the Copts), Lebanon, and the ‘West Bank’ to Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Moscow.”

The event is different from the past events mentioned because: (1) In those past abduction/murders by Moslems, the victim was presumably an enemy. An Italian man, who was in Iraq to guard the Iraqis own oil pipeline, to help the Iraqis get their country up and running again, does not fit that profile by any reasonable definition. (2) This is the first such event in postwar Iraq, which is the first Arab country occupied by a Western power in recent times and being reconstructed largely through the help of Westerners. While I was always doubtful about the prospects of Iraqi “democracy,” I at least had some hopes for that country to get itself into some kind of functional, stable condition. These kinds of crimes against foreign aid workers throw that prospect into the deepest doubt.

Also, Paul’s insistence that the event is indeed routine undercuts his insistence that he was not saying the crime should be ignored. That’s what the media does with regard to routine events: it ignores them.

“Or, for another example, why the footage of real, live, recognizable human beings jumping from burning 100 story buildings has *never* been shown on TV. From the very beginning, government and media has tried to soft peddle the true nature of islam. Why are you, Mr. Auster, shocked they are doing so, now?”

But the media did not soft peddle the murder and mutilation of the four American security guards in Fallujah just a couple of weeks ago. The event was both shocking in itself and deeply significant as to the nature of the opposing forces we are facing in Iraq, and such coverage was appropriate. The cold-blooded execution of the Italian man also was shocking and represented another line being transgressed; yet the media barely covered it. And that is what I am protesting in this thread. I don’t see why we make a huge deal about the savage murders of Americans, while almost ignoring the savage murders of people of other nationalities who are our allies in this effort. That is wrong.

“And, btw, I’m not ‘dismissive’; I’m cynical.”

I wonder whether it’s possible to have a useful discussion about the nature of evil and how we ought to react to it with a self-described cynic, since by that self-description he is announcing that moral indignation—which, as Plato said, is the proper reaction of a rational being to evil—is foreign to him.

The failure to pay more attention to the this murder stems partly from polyannism, but partly also from American self-involvement. The massacre of the Australians in Bali did not seem to stir much indignation, although it would be tough to find people more like Americans than Aussies, and in relation to the country’s population it was about as big as September 11, 2001.

“Also, Paul’s insistence that the event is indeed routine undercuts his insistence that he was not saying the crime should be ignored. That’s what the media does with regard to routine events: it ignores them.”

This, simply, is ridiculous. Again, I challenge you to show me where I said the crime should be “ignored”. You cannot. And, btw, whatever the media does with routine events is not my concern. I am not a member of the media. Your observation does not apply to me. Finally, the working definition of “cynical” is available to anyone with access to a dictionary.

I think Paul C has a point here in his assertion that this type of atrocity is nothing new in terms of how Muslims treat those who fall into their hands. I also agree that to a large degree, the lack of media coverage is part of the absolute refusal of all western liberals to face up to the true nature of Islam. Yes, Mr. Quattrochi’s murder is a sign that the enemy has been emboldened. This only points to the truth of assertions made my Mr. Sutherland and others on this forum that the only way to deal with these people is to completely defeat and demoralize them. The bottom line is that liberals - among whom are 99% of the media editors in the western world - simply can’t acknowledge the fundamentally brutal nature of Islamic culture. To do so would require the undermining of one of the great pillars of liberal dogma. My bet is that the Italian press, while covering the tragedy of Mr. Quattrochi’s murder and perhaps his bravery, will avoid any discussion of the fact that this abominable action is quite acceptable within Islamic culture.

Thus, such atrocities will receive attention only in the locale of the victim. When possible, as in the murder of an American missionary held captive by Muslims in the Phillipines last year, the media will bury the story. My guess is that the grisly desecration of the bodies of the four American contractors in late March didn’t get the kind of coverage in Europe that it did here. If there were expressions of outrage and shock about this (or about any of the legion of Muslim crimes) that were too passionate or went on too long, the stupefied populace of the west might begin to question the wisdom of importing millions of these people into our midst - a thought unacceptable to the ruling elite.

Carl’s comment fills in a key part of the picture, which is relativism. A classic relativist statement in this connection is: “Yes, Hitler was very bad, if you were Jewish.” In this view there is nothing intrisically wrong, we only oppose those things—and we only should oppose those things—that hurt us personally. In a relativistic world, Italy makes a big deal about an Italian kidnapped and murdered by Iraqis; America makes a big deal about Americans massacred by Iraqis, and so on. But no one, at least in the liberal media, considers the natures of these acts in themselves and what they mean for all of us.

Paul C writes:

“Again, I challenge you to show me where I said the crime should be ‘ignored.’”

Paul did not say, quote unquote, that the crime should be ignored. However, as I demonstrated at length (and I’m not going to go over it again), the entire drift of his argument led to the idea that there was nothing objectionable about its being ignored.

By the way, here is the definition of cynical in the WordWeb dictionary: “Believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. the selflessness of others.” The Webster’s New Collegiate says: “contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives.” Synonyms are misanthropic, pessimistic.

All of which returns me to my earlier question about whether a cynical person can have moral indignation. Since the cynic doesn’t believe in the possibility of good, how can he be indignant at wrong or evil? It’s what he expects.

Maybe the Western press sees Quattrocchi - may his brave soul rest in peace - as a racist, because of his last words. Rather than speak ill of the dead, ignore him.

Matt’s comment reminds me of what someone said about the last scene of “Braveheart,” that it rang false because Mel Gibson’s last word as William Wallace before his death under torture was “Freedom!” As the critic pointed out, Wallace would not have cried “Freedom!” He would have cried “Scotland!” He wasn’t interested in some abstraction of freedom for the whole human race; he was interested in the freedom and happiness of his country. So Fabrizio Quattrocchi said bravely, “I’ll show you how an Italian dies.” Can anyone imagine a contemporary American in similar circumstances crying, “I’ll show you how an American dies”? No, a contemporary American, following the fashion of Gibson’s William Wallace, would say, “I’ll show you how a true believer in diversity and inclusion dies.”

So there may very well be something to Matt’s theory as to why Quattrocchi’s death was ignored. Contemporary Americans are not comfortable with a man who dies with the name of his country on his lips.

Sad to say, Mr. Fabrizio did show us how millions of Italians are bound to die: celibate and childless.

To his credit, he set out to do something about it:

“He was said to have accepted a job as a security guard working in Iraq for an American company, to earn enough for a home in Italy and to get married.

“‘Fabrizio was a wonderful man, a man of iron but who had never hurt a fly,’ his fiancee, Alice, told Italian television yesterday. ‘He was supposed to come back to me and we were to get married.’”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1081998300849.html

Apologies to the deceased and his family: that should read “Mr. Quattrocchi”. No disrespect was intended.

I am reminded, having just read belatedly the back and forth between two writers I admire here, of something my learned Presbyterian minister-grandfather used to say to my sister 3.5 years my junior (with whom I was always quarreling as a youngster) and to me: “Please, children, let us not quarrel amongst ourselves!”