6 ms·

> Henry Kissinger, America’s pre-eminent living statesman Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. That doesn't mean he can't write interesting books (and his intell

by bambax 5y ago

> Henry Kissinger, America’s pre-eminent living statesman Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. That doesn't mean he can't write interesting books (and his intelligence & experience are obviously immense) but it does mean he doesn't deserve that kind of flattery and respect.

cyberlurker 5y ago
Wikipedia: “ According to historian and Kissinger biographer Niall Ferguson, however, accusing Kissinger alone of war crimes "requires a double standard" because "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" have taken similar actions. But Ferguson continues "this is not to say that it's all OK."”
- AndyMcConachie 5y ago
  Please realize that if you're famous like Henry Kissinger you pay people to scrub your wikipedia page. Don't learn about Kissinger from Wikipedia.
  - cyberlurker 5y ago
    I’m just citing a nuanced view of him. But speaking of Wikipedia, check this out: “Kissinger served on the board of Theranos, a health technology company, from 2014 to 2017.” I would probably scrub this if I were on his team.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Is saying he's not the only war criminal Secretary of State really a nuanced view?
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    All the juicy stuff ends up in the talk archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6 Like this that didn't make it to the front page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4#%22Dumb,_stupid_animals...%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4... >"Dumb, stupid animals..." >Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl >>It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl >>I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2#Slobodan_Milosevic_and_Kissinger_compared https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2... >Slobodan Milosevic and Kissinger compared >[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. >And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." >That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Stratoscope 5y ago
    > Please realize that if you're famous like Henry Kissinger you pay people to scrub your wikipedia page. [Citation needed] More specifically, if you make a claim like this, please link to an edit where it happened. The entire revision history is in the public record. I am not saying I disagree with you. I'm no Kissinger fan. But your argument will be much stronger if you provide hard facts, not just an unsubstantiated claim.
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      Lots of interesting perspectives in the talk page archives. Make of it what you will. Anyone with the time and stomach for it can look at TheTimesAreAChanging's edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimesAreAChanging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimes... I'm not saying he's a paid apologist for horrible people, but... (And you did ask for citations!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1037443602 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henr... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1000394063 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&d... Henry Kissinger Talk Archive 5: Kissinger Encomium (a speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5#Kissinger_Encomium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5... >Kissinger Encomium >The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia. >"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) " >>You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >>"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC) >>>I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources? 178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC) >I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >>Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >Third Opinion >A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC) >From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence. >So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes. >Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry. >(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC) >>Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Capira 5y ago
  you mean "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" are war criminals?
- AegirLeet 5y ago
  There's no double standard. All the other secretaries of state and presidents are, of course, also war criminals.
- jandrese 5y ago
  This view oversimplifies the situation. You have to consider the magnitude of the crimes, not simply a binary did they/didn't they situation. By this measure Secretary Kissinger deserves all of the scorn he receives.
DonHopkins 5y ago
But he's got nicer legs than Hitler, and bigger tits than Cher! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8 Although this is a more balanced, less melodic litigation of his charismatic virtues and war crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNi-rhLGNj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNi-rhLGNj8
- bambax 5y ago
  Best song ever.
throwaway75311 5y ago
[flagged]
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. I'm not saying you owe billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Internet psychiatric diagnosis and personal attack rants, for example, don't belong here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
throwawaylinux 5y ago
It's sort of astounding that people can be hounded out of their jobs for dumb tweets or playing dress-up the wrong way years ago (unless you are the PM of Canada I guess), but if you're responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and billions of dollars stolen and funneled into war and energy industries, that's cool you might be a little on the nose for a few years then you'll be welcomed back into the fold. Not that I'm saying bigoted tweets or blackface okay, let me stress. I noticed George W Bush started being celebrated again in the past few years. And Obama has never stopped being a darling! Just astounding. Guess the whole Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc stuff were just little whoopsies. We really dance to their tune, don't we?
- DoItToMe81 5y ago
  The media has, for almost a decade, tried to play George Bush and his cabinet out to be "principled, simple conservatives", and it seems to be working. I can't believe that some of the people most critical of Bush, Cheney and the wars they profited from, were swayed by him painting dogs of all things.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Meanwhile in Georgia, Jimmy Carter's still too busy building homes and eradicating guinea worms to paint dogs. https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals.html https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals.... Ask President Carter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68iTvhWNB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68iTvhWNB0
    - fortran77 5y ago
      And here, I think (seriously) that Jimmy Carter is pure evil! You really can't have "absolute judgements" on any person that are universally recognized.
- finiteseries 5y ago
  Bigoted tweets or blackface matter more to US society than Libya, Syria, and Yemen combined. Foreign policy/tragedy simply just does not matter to US citizens, US culture, or US media for various reasons independent of any moral failings, or gullibility (though that certainly does help things along).
refurb 5y ago
I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC). How it seems to work is if said person aligns with your own political views (i.e. the ends justifies the mean) then war crime are conveniently overlooked.
- freeflight 5y ago
  > I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC). It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto we Sizwe [0], making wrong claims about their targeting, and embezzling how the creation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe was a direct reaction to getting massacred when initially attempting peaceful, non-violent, protest [1]. Not to mention how the US's role in Cambodia is in not at all analogous with the role of the AMC in Apartheid Africa. Even attempting this comparison, to argue for some kind or ethical nihilism, is something very weird to do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
  - refurb 5y ago
    Like Sinn Fein and the IRA. Politically expedient “distance”.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      Partly, but also the vastly different power dynamics of these situations. To most honest observers there usually is a side here fighting for a more "humane" cause, like opposing their own enslavement, or opposing the colonialization of their country by another for some semi-enslavement. Wouldn't you agree these are generally "good" causes, unless you are the aggressor in that situation? The inherent asymmetry of these conflicts, particularly in military power, leaves the "insurgent" side usually not much more choice than use cruder weapons and go for targets of opportunity that may involve a higher risk of civilian collateral. Which is not a new dynamic, it's a very old dynamic that many militaries throughout history had to deal with when occupying populated territories hostile to them.
refurb 5y ago
I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC).
sumedh 5y ago
> and his intelligence & experience are obviously immense He was also fooled by Elizabeth Holmes.
dang 5y ago
Ok, but please don't take HN threads on extremely predictable flamewar tangents. It leads to extremely predictable flamewars. We don't want those here. No, that's not a defense of war criminals. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck (to the extent possible), and that means responding to the most interesting things in an article, not the most obvious provocation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bambax 5y ago
  Was this a flame "war"? It seems most (or all) comments are in agreement, that the deference of the Economist towards Kissinger is a little over the top. That was only my point.

by bambax 5y ago

cyberlurker 5y ago

Wikipedia: “ According to historian and Kissinger biographer Niall Ferguson, however, accusing Kissinger alone of war crimes "requires a double standard" because "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" have taken similar actions. But Ferguson continues "this is not to say that it's all OK."”

AndyMcConachie 5y ago
Please realize that if you're famous like Henry Kissinger you pay people to scrub your wikipedia page. Don't learn about Kissinger from Wikipedia.
- cyberlurker 5y ago
  I’m just citing a nuanced view of him. But speaking of Wikipedia, check this out: “Kissinger served on the board of Theranos, a health technology company, from 2014 to 2017.” I would probably scrub this if I were on his team.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Is saying he's not the only war criminal Secretary of State really a nuanced view?
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  All the juicy stuff ends up in the talk archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6 Like this that didn't make it to the front page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4#%22Dumb,_stupid_animals...%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4... >"Dumb, stupid animals..." >Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl >>It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl >>I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC) >I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2#Slobodan_Milosevic_and_Kissinger_compared https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2... >Slobodan Milosevic and Kissinger compared >[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. >And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." >That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  > Please realize that if you're famous like Henry Kissinger you pay people to scrub your wikipedia page. [Citation needed] More specifically, if you make a claim like this, please link to an edit where it happened. The entire revision history is in the public record. I am not saying I disagree with you. I'm no Kissinger fan. But your argument will be much stronger if you provide hard facts, not just an unsubstantiated claim.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Lots of interesting perspectives in the talk page archives. Make of it what you will. Anyone with the time and stomach for it can look at TheTimesAreAChanging's edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimesAreAChanging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimes... I'm not saying he's a paid apologist for horrible people, but... (And you did ask for citations!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1037443602 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henr... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1000394063 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&d... Henry Kissinger Talk Archive 5: Kissinger Encomium (a speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5#Kissinger_Encomium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5... >Kissinger Encomium >The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia. >"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) " >>You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) >>"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC) >>>I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources? 178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC) >I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >>Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >Third Opinion >A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) >The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC) >From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence. >So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes. >Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry. >(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC) >>Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Capira 5y ago
you mean "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" are war criminals?
AegirLeet 5y ago
There's no double standard. All the other secretaries of state and presidents are, of course, also war criminals.
jandrese 5y ago
This view oversimplifies the situation. You have to consider the magnitude of the crimes, not simply a binary did they/didn't they situation. By this measure Secretary Kissinger deserves all of the scorn he receives.

DonHopkins 5y ago

But he's got nicer legs than Hitler, and bigger tits than Cher! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8 Although this is a more balanced, less melodic litigation of his charismatic virtues and war crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNi-rhLGNj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNi-rhLGNj8

bambax 5y ago
Best song ever.

throwaway75311 5y ago

[flagged]

dang 5y ago
Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. I'm not saying you owe billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Internet psychiatric diagnosis and personal attack rants, for example, don't belong here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

throwawaylinux 5y ago

It's sort of astounding that people can be hounded out of their jobs for dumb tweets or playing dress-up the wrong way years ago (unless you are the PM of Canada I guess), but if you're responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and billions of dollars stolen and funneled into war and energy industries, that's cool you might be a little on the nose for a few years then you'll be welcomed back into the fold. Not that I'm saying bigoted tweets or blackface okay, let me stress. I noticed George W Bush started being celebrated again in the past few years. And Obama has never stopped being a darling! Just astounding. Guess the whole Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc stuff were just little whoopsies. We really dance to their tune, don't we?

DoItToMe81 5y ago
The media has, for almost a decade, tried to play George Bush and his cabinet out to be "principled, simple conservatives", and it seems to be working. I can't believe that some of the people most critical of Bush, Cheney and the wars they profited from, were swayed by him painting dogs of all things.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  Meanwhile in Georgia, Jimmy Carter's still too busy building homes and eradicating guinea worms to paint dogs. https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals.html https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals.... Ask President Carter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68iTvhWNB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68iTvhWNB0
  - fortran77 5y ago
    And here, I think (seriously) that Jimmy Carter is pure evil! You really can't have "absolute judgements" on any person that are universally recognized.
finiteseries 5y ago
Bigoted tweets or blackface matter more to US society than Libya, Syria, and Yemen combined. Foreign policy/tragedy simply just does not matter to US citizens, US culture, or US media for various reasons independent of any moral failings, or gullibility (though that certainly does help things along).

refurb 5y ago

I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC). How it seems to work is if said person aligns with your own political views (i.e. the ends justifies the mean) then war crime are conveniently overlooked.

freeflight 5y ago
> I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC). It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto we Sizwe [0], making wrong claims about their targeting, and embezzling how the creation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe was a direct reaction to getting massacred when initially attempting peaceful, non-violent, protest [1]. Not to mention how the US's role in Cambodia is in not at all analogous with the role of the AMC in Apartheid Africa. Even attempting this comparison, to argue for some kind or ethical nihilism, is something very weird to do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
- refurb 5y ago
  Like Sinn Fein and the IRA. Politically expedient “distance”.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    Partly, but also the vastly different power dynamics of these situations. To most honest observers there usually is a side here fighting for a more "humane" cause, like opposing their own enslavement, or opposing the colonialization of their country by another for some semi-enslavement. Wouldn't you agree these are generally "good" causes, unless you are the aggressor in that situation? The inherent asymmetry of these conflicts, particularly in military power, leaves the "insurgent" side usually not much more choice than use cruder weapons and go for targets of opportunity that may involve a higher risk of civilian collateral. Which is not a new dynamic, it's a very old dynamic that many militaries throughout history had to deal with when occupying populated territories hostile to them.

refurb 5y ago

I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC).

sumedh 5y ago

> and his intelligence & experience are obviously immense He was also fooled by Elizabeth Holmes.

dang 5y ago

Ok, but please don't take HN threads on extremely predictable flamewar tangents. It leads to extremely predictable flamewars. We don't want those here. No, that's not a defense of war criminals. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck (to the extent possible), and that means responding to the most interesting things in an article, not the most obvious provocation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bambax 5y ago
Was this a flame "war"? It seems most (or all) comments are in agreement, that the deference of the Economist towards Kissinger is a little over the top. That was only my point.