American Ruling Class, Killing Children as "After Dinner Entertainment"

Submitted by Big Al on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 8:47am

Evidently one of Trump's billionaire cabinet buddies, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, told an audience at an economic conference in California on Monday that the illegal missile strike in Syria was “after-dinner entertainment”.

His remark drew laughter from the audience.

“Just as dessert was being served, the president explained to Mr. Xi he had something he wanted to tell him, which was the launching of 59 missiles into Syria,” the cabinet member said Monday, according to Variety.

The magazine reported that Ross’ reflection of the event drew laughter from the audience at the Milken Institute Global Conference.

“It was in lieu of after-dinner entertainment. The thing was, it didn’t cost the president anything to have that entertainment,” Ross said."

http://rinf.com/alt-news/newswire/trumps-syria-strike-after-dinner-enter...

Well, it's nothing new I guess. Brings to mind Madeleine Albright's infamous 60 Minutes interview where she said killing half a million Iraqi children was a difficult choice, but "worth it".

[video:https://youtu.be/omnskeu-puE]

We could find countless examples like this coming from the mouths of the "elite", the rich and powerful and their sycophants, followers and wannabes along with our elected politicians and appointed government officials, like this asshole Ross. Sick people who think it's funny that Trump used an illegal and immoral missile strike that killed children as "after dinner entertainment". What kind of sick ass people laugh at that kind of thing?

The people in control of this country, that's who. People from the democratic and republican parties, that's who. People who have no problems, not even a shred of remorse, when it comes to killing other's children in the name of power and greed. People who think it's "worth it" to kill a few children, or even a few hundred thousand children, for their entertainment.

I wonder if there was anyone in the audience that not only did not laugh, but was disturbed by the laughter coming from the rest of the audience. Anyone at all?

Tags:

murder

laughter

Killing

Imperialism

Callousness

evil

Vote

Comments

Submitted by ggersh on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 9:09am

and on MSM nary a word

this country is in deep shit

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by CB on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 11:12am

And few realize how deep the shit is

@ggersh
Fortunately, it gives China and Russia more time to develop and strengthen their nations to eventually surpass the s(t)inking Empire and put an end to American world hegemony.

Submitted by ggersh on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 1:24pm

those that are supposedly in charge

@CB and I haven't a clue as to whom/what/who they are,
although they are NYC/DC centric remind me of petulant
children, they're scary as hell.

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by dance you monster on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 9:39am

As background, I'd note . . .

. . . that this utterance by Ross was made to an audience at the Milken Institute.

If anyone is not fully coffeed up yet this morning, here's what the wiki on Mr. Milken (the Institute's founder and chairman, after he was indicted) has to add:

Milken was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation. As the result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to securities and reporting violations but not to racketeering or insider trading. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His sentence was later reduced to two years for cooperating with testimony against his former colleagues and for good behavior.[3]

His critics cited him as the epitome of Wall Street greed during the 1980s, and nicknamed him the "Junk Bond King".

It would be unusual in that audience to find anyone who wasn't a sociopath.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 10:34am

The only thing that stunt did

was to strengthen ties between Russia, China and the rest of the Brics. What it did do was to demonstrate that Trump is a boorish idiot when it comes to the nuances of diplomacy and foreign affairs.

Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin: our friendship is unbreakable
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS
...
I have previously explained who Li Zhanshu is, and why his visit is important, and the likely reason for his visit, which is the ongoing attempt by the Trump administration to cause trouble between China and Russia, and China’s and Russia’s concern to squelch any mistaken impressions which might be caused by that attempt

That in turn explains the way the Chinese and the Russians – undoubtedly by pre-arrangement – used Li Zhanshu’s meeting with Putin to publicise a personal message from President Xi Jinping to Putin. The Kremlin’s transcript of Li Zhanshu’s words reads as follows

Before my departure, I went especially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.

Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterised by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.

He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.

...
The statement by the BRICS group is the most public expression of these Chinese steps. It seems to have been hurriedly put together at a meeting of the BRICS special envoys in Visakhapatnam in India, and was published on 12th April 2017 – the same day as the UN Security Council vote – in a way that was obviously intended to offset any misconception arising from China’s decision to abstain in that vote.

Its full text has been published by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, and was undoubtedly agreed in advance following detailed discussions at the highest levels of the Russian and Chinese governments, but also involving the governments of the three other BRICS states: India, Brazil and South Africa.

The statement reaffirms the primacy of international law in settling disputes in the Middle East and elsewhere, and importantly it reaffirms the primary role of the UN Security Council as the only body empowered to authorise the use of force

BRICS Special Envoys on Middle East expressed their concern about internal crises that have emerged in a number of states in the region in recent years. They firmly advocated that these crises should be resolved in accordance with the international law and UN Charter, without resorting to force or external interference and through establishing broad national dialogue with due respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries of the region....

....In the course of the meeting, the role of the UN Security Council as the international body bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security was underlined. It was also stressed that military interventions that have not been authorized by the Security Council are incompatible with the UN Charter and unacceptable.

(bold italics added)

The highlighted words are straightforward criticisms of the US missile strike on Al-Shayrat air base on 6th April 2017, which was carried out without authorisation from the UN Security Council, though the statement is careful not to refer to the US by name.
...

McMaster's childish attempt to use the Xi - Trump meeting as some sort of signal that the meeting had driven a wedge between China and Russia shows his complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how foreign policy is conducted and why people with an entrenched military mentality should not be in charge of foreign policy.

McMaster Is Deluded, Trump Hasn't Divided China and Russia

The inexperienced Trump admin is giving itself too much credit. Russia-China ties are on a completely different level from US-Chinese contacts
...
Conceivably, McMaster is a novice in international diplomacy and his inexperience showed in the ABC interview. But then, he happens to be Trump’s NSA and even if he is a bumbling Lt. General who is a babe in the words in the world of politics, his voice carries authority. McMaster said:

“What we do know is that, in the midst of responding to the mass murder of the Syrian regime, the president (Trump) and the first lady hosted an extraordinarily successful conference, summit, with President Xi and his team. And not only did they establish a very warm relationship, but… they worked together as well in connection with the response to the mass murder on the part of the Assad regime in connection with the U.N. vote.

I think President Xi was courageous in distancing himself from the Russians, isolating really the Russians and the Bolivians… And I think the world saw that, and they (Xi) saw, well, what club do you want to be in? The Russian-Bolivian club? Or the — in the club with the United States, working together on our mutual interests and the interests of peace, security.”

McMaster probably thought, out of sheer naivety, that with these harsh words, he’d deal a knockout punch at the Russians. No matter Trump’s game plan to drive a wedge between China and Russia by exploiting Xi’s interest in a ‘new type of major country relations’ with US, it is preposterous that Beijing will allow any erosion to the Sino-Russian entente.
...
Li’s trip to Moscow and his consultations at the Kremlin can only make Trump and McMaster look somewhat like two country bumpkins who lost their way in the metropolis.

Submitted by dfarrah on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 10:53am

I really like

@CB those words: cooperation and prosperity.

They sure beat endless war.

was to strengthen ties between Russia, China and the rest of the Brics. What it did do was to demonstrate that Trump is a boorish idiot when it comes to the nuances of diplomacy and foreign affairs.

Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin: our friendship is unbreakable
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS
...
I have previously explained who Li Zhanshu is, and why his visit is important, and the likely reason for his visit, which is the ongoing attempt by the Trump administration to cause trouble between China and Russia, and China’s and Russia’s concern to squelch any mistaken impressions which might be caused by that attempt

That in turn explains the way the Chinese and the Russians – undoubtedly by pre-arrangement – used Li Zhanshu’s meeting with Putin to publicise a personal message from President Xi Jinping to Putin. The Kremlin’s transcript of Li Zhanshu’s words reads as follows

Before my departure, I went especially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.

Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterised by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.

He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.

...
The statement by the BRICS group is the most public expression of these Chinese steps. It seems to have been hurriedly put together at a meeting of the BRICS special envoys in Visakhapatnam in India, and was published on 12th April 2017 – the same day as the UN Security Council vote – in a way that was obviously intended to offset any misconception arising from China’s decision to abstain in that vote.

Its full text has been published by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, and was undoubtedly agreed in advance following detailed discussions at the highest levels of the Russian and Chinese governments, but also involving the governments of the three other BRICS states: India, Brazil and South Africa.

The statement reaffirms the primacy of international law in settling disputes in the Middle East and elsewhere, and importantly it reaffirms the primary role of the UN Security Council as the only body empowered to authorise the use of force

BRICS Special Envoys on Middle East expressed their concern about internal crises that have emerged in a number of states in the region in recent years. They firmly advocated that these crises should be resolved in accordance with the international law and UN Charter, without resorting to force or external interference and through establishing broad national dialogue with due respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries of the region....

....In the course of the meeting, the role of the UN Security Council as the international body bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security was underlined. It was also stressed that military interventions that have not been authorized by the Security Council are incompatible with the UN Charter and unacceptable.

(bold italics added)

The highlighted words are straightforward criticisms of the US missile strike on Al-Shayrat air base on 6th April 2017, which was carried out without authorisation from the UN Security Council, though the statement is careful not to refer to the US by name.
...

McMaster's childish attempt to use the Xi - Trump meeting as some sort of signal that the meeting had driven a wedge between China and Russia shows his complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how foreign policy is conducted and why people with an entrenched military mentality should not be in charge of foreign policy.

McMaster Is Deluded, Trump Hasn't Divided China and Russia

The inexperienced Trump admin is giving itself too much credit. Russia-China ties are on a completely different level from US-Chinese contacts
...
Conceivably, McMaster is a novice in international diplomacy and his inexperience showed in the ABC interview. But then, he happens to be Trump’s NSA and even if he is a bumbling Lt. General who is a babe in the words in the world of politics, his voice carries authority. McMaster said:

“What we do know is that, in the midst of responding to the mass murder of the Syrian regime, the president (Trump) and the first lady hosted an extraordinarily successful conference, summit, with President Xi and his team. And not only did they establish a very warm relationship, but… they worked together as well in connection with the response to the mass murder on the part of the Assad regime in connection with the U.N. vote.

I think President Xi was courageous in distancing himself from the Russians, isolating really the Russians and the Bolivians… And I think the world saw that, and they (Xi) saw, well, what club do you want to be in? The Russian-Bolivian club? Or the — in the club with the United States, working together on our mutual interests and the interests of peace, security.”

McMaster probably thought, out of sheer naivety, that with these harsh words, he’d deal a knockout punch at the Russians. No matter Trump’s game plan to drive a wedge between China and Russia by exploiting Xi’s interest in a ‘new type of major country relations’ with US, it is preposterous that Beijing will allow any erosion to the Sino-Russian entente.
...
Li’s trip to Moscow and his consultations at the Kremlin can only make Trump and McMaster look somewhat like two country bumpkins who lost their way in the metropolis.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Creosote. on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 1:23pm

Another well-grounded brilliant CB post

@CB
Thirty years or so ago you might have been writing for the NYRB. I really appreciate your analysis here.

was to strengthen ties between Russia, China and the rest of the Brics. What it did do was to demonstrate that Trump is a boorish idiot when it comes to the nuances of diplomacy and foreign affairs.

Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin: our friendship is unbreakable
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS
...
I have previously explained who Li Zhanshu is, and why his visit is important, and the likely reason for his visit, which is the ongoing attempt by the Trump administration to cause trouble between China and Russia, and China’s and Russia’s concern to squelch any mistaken impressions which might be caused by that attempt

That in turn explains the way the Chinese and the Russians – undoubtedly by pre-arrangement – used Li Zhanshu’s meeting with Putin to publicise a personal message from President Xi Jinping to Putin. The Kremlin’s transcript of Li Zhanshu’s words reads as follows

Before my departure, I went especially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.

Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterised by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.

He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.

...
The statement by the BRICS group is the most public expression of these Chinese steps. It seems to have been hurriedly put together at a meeting of the BRICS special envoys in Visakhapatnam in India, and was published on 12th April 2017 – the same day as the UN Security Council vote – in a way that was obviously intended to offset any misconception arising from China’s decision to abstain in that vote.

Its full text has been published by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, and was undoubtedly agreed in advance following detailed discussions at the highest levels of the Russian and Chinese governments, but also involving the governments of the three other BRICS states: India, Brazil and South Africa.

The statement reaffirms the primacy of international law in settling disputes in the Middle East and elsewhere, and importantly it reaffirms the primary role of the UN Security Council as the only body empowered to authorise the use of force

BRICS Special Envoys on Middle East expressed their concern about internal crises that have emerged in a number of states in the region in recent years. They firmly advocated that these crises should be resolved in accordance with the international law and UN Charter, without resorting to force or external interference and through establishing broad national dialogue with due respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries of the region....

....In the course of the meeting, the role of the UN Security Council as the international body bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security was underlined. It was also stressed that military interventions that have not been authorized by the Security Council are incompatible with the UN Charter and unacceptable.

(bold italics added)

The highlighted words are straightforward criticisms of the US missile strike on Al-Shayrat air base on 6th April 2017, which was carried out without authorisation from the UN Security Council, though the statement is careful not to refer to the US by name.
...

McMaster's childish attempt to use the Xi - Trump meeting as some sort of signal that the meeting had driven a wedge between China and Russia shows his complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how foreign policy is conducted and why people with an entrenched military mentality should not be in charge of foreign policy.

McMaster Is Deluded, Trump Hasn't Divided China and Russia

The inexperienced Trump admin is giving itself too much credit. Russia-China ties are on a completely different level from US-Chinese contacts
...
Conceivably, McMaster is a novice in international diplomacy and his inexperience showed in the ABC interview. But then, he happens to be Trump’s NSA and even if he is a bumbling Lt. General who is a babe in the words in the world of politics, his voice carries authority. McMaster said:

“What we do know is that, in the midst of responding to the mass murder of the Syrian regime, the president (Trump) and the first lady hosted an extraordinarily successful conference, summit, with President Xi and his team. And not only did they establish a very warm relationship, but… they worked together as well in connection with the response to the mass murder on the part of the Assad regime in connection with the U.N. vote.

I think President Xi was courageous in distancing himself from the Russians, isolating really the Russians and the Bolivians… And I think the world saw that, and they (Xi) saw, well, what club do you want to be in? The Russian-Bolivian club? Or the — in the club with the United States, working together on our mutual interests and the interests of peace, security.”

McMaster probably thought, out of sheer naivety, that with these harsh words, he’d deal a knockout punch at the Russians. No matter Trump’s game plan to drive a wedge between China and Russia by exploiting Xi’s interest in a ‘new type of major country relations’ with US, it is preposterous that Beijing will allow any erosion to the Sino-Russian entente.
...
Li’s trip to Moscow and his consultations at the Kremlin can only make Trump and McMaster look somewhat like two country bumpkins who lost their way in the metropolis.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 10:50am

Trump is even stupider than Bush was

when it comes to China. Here's a video made back in 2005 by Dan Ligon for Sundance Film Festival.

I had previously posted it as part of another comment:
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/261081#comment-261081

Submitted by Wink on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 11:57am

"Watch this one, Fred...

wait for it... Boom!! Six stories flattened! Hang around it gets better! Do you need a refill...?"

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 1:47pm

disturbed

I wonder if there was anyone in the audience that not only did not laugh, but was disturbed by the laughter coming from the rest of the audience. Anyone at all?

I doubt it, as I'm certain the audience was hand picked to insure that no such person was invited or admitted.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Hillbilly Dem on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 2:25pm

There's usually at least one or two.

@thanatokephaloides A personal favorite "profile in courage"

—

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Submitted by edg on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 2:01pm

You're wrong.

You wrote "no problems, not even a shred of remorse, when it comes to killing other's children in the name of power and greed". They don't have any problems or remorse when it comes to killing our own children in the name of power and greed, either.

Great essay. Thanks for writing it.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 05/02/2017 - 3:55pm