Journalist, Berkeley grad shot in Iraq
News has been out that Steven Vincent, a Berkeley alum and freelance journalist, was shot and killed Tuesday just outside Basra, Iraq. According to the SF Chronicle Article, he had witnessed the 9/11 attacks and believed ardently in the war on terror. He had been writing about Iraq after the fall of Saddam for various publications including the New York Times, for which that last op-ed may have provoked his killing. He had also written a book, In the Red Zone and the accompanying blog. The Cal Patriot Blog also has a post on this.
More articles from Google News.
Calstuff crew-
www.ebdailynews.com
you should link to that news site in your “cal news sites” section
Comment by anon — August 4, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
Not much good believing in the War on Terror did for him.
Comment by DrainMe — August 4, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
so now the patriot is bitching about shiite islamic fundamentalism. we already know these wieners hate the secular sunni bathists. they hate the sunni wahabbist types. and now they hate the shiite fundies. hahaha!
i mean whos left to hate in Iraq? and not that these little pricks would put their asses on the line for anything they believe in but its funny to hear them talk about how we are “liberating” Iraq? liberating who? who is left that these patriot shitheads like enough to “liberate”?
the kurds? why bother to liberate the kurds, if you are just going to sell them out again? the kurds are “free”… until they smackdown from turkey, which the US will probably sanction too, given the history and the relative importance of the parties.
Comment by mano — August 4, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
The Patriot isn’t bitching about anyone. This is the Patroit.
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
its like detroit!
Comment by mano — August 4, 2005 @ 10:14 pm
Mano, it’s not like you’d like the Shiite fundamentalists. They’re quite conservative.
Comment by DTI — August 4, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
Well, no, Detroit has a lot of black folk.
Comment by Beetle — August 5, 2005 @ 12:38 am
I read some of this guy’s stuff, it’s quite moving. I wish the mainstream press had more of a personal-experience touch like his blog.
Mano, you don’t have to agree with the Patriot’s pro-war stance, but at least acknowledge that they have this position because they believe in promoting humane values, regardless of religious leanings. Sure, the Patriot could dislike particular (or all) religious beliefs in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean the Iraqis shouldn’t be helped (in their eyes). I think it’s important to recognize when there are good intentions… through the political differences.
Anyway, my heart goes to Steven Vincent… hope he’s enjoying the Bear’s Lair in the sky.
Comment by Bobby Gregg — August 5, 2005 @ 2:55 am
DTI: and its also not like i am chomping at the bit about what a good idea and how honorable it is for the US to send its army to go “liberate” anybody. Are you changing the subject?
Beetle: touche!
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 2:59 am
Gregg: did you have a brain tumor for breakfast? The patrOit believes in “promoting humane values”?
Do the “humane values” they believe in include freedom of religion, or is “liberating” Iraq about converting all of Iraq to secular / republican / artifically-christian-flavored humanism?
Do the “humane values” they believe in include torture? They sure as hell support that.
I could go on, but by my standards, the PatrOit wieners don’t genuinely “believe in” anything, anyway. I think if you believe “in” something, it means you are willing to put your own ass on the line for it.
The Patriot only “believes in” this “war” insofar as someone else is around to fight it for them. The Patriot thinks the war on terror is like, all about reliving their high school debate team days, except its on Fox News Channel 24/7, and they always win, even when they don’t. Its meaningless to even consider giving such cowardly scumbags the benefit of the doubt about “good intentions”.
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 3:17 am
I could be wrong but… uh… isn’t there a better way to honor Steven Vincent’s life than to sit around railing on the Cal Patriot?
Comment by Brian — August 5, 2005 @ 5:28 am
Mano, do you know anyone who is involved in the Patriot? Dude, get a grip. We’re not Satan. We’re conservative. Jesus…
Back to the topic at hand, you know, the important one. I did read some of Vincent’s stuf post-mortem, since I’m sorry to say I hadn’t been aware of him before his death. Some very moving and insightful material. May he rest in peace.
Comment by Morbo — August 5, 2005 @ 7:02 am
id rather honor the memories of the 20 or so marines who’ve been killed in the past week - by doing what they as soldiers weren’t allowed to do - rail against the breed of dickheads, the armchair warrior types, the BCR, the patriot, bush, rumsfeld, the breed that sent them over to kill and suffer and die for a bunch of bullshit.
steven was in iraq by choice. i’ve read his stuff, and i dont find it insightful or moving. he believed in imposing “american values” on the inferior iraqis. i find such ideas offensive and naive, and they are not unlike those of the Patriot. but at least Steven had the sac to go risk his life for the supremacy he believed in, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for any of the shitheads in the BCR.
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 8:36 am
Mano, angry much?
Comment by Bhanu Singh — August 5, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Bahnu: yep.
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 11:06 am
Bahnu, complacent much?
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 11:07 am
my 2nd cousin is 18 and was over there as a machine gunner guy on a humvee vehicle in faluja. I only remember him from 6 years ago as a 12 year old, so I can barely imagine him as an adult. His dad my cousin was a marine stationed in Bogota and Panama as an advisor during the 80s, where he got married, before becoming a border patrol agent. My family was christian scientist since the mid 1800s. It’s sort of stressful to have a family member over there, as evidenced by dad’s letters describing all the daily details of the conflicts, but he was totally filled with pride over his son following his model. I don’t think people really follow the daily toll over there since 2004. We’re barely in touch with the mortality almost hitting 2000.
Comment by anon — August 5, 2005 @ 11:32 am
Complacent? What have I written to give you that impression?
I’m as anti-Iraq was as you get. I was simply commenting on the way you express yourself. You sound like a very unhappy dude.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — August 5, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
Mano, you should seriously either put your life on the line over int he middle east for your beliefs (instead of bitching on a student blog), or graduate and do something productive for this country. You complain about how other people don’t believe in things by nopt putting their lives on the line, but I don’t see you putting your life on the line.
Many of us paleoconservatives also oppose the war, in case you have this strange belief that all conservatives are pro-war. We’re probably as anti-war as progressives. Neocons and liberals are pro-war. There’s a damn difference.
Comment by DTI — August 5, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
What should he do in the middle east… join the army? There are some locally risky things to do. Do you know how many weapons companies there are in Sunnyvale and nearby? Those workers make a lot of income- the high military budget is really going there rather than to the soldiers in Iraq. Some people in my group get to go on lockheed property to assess their wildlife.
and… how many paleoconservatives are there on campus? Are there many at the Patriot? I went to the Justin Raimondo talk and there were about 25 people there. He failed my question on property rights that I will ask of libertarians - California used to have a bounty on indians who were killed, and thus many parts of it were not legally taken to be part of the united states, so large landowners such as timber companies don’t really have a much better claim than descendants of the previous owners. He basically said that property rights come from agricultural use of land, and indians were ambling around picking up food that fell from trees
Comment by anon — August 5, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
DTI:
1) My gripe is with the BCR and the Patriot, not you. Those fuckers are LAME. And if you are a “paleoconservative” who is part of BCR or the Patriot, then you are either stupid or confused, and I feel sorry for you.
2) I’m not interested in doing anything “constructive” for the country. However, I probably, unwillingly, have done and currently do more for the “country” than most. And I dont need to graduate to do it, in any case. And I also do plenty of unpaid work, which is intentionally “constructive” stuff, but its for people, not for a nation.
3) As for risking lives, when I ask someone else to put theirs on the line I will put my own life on the line as well. It is that simple, the difference between a hypocritical coward and a principled person. I know you are smart enough to handle the reading comprehension here.
Now, currently I am not asking anyone to put their life on the line over conflicts in the middle east. Where I have asked people to take risks in service of particular political position, I have been willing to stand (and have stood) alongside them and taken the same risks.
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
mano,
you’re not saying that it’s only legit to be pro-war if you join the army and fight, are you? Cuz that’s a pretty weak argument.
Comment by alum03 — August 5, 2005 @ 7:44 pm
yep. if you are able-bodied and young, that is EXACTLY what im saying. and the only thing weak about the argument is the cowards who run from it.
PS: the adjective “pro-war” makes it sound like a political position. war is not a debate, you dumbass.
Comment by mano — August 5, 2005 @ 8:09 pm
thus you expect every president and/or congressman who voted to invade Iraq to put on a uniform and fight? That’s very mature, mano, we should definitely make that a requirement for invasion
.
PS: Why are you so angry at people who disagrees with you? Can’t you be civil? It’s like you don’t like what I wrote, so you call me a dumbass. Feeling better?
Comment by alum03 — August 5, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
and what’s up with the ‘able-bodied and young’ qualifier, as if the fact that you are older makes one’s support for the war more justifiable. And how old is old anyway? 30? 40?
Comment by alum03 — August 5, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
anon- no one was at the Justin Raimondo talk because, frankly, no one is really smart enough to know who he is. This includes progressives, who should be listening to form some strong alliances. Several of Raimondo’s supporters go to Ralph Nader events.
mano- I quit BCR years ago for obvious reasons. Those idiots are just a pro-Bush rah rah squad who don’t hold any conservative values anymore. What I thought was most egregious was the way the leadership was for the past 2 years pretty much the good old boys (and girls) club; whoever was most loyal to whoever in power.
the rest - you can be technically not anti war but still criticize the war in Iraq. For example, many progressives and paleocons believed the Afghanistan Invasion was worth it. Few of those would find the multibillion dollar Iraq war worth the fight. Neocons have given us very few good reasons to support the war. Death for US troops and Iraqis and some obscure notion of “freedom” are not worth the costs of the war, either materially or morally. I tend to be anti war and isolationist.
Comment by DTI — August 5, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
***
We’re not Satan. We’re conservative. Jesus…
***
[churchlady]Could you be Satan? You are denying that you’re Satan? How conveeeenient…[/churchlady]
Comment by jonp — August 5, 2005 @ 11:41 pm
Join BCR: We’re not Satan. Honestly…
Comment by jonp — August 5, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
I don’t know many liberals who are pro-Iraq-war.
In fact, I don’t know any!
Comment by David Horowitz — August 6, 2005 @ 9:08 am
Christopher Hitchens? The New Republic magazine? I believe that a decent minority of Democrats (10-20%) support it.
Comment by patr — August 6, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
my dad did a weird long-term democrat to Nader to right-wing switch a few years ago when he retired and started listening to right wing radio. But we couldn’t identify the conservative issue. He was always against interventions, and isn’t antiabortion and isn’t religious or really wealthy, but I think the 5pm news makes it seem like there is crime and corruption everywhere, and then the radio people provide these biased anecdotes.
There are many democrats who supported war. First, there was Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, and Carter I guess gave supplies to Indonesia during the late 70s, and Clinton supported various projects in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. All during the Clinton era, there were aircraft patrolling over Iraq from Saudi Arabia, occasionally firing at things, and moreover… there are all sorts of dictatorial regimes that the government including the democrats have consistently supported - because most of the influence of the U.S. isn’t via our army but by manipulating other governments with a small number of advisor s- for instance, I had no idea that we had done political violence in Greece and helped install a dictator in the 70s until I saw the movie Z. I could have visited there and everyone there would know, but visiting americans would have no idea. Also, all but a couple central american and caribbean nations, chile, brazil, Indonesia, Filipines, Liberia, Congo, Angola, and so forth. It didn’t stop with the democrats.
Comment by anon — August 6, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
David:
I’m annoyed that an intelligent writer would assume all liberals are the same. I am a liberal, and I support the war in Iraq. That does not mean, however, that I am not angry at the sheer incompetence shown by the Bush administration in running it. Had we known what we do now before we invaded - the lack of WMD’s, the cost in international relations, the loss of American life…would we be in Iraq now?
I support the war because the chaos that would ensue if we left now would be an even greater disgrace to our country then the current cesspool. The fact that our president spins the human cost on our poor, allows torture on his watch, and defers the financial burden by borrowing abroad…how is this not deceptive? I believe that we have to finish the job, but why aren’t conservatives holding the president accoutable?
Liberal does not mean naive, Mr. Horowitz. Neither does it mean un-patriotic, sheltered, or morally groundless. In the case of Iraq, it means we dare to speak when we see stupidity where it stands.
And Mano:
This “country” has subsidized your education for a long, long time. Isn’t it ungrateful to be “not interested in doing anything “constructive” for the country?”
Comment by Steve — August 7, 2005 @ 5:07 am
lol mano is just a pissT kid.
pissT about losing elections
pissT that no one cares about his opinions
pissT that the country he lives in doesnt roll over and let itself be told what to do
yea one pissT kid
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 7, 2005 @ 7:23 am
Steve: how about you show me your gratitude? suck it.
Comment by mano — August 7, 2005 @ 7:28 am
yup very pissT kid
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 7, 2005 @ 8:12 am
mano, suck it? give it up. you’re losing it…
Comment by alum03 — August 7, 2005 @ 10:54 am
and BTW, mano, Steve asked a very valid question. If you really don’t like this country, why don’t you move elsewhere?
Comment by alum03 — August 7, 2005 @ 10:56 am
David Horowitz:
What about all the liberals who voted for the Iraq war, like, say… John Edwards, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and those people who may have been our president. Also, Bill Clinton supported war all throughout his administration. He even bombed Iraq (shock!).
Comment by DTI — August 7, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
bring back the draft with priority for the UC students with all their skills. They’ll sort it all out.
Comment by anon — August 7, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
DTI: its called cognitive dissonance and liberals are full of it. when they figure it out, they stop being liberals.
Comment by mano — August 7, 2005 @ 8:04 pm
I don’t often spend much time on these blog comments, but sometimes it is amusing to read the bullshit that only people in Berkeley could fathom. One day, you might even enter the real world. Cheers mano.
Comment by Bobby Gregg — August 8, 2005 @ 1:50 am
hmm…
“Recipe for the Perfect Elimidate Contestant”
Ingredients:
- 1 Bobby Gregg, whole.
- 1 Grain Salt
- A Pinch of Literacy (to taste).
Combine ingredients in mixing bowl. Bake for 40 minutes or until face takes on a stupid expression. Garnish with a poorly understood (new) vocabulary word.
++++
PS: Let me know when you are on so I can check out all the marginally coherent insults you manage to cobble together.
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
for those of you who care: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/07/wirq107.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/07/ixworld.html
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Whoa — “suck it?” Mano is making a homophobic remark? The king of political correctness (and the Prince of Hating Israel) is gay bashing?
To use “suck it” as an insult to another guy implies you think that one guy sucking another is wrong or disgusting or somehow repulsive enough that it will get a negative reaction. It’s the same as using “gay” as a generic insult for being foolish.
Gee, breeder boy, maybe you should go fuck yourself.
Comment by SB — August 9, 2005 @ 9:45 am
Or is it a rape reference — “suck it” is a command and commanding someone who isn’t willing to be sexually active is rape. Guess that’s okay for a progressive to use rape as an insult.
But that’s okay — I’m sure Mano will now tell us some of his best friends are gays or women. Or even Israeli’s.
And JonP is back posting — are you ready to explain your third person in the back seat rant on the Willis-Starbuck thread yet, Jon? Or do all radical progressives, once they are exposed to be talking shit about something they have no clue about, just hide and run away from the discussion when they are proven to be idiots?
Comment by SB — August 9, 2005 @ 9:49 am
SB: suck it.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
Silence does denote agreement, Mr Homophobe.
What is it — do you think most homos are Jews? Is that why you insult them?
Comment by SB — August 11, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
SB: how stupid are you?
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
The question is how homophobic are you?
I’m not so stupid to recognize what you are. You use an insult that disparages gay men and/or rape victims, and you don’t apologize or stand up like a man and admit that you are marginalizing others. Yo don’t even try to explain it — you just toss off your spiffy insults hoping people don’t notice that you’re homophobic. You act so superior, but the truth is you’re worse than the redneck conservatives and frat boys you hate so much — as least they admit what they are and don’t pretend to be a progressive/anti-oppression kind of guy, when the truth is you’re a mean-spirited, hypocritical sham.
Comment by SB — August 12, 2005 @ 10:29 am
aw, he called my insults spiffy! thanks SB, you are so sweet!
PS: insults (and more generally, language) and how it relates to bias or “isms” is a pretty interesting topic. i suppose if i thought you really wanted to have a serious discussion about this, and if i thought more than 3 or 4 calstuff readers were even capable of understanding such a discussion, i might respond differently.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 10:40 am
Mano: Your only defense of using oppressive language is that no one is capable of understanding your use of the words? You don’t deny the use of the slur — just that none of us can understand your justification. Sure, whatever. And if you use nigger, we’ll have another discussion? If you use kike, that will be a third discussion?
So let’s just leave it that you are a bigoted hypocritcal asshole, until such time as someone can understand the complexity of why you are one.
Don’t worry that you refuse to apologize to gay people that you slammed. They can just bitch and whine with the jews you also hate.
Comment by SB — August 12, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
Uh oh. Mano’d better respond, or else he’ll lose! The crowd is on the edge of their seats…
Comment by Beetle — August 12, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
um, eat me?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
er, bite me?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
mano, good boy, at least it’s better than “suck it”
.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
blow me.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
i jinxed you. bad boy!
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
Eat me, towelhead lover.
Comment by SB — August 13, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
The comments here are a sad reflection of the state that Berkeley blogging has devolved.
Beetle is just fulfilling expectations. He is a complainer and a whiner and always has something to say but that something is always negative and pejorative. Beetle will end up being that old guy waiting in line who loudly bitches about everything who then goes to a lonely home to scream at the tv news. He never says anything constructive or valuable, and you don’t expect any sense of responsible remarks from him.
But Mano touts himself as a leader of the those who would fight oppression. And yet he uses a phrase that is clearly heterosexist and oppressive towards gays and lesbians when he associates gay male sex act with punishment, shame and humiliation, which of course assumes the superiority of heterosexual sex. His refusal to acknowledge his oppression is telling. Even more telling is his resorting to insults to belittle the one making the charge – the action of oppressors throughout history.
Comment by Anon — August 14, 2005 @ 10:44 am
You know, while your rant about me is flattering, I can’t help but think it’s a little misplaced in this thread, since I haven’t said a whole lot here.
One can only take so much whiny complaining before spite becomes a much more reasonable response motivator than ‘desire for explanation’ (as people here pretend to be motivated by) or ‘desire to prove oneself right’ (as people here actually are occasionally motivated by) or ‘desire to prove someone else wrong’ (as people here are usually motivated by). (I also don’t think the grammar works out in this paragraph)
I was unaware that blowjobs were a gay male thing, by the way.
Comment by Beetle — August 14, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
me either Beetle!
plus, i am totally at a loss for why this guy assumes “suck it” refers to a blow job. i dont remember telling him what to suck.
PS: i also wonder who told him i was the leader of everyone who fights opression? did you tell him? i try to keep that hush-hush, so i dont get assassimadated.
PPS: is this SB fella making a tacit admission that he thinks the palestinians are oppressed by israel?
Comment by mano — August 14, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
Well, it’s too late. Now, everyone knows you oppress gays through your insults in order to throw off suspicion. You’re going to need a better plan.
Comment by Beetle — August 14, 2005 @ 7:54 pm