“I will no longer be complicit in genocide [in Gaza]. I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest,” the man apparently said before setting himself alight and repeatedly shouting “Free Palestine!”
A rare hero. Not what I expected from the US.
The systems of control didn’t work on him.
He was too innocent for this world. I don’t know what to say other than I promise I will never forget him and that I’ll try to spread his message and do everything I can to help free Palestine.
He’s like the third guy to do this in a year, big money doesn’t want you to know about it
He is the fiery monk of our time. I watched the video below and I will admit after the second “Free Palestine” and the screaming started, I had to turn the sound off until he fell and I suspected the screaming stopped.
He is braver and has more strength than anyone on the Israeli side. I won’t forget that this hero couldn’t stay silent in the face of genocide.
I wish there was another option for him.
We failed to be organized enough.
having viewed the video now, i initially found myself surprised i was not more horrified. my best guess as to why is this - what seemed most notable to me was his apparent sanity and intentionality in making this choice. he chose the where and when of his death and intended it to matter.
He stopped feeling pain because shock set in about 30 seconds into it, I could get more graphic but that’s about how long it took for his eyes to get to fucked up to close them.
I couldn’t believe how long he stayed on his feet after he could no longer scream. Rest in Power Aaron.
Removed by mod
How is he a terrorist? He didn’t hurt or threaten anyone? He sacrificed himself to bring attention to suffering of innocent people. He is a hero.
So edgy
And here ladies and gentlemen, is what a terrorist will say
His account is named after a notorious one
The new Burning Man.
Hey Google, remember the very first “doodle” you had on your homepage that had the Burning Man? Please bring it back.
And NPR claimed to not know what his motivation was.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m on beehaw but I so wish I could downvote you.
He doesn’t want civilians to get killed, so he supports Hamas. Didn’t Israel government finance Hamas just so they can justify the genocide.
All the terrorists surely will experience much worse. You will be shot, of course, while editing your dipshit hitlerite nonsense yet not bothering to capitalize “I.”
Removed by mod
This guy is very brave, but everyone taking about the embassy security drawing weapons when they arrive. Of course they would. They don’t know what was planned, if it was a suicide bombing gone wrong, our whatever else. I’m not pro cop but I don’t understand why people are surprised by this. They are security
What, exactly, would a gun do if he was a suicide bomber?
shoot out the fire or scare the guy so much he stops being on fire – only options
Stop him before he got any closer to the embassy. Obviously a gun won’t stop him from commiting suicide, but it could easily be the difference between one person dying and a much larger act of terrorism
There’s a metal fence. What would he even get close to?
Considering the security forces had no idea whether he was working alone or what was happening, they obviously didn’t think they could rely on the metal fence.
Look, I’m all for a free Palestine and I agree that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide. I also think that voluntary membership in any American or Israeli law enforcement makes them complicit in the heinous acts perpetrated by American cops and the IDF, respectively. I don’t know you, but I’d guess that you and I agree a lot more than we disagree on these issues. I’m just saying, from the PoV of the security forces at the Israeli embassy, this was a potential threat to the embassy and their job is literally to prevent threats from harming the embassy. Without any further information to go on, their decision to draw guns first and get the extinguisher second is reasonable.
If he wasn’t alone what would shooting him accomplish? You still haven’t actually presented a compelling reason he needed to be kept under a gun.
I think it’s understandable that people untrained for a situation like this would fall back on the default, I know I wouldn’t know what to do, but calling that “reasonable” as if it really makes sense in hindsight is a stretch.
If he wasn’t alone what would shooting him accomplish? You still haven’t actually presented a compelling reason he needed to be kept under a gun.
Once Bushnell was on fire and had stopped moving toward the gate/fence, you are correct, he didn’t need to be kept under a gun. However, if he had started to move in a threatening way or if he had been working with a larger group, having the guns drawn could have saved crucial seconds if someone else began to act in a threatening way. The security forces simply didn’t know what the fuck was happening, and in that situation, it is better to have the guns drawn and to be ready for the worst case scenario.
I think it’s understandable that people untrained for a situation like this would fall back on the default, I know I wouldn’t know what to do, but calling that “reasonable” as if it really makes sense in hindsight is a stretch.
That’s fair. I can get behind calling it “understandable” instead of “reasonable”
Shoot the suicide bomber before a bigger boom. What if there was another person? Another thing? We can’t know, they can’t know. We know now, due to hindsight.
They are security. They secure scenes. They aren’t paramedics.
I am not making pro cop statements here, but all the comments about “ohhh the cop arrived to a dangerous scene with a weapon drawn!” Is like saying “the garbage man picked up the garbage bin when he drove past my house!” Duh!
He’s on fire! Shooting him wouldn’t stop a bigger boom!
I’ll give the cops this: they probably were not trained on what to do if someone lights themselves on fire. They just fell back on basic training.
It’s murica, they weren’t trained at all.
They did the one thing they were trained to do – Pull first ask
questionsfor fire extinguishers later
Well yeah I’m not surprised that cops are not there to protect average people and provide them safety, they’re there to protect private property.
The embassy security secures the embassy. Whodathunk
Secures the embassy from a man caught on fire (very capable!) and is outside its fence. Could you imagine what would’ve happened if they weren’t there? Yeah, still no threat to the embassy :)
You know that now due to hindsight
Real footage of security cops hard at work:
I see one seeming to be getting medical equipment while one secures the scene. seems very professional.
Did you want to find another screenshot?
I’m not being pro cop here, I’m being anti assuming cops will be helpful buddies when you do things near an embassy. in an era of mass shooters and all sorts of public violence it’s no surprise that agents of the state be state agents
Someone had to yell “fire extinguisher not guns!” for them to even consider doing anything other than raise guns at a burning man.
I’m being anti assuming cops will be helpful buddies when you do things near an embassy.
That is the point I make. Never trust cops. They will rarely ever be helpful.
And as I’ve argued/miscommunicated with folks a few times here: they aren’t expected to be so. They aren’t there to help. They are there to secure the embassy
Sure, maybe if they drew their weapons immediately, before his act. That’d make sense. They wouldn’t know what he was gonna do.
The trouble is, based on the reporting we have, they drew their guns after he lit himself on fire, not before:
as soon as he was engulfed in flames they started yelling at him to get down on the ground. They even drew their guns on the burning man before someone pushed them to get fire extinguishers to extinguish the fire.
I’m thinking by the time the guy was engulfed in flames he was a little too preoccupied to do much else.
Can you imagine facing a living bonfire, and your first thought is “I should draw my gun and tell them to get down on the ground”? There’s genuinely no excuse for that level of inhumanity.
If your job is to secure the embassy/ site/ scene you work down a list. They clearly followed the list.
We now know that he was no risk, but they couldn’t.
They aren’t equipped with fire extinguishers (aside from the guy who got one), so are you assuming they should jump on him? Smother a fuel fire with their bodies? Does that secure the site? No. It’s also not realistic.
Seems like securing the site then 1 person getting a fire extinguisher is a completely responsible response.
deleted by creator
He’d already fallen down and stopped screaming when they drew on him. What threat would he pose that a gun was going to solve at that time? Before you say bomb, think carefully about what a gun was going to do in that circumstance.
No, this was an example (once again) that “try to kill anything you don’t immediately understand” is the default condition of our law enforcement. Last week’s example was an acorn, and a very, very lucky handcuffed man in the back of a police cruiser.
This is not the acorn thing at all. They are trained to secure the embassy and they did that.
Thank you for ignoring everything else I wrote.
I ignored it because it’s irrelevant. You’re applying a subjective value assessment to professionals following training. It’s ugly, but it’s not meant to be “nice” or compassionate. They are there to protect the embassy
I ignored it because it’s irrelevant.
You ignored the context and circumstances because they’re irrelevant?
Your answer to every comment has consistently been (paraphrasing): “trust the cops, they know what they’re doing”, irrespective of any surrounding facts that might suggest otherwise, or any past history that would suggest that law enforcement doesn’t deserve that level of blind trust.
Given that, there’s little point in further discussion.
I just want to know what they were going to prevent with guns, given he was immobilized and not even screaming anymore in addition to being engulfed in flames. You seem to have all the answers, so I’m sure there must be something dangerous he could have done at that point which could have been stopped by a gun - please just tell me what it was.
It’s a bit of a beleaguered point, but it’s very telling that this will assuredly get almost no coverage on big news networks like abc, cbs, fox, etc. and virtually no coverage in the larger papers like the NYT, sure the press agencies like Reuters and the AP will cover it and then redistributors like your source will publish this, but little thought among the media class/commentariet will be given to the man who decided there was so little hope of being able to do anything through legal/electoral means to stop a genocide that he could no longer stand idly by and had to do something to protest the sheer inhumanity of what’s going on. Barely anyone probably still remembers the person who did the same thing and died in 2022 on earth day protesting inaction on climate change/destruction, that story was absolutely buried. I don’t support any kind of self harm, but doing something as drastic as this requires a pretty compelling reason, most people remember Tibetan monks doing the same thing, but the same importance was not extended to that person in 2022 and will almost definitely not be extended to this person now. I may end up being wrong, but I expect this to be out of the news cycle/discourse in days at most.
most people remember Tibetan monks doing the same thing
Out of political selfimmolations there were 7 Tibetan cases, but dozens of others including many Americans. I wonder why “most people” remember particularly those. Would it be that US media wasn’t fair to report not only this one here?
It was on a cover of a rage against the machine album.
Lmao that’s what i was talking about, the one on this album cover wasn’t even Tibetan, he was Thích Quảng Đức, a Vietnamese buddhist monk, selfimmolating in Saigon in 1963 as protest against US-backed South Vietnam government persecuting buddhists.
So why people like you think he was Tibetan if not for media misleading you? This was literally the most famous of public selfimmolation and the one that started it all for in XX century.
I get so tired of this talking point. New York times, Washington Post, and even Fox news each have an article (or multiple) on this event.
OMG THEY HAVE AN ARTICLE OMG THAT WAS TOTALLY MY POINT, I QUITE LITERALLY TALKED ABOUT REDISTRIBUTING THINGS FROM PRESS AGENCIES JFC, HOW CAN YOU READ WHAT I WROTE AND GET TO THIS, IS THERE ANYTHING RESIDING IN BETWEEN YOUR EARS ???
This post smells like mad.
God, an unironic “you mad bro” go back to reddit lmao
They didn’t even share his name, either it is something middle eastern sounding or they just want everyone to forget about him.
From lower down in this post, his name is Aaron Bushnell.
There’s already a Wikipedia article about the incident.
From what I recall on Twitter it’s a white dude, but they didn’t want to share his name.
He’s definitely white from the video but they probably want to scrub his social media history before they release his name.
I saw he was an anarchist? Not much info that I saw but yeah I could see him having a hard time in the military. I was an anarchist when I was younger too.
Removed by mod
Few people will remember him, but if any are spurred into action by his act, then it won’t be a completely wasteful loss of life.
Yeah, I’ve seen some discourse that things like this when done by an individual as opposed to a group effort like the Tibetan monks are primarily to take their own life and the message is secondary/additional, but I would like to think that on some level something positive will come out of someone doing something as drastic and sad as this. Dying or taking your own life is not something positive or to be glorified, but when someone feels so hopeless to the point that they turn to this, I hope it’s at least a wake up call for some people to take this seriously and not just ignore/tune out one of the biggest genocides in recent history.
Yes, my first thought was, “Crikey! Has anyone in the united states self -immolated, before?!”
It’s a horrific way to call attention to a cause. I’m sure after his best possible recovery, his military unit will rally to prosecute to add to his anguish.
@Maeve i
He died. It’s actually not as uncommon as you’d think.Quite a few US Americans in this list of political self immolations.
Thank you for sharing this list, we should probably be more aware of the sacrifice these people have made. The vast majority of the Americans have done it for honorable causes.
This is the first case. We’ve witnessed something that’s never been done before.
The first case of an active duty serviceman self immolating in the US. Alice Herz was the first one in the US, but there have been a dozen or two since then.
From the wikipedia page: Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell
This event marks the first time that a member of the United States military on active duty has immolated themself.
Right, which I confirmed. The person you replied to asked if it had ever happened in the US before, without specifying the military service. That’s why I clarified that this is not close to the first US self immolation generally (not even the first in response to the same thing), only for active service members.
That’s right. It says a lot, either way and this thread makes me feel very sad. It says a lot, and not on the actors. It’s rather too much to bang out on social media but it gives one a long pause for deep reflection. It feels about like one little old self confronting the collective unconscious again.
:-(
I’m sure after his best possible recovery
I don’t think he’ll recover. (In fact, apparently it is already being reported that he died. But even if he hasn’t yet he will.) He was taking deep lungfuls of flame and smoke to continue his chant. He’ll have destroyed his lungs. He knew going in that he wouldn’t come out of this alive.
What a brave man.
I was listening to BBC World Report this morning. They made quick mention of it along with some other things happening in the conflict, then went on to introduce their “expert” who would illuminate the situation.
Their so called expert was an employee of some Israeli institute of security or whatever, and he talked on for ages with minimal push-back about how the israeli army is doing everything by the book and how “Gaza is safe for civilians, and if it’s not it’s the fault of Hamas”.
That was all the coverage they did.
What a fucking joke.
If anyone would like a bit of an overview about the conflict I found Shaun’s Palestine video interesting (and infuriating). I also thought Shattered Dreams of Peace by Frontline was informative on the further background
(putting it here because the parent is about misinformation and lies)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
but it’s very telling that this will assuredly get almost no coverage on big news networks like abc, cbs, fox, etc.
ABC News - Active-duty airman sets himself on fire outside Israeli Embassy, Air Force confirms
Fox News - US service member sets himself on fire outside Israeli Embassy in DC
and virtually no coverage in the larger papers like the NYT
“gee why did he set himself on fire? must just be something people do”
it’s laughable how US media attributes self-immolation in Tibet to what must be CPC oppression, but self-immolation in the US must just be a cute little coincidence due to poor mental health
Don’t confuse people whose whole narrative is build on some conspiracy of media suppression with facts.
I guess skipping the term “Lügenpresse” to avoid the obvious link was deemed enough progress to keep that same 100 years old tactic alive…
They said almost no and virtually no coverege. It’s not anti-semitic to point out that western media is heavily skewed towards Israel. You’re completely delusional if you think that’s not the case.
Obviously there were going to be articles about the man who set himself on fire just as there was for the person who did it in 2022 due to the climate crisis. The point is the attention the media places on WHY it happens that is being ignored or heavily downplayed.
The ABC article felt like satire in how much it avoided context or referencing what was said in the video
you managed so thoroughly to miss the point I was making, I’m impressed
“There’s no global warming stuuuuupid, lookit all the snow!”
edit: /s ? do i need an /s here?
What fucking show? It’s almost March and it has snowed like four times.
that was the joke
I was rolling with you
i wasn’t the joke guy
You made an objective point, then a subjective one.
The objective one: “it’s very telling that this will assuredly get almost no coverage on big news networks like abc, cbs, fox, etc.” They addressed the objective one with their links.
The subjective one cannot be addressed yet, as it’s so soon after the event. You will probably end up correct that this event will not visibly persist, but you can’t know for sure, time will tell.
fact check! deboonked!
I got a notification for it from Washington Post. Reuters and nbc has it on the front page.
Honestly, the megacorps will only allow this on main TV when pushing regulation against protesting.
Like, "think of how many innocent
moneyslives we would save if we shoot protesters’.doing something as drastic as this requires a pretty compelling reason
I’ve already had a couple people immediately retort “wow mental health is scary”, then say “nobody will remember his name”.
These people will shamelessly undermine any action then act disappointed that these actions are quickly ignored.
It’s now being reported he died
So sad. Nobody in any position to do anything will even blink an eye at his sacrifice.
Correct. This is pointless.
deleted by creator
Law enforcement also drew a gun on the burning man during the incident, according to a report by Task and Purpose.
When you’re a hammer…
Acab
You can not make this shit up. Jesus fucking Christ what a world.
I read that and was like “of fucking course they did.” Honestly the next paragraph makes it even worse, IMO.
Authorities were heard asking the man – “May I help you, sir?” – at first but as soon as he was engulfed in flames they started yelling at him to get down on the ground. They even drew their guns on the burning man before someone pushed them to get fire extinguishers to extinguish the fire.
Threats of physical violence are the only tool they have in their toolbox. THE ONLY tool.
Get on the ground! GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND, NOW!!!
Okay, now roll! ROLL OVER!!! Good, now the other way!! KEEP ROLLING WHERE I CAN SEE YOU!!!
“Officer Johnson’s quick actions saved the man’s life today,” said the Commissioner. “We have extensive firearm training for our officers and Johnson was able to apply what he learned to a firebody incident.”
firebody, one word apparently
Let’s escalate everything to death
casually j-walks across a non busy street
casually j-walks across a non busy street
Sheriff’s deputies from Orange County fatally shot the man, 42-year-old Kurt Reinhold, amid an altercation in September in San Clemente, California.
The video, released on Thursday last week, shows two sheriff’s deputies considering whether or not to charge Reinhold with jaywalking, before tackling him to the floor.
Reports say the sheriff’s deputies were on patrol and were assigned to the homeless outreach team, when the shooting took place.
One of the deputies says in the video, “Watch this, he’s going to jaywalk,” before asking Reinhold: "Are you going to stop or are we going to have to make you stop?
"Jaywalking here? That’s ridiculous,” Reinhold adds.
Threats of physical violence are the only tool they have in their toolbox. THE ONLY tool.
And actual gun violence. They’re the sniwflakiest and wimpiest of the all, bringing an AK-47 to a civilised discussion and feeling “threatened”.
Maybe they thought he had a pocket full of acorns.
good point, it’s possible we just didn’t see who he was actually aiming at
This would be hilarious if it was satire, but this ain’t the onion.
No, but I’m sure you can get shot by police if you have an onion - that’s basically a biological weapon to assault delicate cop eyes.
Whoever keeps throwing in the shit about law enforcement in these stories, which I think was actually a security officer for the embassy, drawing a gun, is doing a pretty good job of distracting from the main issue of what this guy lit himself on fire and died for. Doing a much better job than all the whinging about how he was mentally ill, and how this won’t change anything, and how there’s no clear cause, that mainstream news outlets are doing when they cover this type of stuff, if they cover it at all.
I would also like to kind of point out here, that “this won’t change anything, this guy was mentally ill, he killed himself for nothing”, is really only true if you decide it to be true. We get to decide whether or not this motivates us to do something or not. We get to decide whether or not we let this affect us. Whether or not we do something, to make sure this doesn’t happen again, you know? And that’s mostly, in my mind, the purpose of this kind of protest.
Maybe it makes the institutions think about what they’re doing, probably not, since, if they were gonna think that, they should’ve probably thought that about the 20,000 or so palestinians that have been killed. This protest is mostly engineered to get you mad, and sad, and to make you, the viewer, think about why this is happening, and think about what you can do to stop it. Not just deflecting immediately to whether or not it was effective, because by doing so, you let it not be as effective.
Brings to mind the discourse against, really any form of protest that I’ve seen. You could take the george floyd protests, for example. So, sure, the government throws in agent provocateurs, in order to turn what would otherwise be peaceful protests, which would shut down any traffic into and out of the city, and would choke off any economic activity (puts pressure on businesses, utilities, puts pressure on local government, which needs to please these people who don’t really care about the protest but want things to go back to normal).
But by doing so, right, by causing those passive forms of damage, but also by causing active forms of damage, say, burning a big box store down, right, the public showcases that, if a certain legal decision to, say, let derek chauvin off, occurs, then there will be potentially more protests and more destruction, which provides great incentive against that decision occurring.
Now, in this case, there’s not as clear of a process, because there’s not as clear of repercussions if they decide to do nothing. About the only thing that might happen is that this might happen again, which, might, by some process of media coverage, put enough pressure on politicians to cause this to stop, if it becomes a political issue. The same thing is happening with mass shootings, which aren’t a greatly impacting issue, by the numbers, right, they’re much less than that of road deaths, heart disease, other forms of gun violence.
But they are so horrifying to the american public and to really anyone of moral conscience, that they should serve as a clear marker that something is wrong, and something needs to change. Serial killers create a similar effect. It’s almost like a kind of terrorism, using that word without judgement, here. That’s the power of these protests. We’ve already seen it spread across a bunch of news media, even though it’s being reported about as poorly as you’d expect.
I’m not particularly sure that repeat incidents would do any good, and I think I’d generally be opposed to that, as should anyone, but, an instance of self-immolation is what caused the arab spring. This sort of thing isn’t ineffective, I think it does a disservice to aaron bushnell to say otherwise.
If you want to stop this sort of thing from occurring in the first place, you should really try to understand why it was happening, instead of brushing it aside.
deleted by creator
