Obama doesn't have to lie about civilian deaths, just call 'em all "militants"..

Welcome to George W. Bush's 3rd term.

---------------------------------------------------

“Militants”: media propaganda
To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in

headlines that the dead were ”militants” – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed “officials” claiming that the dead were “militants.” It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.

This practice continues even though key Obama officials have been caught lying, a term used advisedly, about how many civilians they’re killing. I’ve written and said many times before that in American media discourse, the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates (that term was even used when Anwar Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen two weeks after a drone killed his father, even though nobody claims the teenager was anything but completely innocent: “Another U.S. Drone Strike Kills Militants in Yemen”).

This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

For the moment, leave the ethical issues to the side that arise from viewing “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”; that’s nothing less than sociopathic, a term I use advisedly, but I discuss that in the separate, longer piece I’ve written. For now, consider what this means for American media outlets. Any of them which use the term “militants” to describe those killed by U.S. strikes are knowingly disseminating a false and misleading term of propaganda. By “militant,” the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).

What kind of self-respecting media outlet would be party to this practice? Here’s the New York Times documenting that this is what the term “militant” means when used by government officials. Any media outlet that continues using it while knowing this is explicitly choosing to be an instrument for state propaganda — not that that’s anything new, but this makes this clearer than it’s ever been.
--------------------------------------------------

I have a great idea... Why don't you and your ilk go knock on their doors and take a poll as to who is what.
War is hell. Get over it.

War criminal.

War is a crime.

Strange how the liberals who would post threads daily about all the civilian deaths under W were war crimes blah blah blah. But, when The Dear Leader does it, they're fine with him labeling innocent people as militants and essentially turning civilians into targets.

Any liberal who claims that they would be equally silent if Bush had done this is either a liar or is truly so hypocritical that they actually believe their bullshit.

Fact, under Bush, civilian casualties were an ENORMOUS crying point spawning thread after thread and Olberman hour after Olberman hour. Under Obama.....silence.

Typical double standard liberal hypocrisy.

It's actually very sad to realize how much of that massive liberal ideology was nothing more than partisan agenda and mudslinging. For years, the liberal drum beat was about civilian deaths, political posturing, war crimes etc and I actually thought they really believed in that. Sadly, since Obama has taken office, all that ideological touch-feely bleeding heart compassion and the constant cries for an end to this war and civilian deaths is right out the window.

What's so sad is how transparent they are and they don't even care. If under a Republican, civilians were labeled as militants for bloodshed, there would be such a media-flooding, protesting, thread creating call to action and they know it. Everyone sees what hypocrites they are, it's sad sad, yet they seem to believe its somehow different. Worse yet not one is intelligent or mature enough to uphold the same standards or concern or admit that the noise they used to make about the same issues was nothing more than agenda driven noise disguised as concern. Criticize The Dear Leader?!?! NEVER!!! No matter how much we have to lie and pretend we ever gave a shit.

Really ?? Revolutionary war ? WW 2 ??? All criminals ??? Care to explain ?

Are people supposed to be over-run, as opposed to committing a 'crime' in your world ?? Is self defense a crime ?

Strange how the republicans now post threads daily about all the civilian deaths under O and are screaming war crimes blah blah blah. But, when innocent civilians were killed under Their Dear Leader they were fine and said if you are working with or supporting terrorists you are also a terrorist.

Any republican who claims that they were equally outraged when Bush had done this is either a liar or is truly so hypocritical that they actually believe their bullshit. Just look at the republican reaction to Kamal Derwish.

Fact, under Bush, civilian casualties were an ENORMOUS and all you got from the right was...silence.

Typical double standard republican hypocrisy.

It's actually very sad to realize how much of that massive republican ideology is nothing more than partisan agenda and mudslinging. For years, the republicans ignored civilian deaths, those same republicans (who incidentally after 1/20/09) started screaming about political posturing, war crimes etc and I actually thought they really believed in that. Sadly, since Obama has taken office, republicans now have an ideological touch-feely bleeding heart compassion with the constant cries for an end to this war they supported under Bush and are outraged over civilian deaths they ignored under W.

You're joking, right? There's no way you could have missed the point in such a spectacularly ignorant fashion. Let me try to explain - Republicans aren't "bitching" about it now, the point is that those that were bitching are not any longer (liberals). Still with me? The point of the thread isn't that Republicans suddenly care, it's simply highlighting the glaring liberal hypocrisy (not that it needed it) that suddenly these issues are swept under the rug whereas a few short years ago it would have been an OUTRAGE I tell you. Screams of WAR CRIMINAL and IMPEACH BUSH would be deafening....but nope, it's Obama so suddenly you all don't care.

War is a crime. Sometimes only one side, the aggressor, is guilty of the crime. Most of the time, however, both sides bear some degree of guilty. Self-defense or sincere defense of legitimate allies is not a crime. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were not defensive in nature; they were wars of aggression. Innocent civilian casualty intensive drone strikes against alleged terrorists are war crimes.

No, actually war is a necessary evil in most cases...not a crime..Not in Iraq, and certainly not in Afghanistan. 'defensive' is all in the eye of the beholder.

Were you not praising Obama's foreign policy in another thread ??? (I could be mistaken) Now he is a war criminal ?

so Bush is a liberal. got it

I have said that Obama's handling of foreign policy is superior to Bush. He has not started any new wars (yet) and he has not had such a dangerously confrontational approach to China and Russia that Romney is advocating. That said, there are still many foolish and immoral aspects of Obama's foreign policy, innocent civilian murdering drone strikes rank among the worst.

He is a war criminal according to you...and he has massively increased the drone attacks...(much moreso than Bush) which you claim makes him a war criminal...

Appeasement and lying down in front of China/Russia is only a plan to get run over.... Thats all Obama has been doing.

Obama-bots in Chitown

If a war is not necessary, then it is a crime. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary for the defense of the United States or its allies. There is a difference between what is true and what you want to be true, a difference which you have difficulty discerning. Tax cuts do not increase revenue and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were wars of aggression and conquest.

International relations is not a football game, fool.

That is YOUR opinion..there is a difference in what is true and what you want to be true..a difference which you have difficulty discerning. Tax increases only hurt the economy, and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary defensive efforts in the war on global terrorism.

Annnnnnnnnd ???

Appeasment and lying down are not part of football...neither is getting run over (on purpose).... all seem to be part of Obama's foreign policy, however.

Try again.

Hi stalker, guess you haven't gotten enough of me making you my bitch so you came back for more. Did you know you can go back years and years in this forum? Did you also know this forum has a search function? Of course you didn't, because you are a fucking idiot. Btw when did you sign up on on this forum?

He fools no one

Neither do you zimmie.

multrage

Cry harder, faggot