You would fit right in, in Western Europe.
Cowboy up, or move.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:48 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
the "Two Militants" were in fact targeted as being---
"militants"
so, now the US is killing militants in addition to terrorists.
fund your own charity work
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistani-lawyer-fil...
On Jun 4, 10:00 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, come to find out, the "Two Militants" were in fact targeted as being
> "militants" and were not at all collateral damage as the article that MJ
> cut and pasted would have us believe:
>
>> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> More anti-American rhetoric and dogma from those who would like to see the
> United States become a third world or fourth world Nation-State.....
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM, plainolamerican
> >http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414704/may-31-...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > does it matter what you call them while you're killing them?
>
> > On Jun 4, 7:20 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Saturday, Jun 2, 2012 05:36 AM EDTDeliberate media propagandaThe media
> > now knows that "militant" is a term of official propaganda, yet still use
> > it for America's drone victimsBy Glenn Greenwald(updated below)Earlier this
> > week,The New York Timesreportedthat the Obama administration, in order to
> > conceal civilian deaths caused by their drone attacks, "counts all
> > military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."Although I wrote at
> > length about theNYT's various revelations, Iwrote separatelyabout that
> > specific disclosure, in order to emphasize the implications for media
> > outlets reporting on American drone attacks: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.Early this morning, the U.S. fired a missile from a drone in
> > northwest Pakistan its first since the NYT story – and killed two people.
> > Here's how The Washington Post is now touting the article about this attack
> > on its online front page:
> > > Readers who click on that story are greeted by an Associated Press story
> > bearing this headline:
> > > There is, as usual, no indication that these media outlets have any idea
> > whatsoever about who was killed in these strikes. All they know is that
> > "officials" (whether American or Pakistani) told them that they were
> > "militants," so they blindly repeat that as fact. They "report" this not
> > only without having the slightest idea whether it's true, but worse, with
> > the full knowledge that the word "militant" is being aggressively distorted
> > by deceitful U.S. government propaganda that defines the term to mean: any
> > "military-age males" whom we kill (the use of the phrase "suspected
> > militants" in the body of the article suffers the same infirmity).
> > > How is it possible to have any informed democratic debate over a policy
> > about which the U.S. media relentlessly propagandizes this way? If drone
> > strikes kill nobody other than "militants," then very few people will even
> > think about opposing them (and that's independent of the fact that the word
> > "militant" is a wildly ambiguous term militant about what? though it is
> > clearly designed (when combined with "Pakistan") to evoke images of those
> > who attacked the World Trade Center). Debate-suppression is not just the
> > effect but the intent of this propaganda: like all propaganda, it is
> > designed to deceive the citizenry in order to compel acquiescence to
> > government conduct.
> > > In light of this week's revelation about what "militant" actually means
> > when used by "officials," there really needs to be some concerted,
> > organized campaign to target media outlets every time they use the term
> > this way. Because this particular article lacks a byline, one way to start
> > here would be to complain to the Washington Post Ombudsman (whose contact
> > information is in the last linehere) and to Associated Press (at the email
> > listedhere). In the meantime, I've contacted AP requesting a response, and
> > will work on a more organized effort to target media outlets every time
> > they do this. This is nothing short of a deliberate government/media
> > misinformation campaign about an obviously consequential policy.
> > > * * * * *
> > > Speaking of propaganda, the media watchdog groupFAIR noteswhat
> > wasentirely predictable(andspecifically predicted): that MSNBC with the
> > exception of a brief discussion on Morning Joe and thisquite good
> > monologuefrom Ari Melber on The Dylan Ratigan Show – never once mentioned
> > to their progressive audience any of the NYT's highly disturbing
> > revelations about President Obama's "kill list" (even as they droned on and
> > on and on about audience-pleasing trivialities such as Donald Trump's
> > malice). FAIR adds: "In fact, a far more interesting discussion of these
> > questions can be heard on Fox News Channel," including "a soundbite from
> > the ACLU to illustrate criticism from the left." [Chris Hayes, on his
> > morning weekend show, is, as usual,a noble exception].
> > > For those who missed it, here is Stephen Colbert's three-minute
> > monologue from Thursday night on the way in which the Obama administration
> > has re-defined "militant":
> > Chris Woods, Senior Reporter with theBureau of Investigative Journalism,> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > which has donesterling workin documenting drone attacks in Pakistan, emails
> > today to say this:Today's strike is far from clear right now: maybe one –
> > or two events. May also involve civilian deaths (Dawn reports that the
> > motorbike was accidentally hit). . . .There's also an obverse to this coin.
> > As well as reporting all those killed as "militants", the mainstream US
> > media is consistently failing to report when civilians are credibly
> > reported killed, even as media internationally do so.Excepting today,
> > civilians have only been reported killed twice in Pakistan in 2012, from 17
> > attacks (February 9 and May 24). On both occasions civilian deaths were
> > reported by major international agencies (Reuters, AP etc), and picked up
> > worldwide (eg BBC, Jerusalem Post…) But not within the US. I can find no
> > reference to civilian casualties in any mainstream US publication on either
> > occasion (for the May 24 attack most also censored out the fact that a
> > mosque was hit.)So the US mainstream media is not only classing all victims
> > – regardless of known status – as "militants." It is actively censoring out
> > actual reports of civilian deaths.This is the same American media thatloves
> > to mockPakistanis for being so very propagandized.
> >http://www.salon.com/2012/06/02/deliberate_media_propaganda/singleton/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment