Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

[edward]

Government Curries Favor With Military News Analysts

The Pentagon may influence the analysis of some retired military personnel who appear on television news programs, the New York Times recently reported. Media insiders discuss the details of this murky world of defense companies, the current administration and the war in Iraq.

We all knew that Bush had fake news correspondents attend his press meetings. Here is a new twist. The Bush administration provided military analysts to the general media.

Their excuse: It was a better way to inform the public.

There was a New York Times Article on this last week, the main stream news media choose to ignore it, PBS did not. Available in audio. text and streaming video.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html

[edward]

Here is a direct link to the Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=behind+tv+analysts&st=nyt&oref=login

[russ_watters]

So.....the military used military analysts hired by the media to push pro-military positions and the media is upset that their military analysts are pro-military and have been talking to the military? I'm forced to ask: is the editorial staf of the NYT composed entirely of infants? To anyone older than about age 4 this should be self-evident. By publishing a story about it, they are exposing their ongoing naivete.

[mjsd]

Since the adminstration needed to sway public opinion into supporting the war 5 years ago, they had to flood the news media with "experts"... who happened to "agree" with the stance of the administration almost 99% of the time. surprise, surprise.... now, that's state propaganda/deception to a whole new level... no threats (possibly), no prosecutions for saying anything against the party line, no violence against journalists... BUT it serves the same purpose: brainwash the masses with wrong facts and biased opinion..... god helps us! :smile:

[drankin]

This makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't the administration put out military experts to give the media information. The administration could just as well not have done it then everyone would be screaming they aren't informing the public enough. b*tch if they do, b*tch if they don't.

[Poop-Loops]

If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I tell your best friend to convince you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.

If I then go "See see! Even your friend agrees!" I am being very dishonest.

I'm also hearing a slurping sound come out of Bush's crotch for some reason. I wonder why that is?

[Gokul43201]

So.....the military used military analysts hired by the media to push pro-military positions and the media is upset that their military analysts are pro-military and have been talking to the military? I'm forced to ask: is the editorial staf of the NYT composed entirely of infants? To anyone older than about age 4 this should be self-evident. By publishing a story about it, they are exposing their ongoing naivete.You don't see a conflict of interests when "analysts" that are in the pay of defense contractors appear on TV and make a case for more military spending?

[drankin]

If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I convince your best friend to tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.

I'm still not going to give you $50. My best friend must be chump. LOL

[Poop-Loops]

Yeah, at that point I decide to take it from you anyway. :smile:

5 years later, I am still claiming to be almost ready to repay you the money. In fact, it's your fault I have it in the first place.

[Gokul43201]

Why wouldn't the administration put out military experts to give the media information. The administration could just as well not have done it then everyone would be screaming they aren't informing the public enough. Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.

[edward]

One of the more disgusting aspects of this whole thing is that the television media now refuses to own up to the fact that they bought the Bush administration product, and passed it off as news for the past five years.

The media used to go out and find news to report on. Now they sit on their a$$es and buy a totally biased source.

[russ_watters]

You don't see a conflict of interests when "analysts" that are in the pay of defense contractors appear on TV and make a case for more military spending?
Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?

ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR and no doubt, their association with NASCAR hasn't actually ended (though that really isn't relevant - they are going to be pro-NASCAR biased either way). Are these unbiased commentators? Should we be so naive that we need to get upset when they say NASCAR is better than Indy?

Serioiusly, I'm floored here: how can a news outlet be so naive about the concept of bias? This is a central issue to their entire operation! Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists - some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve (well, some wear it on their collar) - say about the rest of their reporting? Is the NYT completely incapable of evaluating the sources of the information they publish? That's what "journalism" is! That certainly would explain a lot about the [lack of] quality of what's been coming out of there lately. They've basically come out and said that they are incapable of 'doing' journalism!

[russ_watters]

Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information. Apparently the NYT still does.

[Gokul43201]

Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?

From the NYT article:

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.

[quadraphonics]

Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists -

The issue is not that military analysts are "pro-military." That's past obvious and into tautology. The issue is that they were all in favor of certain specific military policies, giving the impression that said policies enjoyed unanimous support within the military community, when in fact this was far from the truth. The questions they were asked to respond to were not "is the military a good thing?" but rather "is sending the military into Iraq a good idea, and do we have a good plan for it?" Your own conflation of support for the military with support for the Iraq mission is an example of the sort of misrepresentation the administration was aiming for.

[Alfi]

backyard politics

I have no reason to disbelieve that the SadMan Insane bluffed. And got caught.
He had to maintain power by fear. He had neighbors that he just picked a fight with and others from other fights. He had to look strong. He fluffed up his feathers and strongarmed any grumblers. He had no major WMD's but he better not let the others know it. He was no threat to the U.S. He was nothing more than a fluffed up dictator.
Then he got called on his bluff ( opportunity knocks ) and fell in a month.

The rest is news spin.

[drankin]

backyard politics

I have no reason to disbelieve that the SadMan Insane bluffed. And got caught.
He had to maintain power by fear. He had neighbors that he just picked a fight with and others from other fights. He had to look strong. He fluffed up his feathers and strongarmed any grumblers. He had no major WMD's but he better not let the others know it. He was no threat to the U.S. He was nothing more than a fluffed up dictator.
Then he got called on his bluff ( opportunity knocks ) and fell in a month.

The rest is news spin.

In a nut-shell.

[mgb_phys]

ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR
.....
some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve
Isn't that the obvious solution ?
Simply plaster their clothes with the name of their sponsors in the same way as NASCAR drivers - they could have Haliburton baseball caps and Boeing/Lockhead/MCdonald Douglas patches on their jackets.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if these gents had disclosed the fact that the Bush admin had asked them to help disseminate information related to the Iraq invasion, or if they only gave their personal opinions, that would be one thing, but this is just another example of the Bush admin governing by deception.

What is really sad is that Bush supporters apparently WANT to be lied to. This is seen as being acceptable - deception.

[edward]

The rest is news spin.

The point is that it was the media that was spun by the Bush administration.

And it was done using people that were recruited explicitly to deceive.

[drankin]

Ok, what are these intentional deceptions? Are we back to that debate?

[russ_watters]

From the NYT article:

I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing. Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections? By the way, the PBS discussion in the link in the OP seems to agree with me (I only skimmed it): So I wasn't surprised at all, except by the amount of space devoted to this piece by the New York Times.

And if I were giving advice to anybody, it would be, if you have an admiral on who is or a general who is currently a consultant to the Pentagon, that should be disclosed right at the top of the interview.

But we don't -- as networks, we didn't have these people on because they were neutral; we had them on because they knew what they were talking about. They had spent their lives in military affairs. Duh.

[Gokul43201]

Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections? I think it's the job of the media outlet to specify the connection. And I think it's unethical of the analysts to not inform their media employer of their conflicting connections. I also think it's unethical (of both the outlet and the analyst) to continue to disburse "information" with the knowledge that disclosure of the conflicting connections is not being made to the public.

[edward]

Ok, what are these intentional deceptions?

Surely you jest? Those intentional deceptions were used as the reason to invade another country. But it doesn't stop there, the recruited analysts are still at work.

They will now start spinning why they spun.:rolleyes:

Are we back to that debate?

No, but we just now learned exactly how the press was manipulated into spinning things in the Bushco direction.

[Gokul43201]

Politics is a PR game, and on this count, I hold the media and the analysts responsible for the deception. The White House will do what it has to do to sell its story, and telling tall tales is the norm with this WH - it is the job of the press to not respond with "how high?"

[edward]

Politics is a PR game, and on this count, I hold the media and the analysts responsible for the deception. The White House will do what it has to do to sell its story, and telling tall tales is the norm with this WH - it is the job of the press to not respond with "how high?"

Perhaps the press should be required to read a disclaimer at the beginning of each newscast.

WARNING!
The information in this program may not be true or accurate. Individuals presenting information may be employed by a special interest group or government agency who may intend to deceive you.

FOX news would need to have one of those fast talkers who read the list of side effects of prescription medications advertised on television.

Politicians need to be required to glue a permanent disclaimer label on both sides of their mouths.:grumpy:

[Art]

Despite admissions by many in the MSP they didn't do their job well in the run up to the invasion of Iraq it seems many incidents of what many would consider state sponsored terrorism still go unchallenged. For example

BBC NEWS
US confirms Somali missile strike

The US military has confirmed that it carried out a pre-dawn missile strike which killed a senior leader of an Islamist militant group in Somalia.

A spokesman said the target of the attack in the town of Dusamareb was an al-Qaeda leader, but would not name him or say whether it had been successful.

The strike hit the home of Aden Hashi Ayro, the military head of al-Shabab, which controls much of Somalia.

At least 10 other people, including another al-Shabab leader, also died.

But local elders have said up to 30 bodies have been recovered from the scene, according to unconfirmed reports.
snip
Locals said the missiles hit Ayro's home at about 0300 (0000 GMT).

"We heard a huge explosion and when we ran out of our house we saw balls of smoke and flames coming out of house," Dusamareb resident Nur Geele told the BBC.


The house that was attacked was a small concrete villa and it has been destroyed- the sight is quite horrific
Dr Ahmed Mahdi
Dusamareb Hospital

"The house was totally destroyed to the ground, also other houses nearby," local elder Ahmed Mumin Jama said.

Dr Ahmed Mahdi at Dusamareb Hospital told the BBC he was treating eight civilians, including women and children, for burns and shrapnel wounds.

"The house that was attacked was a small concrete villa and it has been destroyed," he said. "The adjacent houses which were made from traditional mud were also destroyed. The sight is quite horrific."

One of the women has since died, bringing the death toll so far to 11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7378502.stm

It seems those who command the US military care absolutely nothing for the lives of innocent bystanders. This type of action might be justifiable if it was to preempt an imminent attack on the US but not even in the most fevered of imaginations could Somalia or it's various factions be considered a threat much less an imminent one.

The US gov't needs to realise when you kill innocent people you alienate their relatives, friends and kinsmen and create new enemies for generations to come or perhaps they do realise it but are so contemptuous of foreigners they just don't give a damn.

The US used to enjoy styling itself as the world's policeman, these days it is simply the world's bully. It is high time the US MSP insist the gov't explain it's actions.

[mgb_phys]

Interesting that the article is factual, balanced, doesn't blame anyone, attributes all the quotes to identified people and lacks phrases like
"screaming supernukem missiles kaboomed into screaming terroists - here's a computer graphics simulation of the action"
Ah for a profesional state-controlled news media.

[Art]

Interesting that the article is factual, balanced, doesn't blame anyone, attributes all the quotes to identified people and lacks phrases like
"screaming supernukem missiles kaboomed into screaming terroists - here's a computer graphics simulation of the action"
Ah for a profesional state-controlled news media.The BBC is state funded but by the terms of it's charter is fully independent as evidenced by the long running saga between it and Blair over the alleged 'sexing up' of intelligence information by Downing Street.

[drankin]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

[mgb_phys]

The BBC is state funded but by the terms of it's charter is fully independent
Yes I know - I was comparing it's journalistic standards to the totally free and independant news coverage of for example 'Fox' !

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.But what if you only found out when someone read the news to you in hospital, while your limbs were being stitched back on?

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".Guilt by proximity? Guilty until proven innocent or dead, whichever happens first?

[Art]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".Yep, that's the arrogant 'who gives a fcuk' type of attitude I referred to.

I'd be interested to see if you would have had the same smug, arrogant attitude if the British had launched missiles at the houses of IRA sympathisers in the US killing their families and neighbours? And the British would have had more justification because they had actually been attacked by the IRA.

[W3pcq]

At this years North Atlantic Treaty Organization they gave an award to the former british prime minister, the highest ranking us general, and the ceo of the largest news conglomerate in the world. Their roles were fundamental to the success of the organization. The OK and support for action, the method of action, and reasoning and justification for action. We couldn't have done it if our allies didn't first give us the permission, we couldn't have done it without the force of the military, and we couldn't have done it without support in the media.

[Poop-Loops]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

I seriously hope you are trolling. For your sake.

[drankin]

For crying out loud, they killed the enemy. How else are they supposed to do it?

[Poop-Loops]

I weep for this country. But I'm still getting the hell out. If people like you are the norm, then it will crumble very soon.

[Poop-Loops]

But hell, that probably flew right over your head, so let's do it in math/logic terms.

Enemy is bad because it they kill innocent civilians.
We have to kill enemy in order to save civilians.
We end up killing civilians with enemy.
We are bad.
We are enemy?

[drankin]

But hell, that probably flew right over your head, so let's do it in math/logic terms.

Enemy is bad because it they kill innocent civilians.
We have to kill enemy in order to save civilians.
We end up killing civilians with enemy.
We are bad.
We are enemy?

Take a look the history of warfare during the course of human existence. Once upon a time you would roll in with a massive army and slaughter every living thing just because they are in your way. Now, at least, we can pin-point an attack and minimize collateral damage. But, you can't get around collateral damage! It sucks, it's warfare, people on both sides are playing with lethal weapons, if you are in the neighborhood you are in bad proximity. Like I asked, "How else are the suppose to do it?".

Enough with the insults, poops.

[drankin]

I weep for this country. But I'm still getting the hell out. If people like you are the norm, then it will crumble very soon.

I find this interesting. If people like me are the norm our country will crumble very soon? This country has been this way from the beginning when it comes to bloody war and it hasn't crumbled yet. In fact, it took being this "way" to have a freakin country. While you are getting the hell out, millions are trying to get the hell in every year! Why? Because it's soooo aaaawful here!

[Poop-Loops]

Forget it. It's just too easy to deny the pain of someone else's suffering when you've never been through it. I hope you never have to, either.

[drankin]

Forget it. It's just too easy to deny the pain of someone else's suffering when you've never been through it. I hope you never have to, either.

Well, we are getting off topic but what kind of suffering are you talking about that I have not been through?

[Poop-Loops]

Exploding?

[drankin]

Exploding?

Got me, never experienced that. I'm sure it hurts, I don't "deny" it as you accuse. Now, please, answer the question: How else would you have the military take out that particular target?

[Poop-Loops]

Wait until he leaves? Get some infantry in there? Deliver a package that explodes once it's inside, not a frickin rocket?

Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?

[drankin]

Wait until he leaves? Get some infantry in there? Deliver a package that explodes once it's inside, not a frickin rocket?

Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?

Deliver a package? Look, the military doesn't contract UPS to deliver bombs. And even then, the likely hood of collateral damage is huge. Personally, I like the idea of sneaking in special ops guys but they probably are already doing that, we just never hear about that specifically. For some reason this is how they had to get this particular target.

Your idea isn't radical, it's just not going to solve ALL problems. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a military, now would we? As long as someone else has a military, we HAVE to have one too.

Getting way off topic. If you want to discuss that further, start another thread about the benefits of not having a military, how we should dissolve it, and how we will be secure as a world power without it.

[LightbulbSun]

Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?

Peace is an illusion. You either have military force or deceptive force (aka Ghandi).

[Art]

For crying out loud, they killed the enemy. How else are they supposed to do it?Enemy? When did the US declare war on Somalia? I must have missed that bulletin.

Still waiting for you to respond on whether you think the British would have been justified in using missile strikes in residential areas to take out IRA sympathisers in the US :rolleyes:

Fact is if the British had even attacked targets in Dublin like that during the troubles there would have been uproar in the US media but because this was an attack on impoverished black Africans it hardly warrants a byline and then Republicans feign shock and surprise that these people hate them. Give me a break :rolleyes:

[drankin]

Enemy? When did the US declare war on Somalia? I must have missed that bulletin.

Still waiting for you to respond on whether you think the British would have been justified in using missile strikes in residential areas to take out IRA sympathisers in the US :rolleyes:

No, I don't think they would be justified. See, they could enlist us to take care of that problem. But, in Somolia, I don't think we have folks that would do that for us so we have to. I don't think you have a good comparison argument here.

[W3pcq]

How about this idea, hire mercenaries who need not follow laws and let them do the dirty work.

[Art]

No, I don't think they would be justified. See, they could enlist us to take care of that problem. But, in Somolia, I don't think we have folks that would do that for us so we have to. I don't think you have a good comparison argument here.Who do you think funded the IRA's campaign Drankin? And by virtue of the fact the leaders of Noraid for example were not arrested your contention that you would take care of it is obviously false. Extradition requests from Britain for specific individuals were routinely turned down or thrown out by the US courts but I somehow doubt that even given these facts you would have condoned a military strike on US soil by Britain. It seems you agree with the Bush maxim of 'do as I say, don't do as I do'

Still waiting for you to provide a link to show when the US and Somalia went to war with each other.

[drankin]

Who do you think funded the IRA's campaign Drankin? And by virtue of the fact the leaders of Noraid for example were not arrested your contention that you would take care of it is obviously false. Extradition requests from Britain for specific individuals were routinely turned down or thrown out by the US courts but I somehow doubt that even given these facts you would have condoned a military strike on US soil by Britain. It seems you agree with the Bush maxim of 'do as I say, don't do as I do'

Still waiting for you to provide a link to show when the US and Somalia went to war with each other.

I never said we went to war, Art. It's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation?? Apples and Oranges.

[Gokul43201]

It's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation?? I don't follow your logic.

It's a third world country in chaos, so it's okay if we blow up a dozen or so of them?

[Art]

I never said we went to war, Art. IYou said Take a look the history of warfare during the course of human existence. Once upon a time you would roll in with a massive army and slaughter every living thing just because they are in your way. Now, at least, we can pin-point an attack and minimize collateral damage. But, you can't get around collateral damage! It sucks, it's warfare, people on both sides are playing with lethal weapons, if you are in the neighborhood you are in bad proximity. Like I asked, "How else are the suppose to do it?". You seem to be confused as to whether the US and Somalia are at war. On the one hand you say they are not and on the other you use warfare as a justification for the mass murder of civilians. Explain!

t's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation?? Apples and Oranges.Enlighten me. Please tell me why the lives of citizens of 3rd world countries are worth less than the lives of 1st world citizens which is the obvious inference to draw from your statement.

[drankin]

You said You seem to be confused as to whether the US and Somalia are at war. On the one hand you say they are not and on the other you use warfare as a justification for the mass murder of civilians. Explain!

The use of the means of warfare does not require a party to actually be IN A WAR. I was refering to the use of the military. You are suggesting that in order for the military to strike it needs to be in a formal war, you know that isn't so. So why are you trying to say that is what I meant? Are you just mincing words for no reason but to argue?

Enlighten me. Please tell me why the lives of citizens of 3rd world countries are worth less than the lives of 1st world citizens which is the obvious inference to draw from your statement.

There you go, putting words in my mouth. You apparently think that my attitude is that Somalian citizens are worth less than 1st world citizens. I assure you, that is not my attitude. Are you enlightened, yet?

[Art]

The use of the means of warfare does not require a party to actually be IN A WAR. I was refering to the use of the military. You are suggesting that in order for the military to strike it needs to be in a formal war, you know that isn't so. So why are you trying to say that is what I meant? Are you just mincing words for no reason but to argue? Not at all just trying to make sense of your ramblings. You see when I check the definition for warfare I get.

war·fare Audio Help /ˈwɔrˌfɛər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr-fair] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
2. armed conflict between two massed enemies, armies, or the like.So you can see why I saw a conflict in your two statements.

Now obviously you have a different definition so perhaps you can supply your reference and also explain how a Somali is an enemy of the US?



There you go, putting words in my mouth. You apparently think that my attitude is that Somalian citizens are worth less than 1st world citizens. I assure you, that is not my attitude. Are you enlightened, yet? No I am not enlightened. As I obviously missed your cryptic meaning perhaps you would be so good as to explain it to me.

[drankin]

Ok, Art. I was wrong on my choice of words. I apologize if you were confused. But, we are at war with "terror" which is supposed to be Al Qaida. And the target was an Al Qaida leader in a country where many are trying to get rid of them.

Remember the "Blackhawk Down", incident? Same place. Instead of flying in and "extracting" the target like the last time, they figured it would be cleaner to just blow him up. Most likely, LESS lives would be lost on both sides, civilians and combatants, if we didn't do that again.

[mgb_phys]

But, we are at war with "terror"
There is also a war on drugs - I hope the DEA don't get helfire missiles, just in case there's a grow-op in my neighbourhood.

[drankin]

There is also a war on drugs - I hope the DEA don't get helfire missiles, just in case there's a grow-op in my neighbourhood.

I agree that it's unsatisfyingly ambiguous. But, in this case the target was Al Qaida. BTW, there probably is a grow-op in your neighborhood.

[Gokul43201]

So, it's the "war on Al Qaida", not the "war on terror"?

[Poop-Loops]

I agree that it's unsatisfyingly ambiguous. But, in this case the target was Al Qaida. BTW, there probably is a grow-op in your neighborhood.

Then I hope there is nobody connected to Al Qaeda in my neighborhood. I don't want my house exploding while I'm watching reruns of Scrubs.

[flowerthrower]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".


So I'm assuming that you would encourage all people to investigate their neighbors' affairs and then judge them? If you disagree with your neighbors' politics or actions, the answer is to move away as if defeated? That's not a realistic look at what it's like to live in the world. There should always be time to work things out with your neighbors, community members.

And of course we need to assume that this neighbor was even guilty of anything in the first place...especially something which might be universally accepted as "wrong" or "dangerous". Why else would you choose to move away from your own home?

What if all the neighbors had the "moving boxes" packed but the bomb hit a day too soon? (this is ridiculous of course. the world is huge and most people aren't anticipating bombs falling from the sky, even if someone nearby is a radical) If it was your sister or cousin who got blown to bits by the sloppy attack, I'm sure you'd be upset about it.

The main problem with the war on terror is that it's a preemptive war against both faraway peoples and american citizens alike. It takes different forms for different categories of people. It is preemptive however, as with domestic spying/profiling, as with detaining here and abroad, and as with killing worldwide. The guilt of most targets of this war lies in the future. It hasn't happened yet. It's a best guess. That's the evil of the "war on terror". It is a war of judgment.

I always thought that assassination was against U.S. foreign policy anyway. Am i wrong? Is that soooo 1994?


Somalia can't defend itself the way more industrialized countries can, and if it were a European nation that received this missile attack, it would probably be considered and act of war against the whole country. What a mess.

For every bomb that we happen to hear about, there are many more falling every day.

I'd also like to point out that the US military constantly downplays casualties. The local hospitals always report more deaths and injuries than our government does, which implies that we're trying to mitigate public outcry through dishonesty. In other words, this is not proud work, even by our own standards. There's no reason to support it.

[TheStatutoryApe]

If someone needs to be gotten rid of I don't see what's wrong with assassination. Of course assassination by missile is pretty sloppy.

Drankin, if you look back in history over a thousand years ago there was a Muslim who decided that the best way to get rid of your enemies was to kill the one person responsible for them being your enemies and that one person alone to prevent the needless deaths of innocents. Even soldiers are just men doing a job and following orders. So an assassin was sent and often that assassin would die. But it was one life for one life instead of a few guys several miles away pushing a button and watching a dozen people get blown to smitherines.

At any rate... Who does everyone think military analysts work for anyway? Even if they just sit around waiting for an opportunity to get on the news they would still have a vested interest in the continuation of the war wouldn't they?

[drankin]

If someone needs to be gotten rid of I don't see what's wrong with assassination. Of course assassination by missile is pretty sloppy.

Drankin, if you look back in history over a thousand years ago there was a Muslim who decided that the best way to get rid of your enemies was to kill the one person responsible for them being your enemies and that one person alone to prevent the needless deaths of innocents. Even soldiers are just men doing a job and following orders. So an assassin was sent and often that assassin would die. But it was one life for one life instead of a few guys several miles away pushing a button and watching a dozen people get blown to smitherines.

At any rate... Who does everyone think military analysts work for anyway? Even if they just sit around waiting for an opportunity to get on the news they would still have a vested interest in the continuation of the war wouldn't they?

Like I said earlier. Remember the Blackhawk Down incident. This happened in the same place. Under Clinton we tried to go in and take the target. That turned into a disaster. They aren't going to do that again in Somalia. I'm not going to pretend to know the best way to kill someone. This was how they decided to carry it out. We can second guess the military all we want but it's their job to pull the trigger.

I think you provide a bad example comparing how Muslims kill people. There are plenty of examples of Muslim exteremists killing civilians intentionally.

[Poop-Loops]

Of course. The difference is we claim they are batsh** insane and evil. We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our murders assassinations.

[Hurkyl]

We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our murders assassinations.
That's a good idea. I think we should start by limiting our pool of intended targets so as to exclude innocent civilians. Oh wait, we already do that. :tongue:

[Hurkyl]

The local hospitals always report more deaths and injuries than our government does, which implies that we're trying to mitigate public outcry through dishonesty.
No, it doesn't. There are many reasonable situations consistent with this data. Your allegation is one of them. Another is that the enemy is trying to incite public outcry by inflating the number of deaths and injuries. Another is that both sides are well-intentioned and simply use different techniques to gather and analyze information. Yet another is that the two sides are actually reporting different figures, which the media conflates in an attempt to stir up some ratings.

[Poop-Loops]

That's a good idea. I think we should start by limiting our pool of intended targets so as to exclude innocent civilians. Oh wait, we already do that. :tongue:

Cute. I guess you'll be the one telling the guy who got his kid blown up "Dude, calm down. It's not like we meant to kill your son!"

[Hurkyl]

Cute. I guess you'll be the one telling the guy who got his kid blown up "Dude, calm down. It's not like we meant to kill your son!"
What does that have to do with anything? :confused: Whether or not this makes for a good Lifetime television movie, isn't relevant to the situation we're disussing.

[Poop-Loops]

Honestly? You do physics and you can't figure something as simple as that out?

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

[Hurkyl]

Honestly? You do physics and you can't figure something as simple as that out?

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.
Does too. :rolleyes: (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

[Mokae]

That's so moving. Killing the innocent, I mean.

[Poop-Loops]

Does too. :rolleyes: (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.

[Hurkyl]

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.
But if I am to understand what you say, I need to know what you mean by that word. I made an assumption, and I stated my assumption so that you could correct me if I was wrong.

Ideally, I'd like a confirmation if my assumption was correct, to remove all possibility of doubt, but I don't expect one. The worst response you can make is one like this, which doesn't actually deny my statement, but is enough like an objection that I cannot tell if I was right or wrong.


(For the record, in my opinion, neither meaning makes sense the way you used it -- one meaning makes your statement completely irrelevant, and the other makes it obviously wrong)

[Poop-Loops]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.

Secondly, the post about Lagrange Multipliers? A joke.

[drankin]

Of course. The difference is we claim they are batsh** insane and evil. We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our murders assassinations.

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

[Hurkyl]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.
As you saw on dictionary.com, the word has multiple meanings. I had originally thought you meant "causing or being a subject for grief", i.e. "lamentable", which is the meaning which I usually ascribe to the word. In fact, I had even written a reply under that presumption. (I deleted it after checking www.m-w.com and saw the other meaning)

[Poop-Loops]

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

What?

[drankin]

What?

More care?

[Art]

Does too. :rolleyes: (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.Just to try and understand your poorly stated pov in your opinion how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong? 1? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? or do you believe even if millions are killed so long as they were not the primary target then it's okay?

[Hurkyl]

how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong?
That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.

[Poop-Loops]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.

[Art]

That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

Although you now seem to have shifted from your original stance that so long as civilians were not the primary target it automatically exonerates the attackers I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available. Personally I think if it was that valuable a target then it was worth putting US lives on the line rather than sacrificing innocents.

It never ceases to surprise me no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

[drankin]

Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect

I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available.

It never ceases to surprise me how no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

[quadraphonics]

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

[Hurkyl]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.
But without knowing the other factors, we cannot know at what point this is the one that dominates.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Battle of Mogadishu was a fiasco. Doesn't seem like the mission was planned or executed very well. Perhaps it should not have been implimented and other approaches should have been investigated.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

Pushing the button to launch a missle into someones neighborhood knowing full well that there will be "collateral damage" seems fairly intentional to me. Just because one might feel bad about it or need to justify it to themselves doesn't remove intentionality.

And just how small a time frame do you think we are looking at if all we are doing is dropping a missle on the guys head whether he is in the presence of innocent civilians or not?

[Art]

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.They don't 'hide out' in civilian populations. They are insurrectionists, they don't have military bases to work from although I can see why such emotive terms with all of it's negative connotations appeals to you as a propaganda tool.

In the specific example the target was involved in a civil war in Somalia. This hardly presents a threat of clear and present danger to US lives and so your scenario of an imminent attack on US troops and/or civilians is nonsense.

I have already told you my solution. If the target is considered valuable enough to risk loss of life then those lives risked should be the attackers not innocent bystanders. Who has the right to decide that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than the lives of innocent civilians especially when the attack is being made on the innocent civilians' soil?

The test is would US forces behave this way if the collateral damage was American civilians. I suspect rather strongly they would not and if they did there would be uproar which brings us back to my starting point. It is time the media began to shine a light on some of these ops if for no other reason that Americans understand that the victims of their oppression do not hate them for anything as mundane as their freedoms as Bush likes to say but rather for much more concrete reasons.

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.
And we probably haven't any statistics about the number of people from that community in which he lived may now join a terrorist group in order to get revenge on the americans who dropped a missile in their neighborhood or killed one of their relatives. So how many terrorists do you think may have been created by the sloppy job of getting rid of one?

[drankin]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

This guy was responsible for a number of specific killings a few years ago. And he was an Al Qaeda leader as well. He wasn't killed just because he was Al Qaeda.

[Art]

This guy was responsible for a number of specific killings a few years ago. And he was an Al Qaeda leader as well. He wasn't killed just because he was Al Qaeda.Oh so it was a punishment assassination and not a clear and present danger? And that justifies the killing of innocent civilians to you?

btw did you actually even read the BBC article? The US has said al-Shabab is part of the al-Qaeda network, although analysts say it is impossible to accurately establish those links. Al-Shabab's leaders insist it is a purely Somali movement.So he might have had tenuous links to the al-Qaeda network and that's assuming the US gov't didn't simply invent the association as they have done in the past.

[drankin]

They don't 'hide out' in civilian populations. They are insurrectionists, they don't have military bases to work from although I can see why such emotive terms with all of it's negative connotations appeals to you as a propaganda tool.

True, they don't have a military base. Is this a requirement in order to kill them? They hide out in their own house. That, in essence, is their military base.

In the specific example the target was involved in a civil war in Somalia. This hardly presents a threat of clear and present danger to US lives and so your scenario of an imminent attack on US troops and/or civilians is nonsense.

There you go again, Art. Where did I make a scenerio of imminent attack? Why don't you pay attention to what I say and quit making up arguments against statements that I didn't make? We are officially taking proactive action against the enemy all over the world.

I have already told you my solution. If the target is considered valuable enough to risk loss of life then those lives risked should be the attackers not innocent bystanders.

So, we shouldn't have gone after Hitler? He wasn't killing Americans. This is complete pacifist bologne that solves nothing.

The test is would US forces behave this way if the collateral damage was American civilians. I suspect rather strongly they would not and if they did there would be uproar which brings us back to my starting point. It is time the media began to shine a light on some of these ops if for no other reason that Americans understand that the victims of their oppression do not hate them for anything as mundane as their freedoms as Bush likes to say but rather for much more concrete reasons.

If we were in the middle of a civil war/revolution/war in our own borders, you can expect to have numorous friendly casualties. Your "test" is not applicable to this situation.

[TheStatutoryApe]

There you go again, Art. Where did I make a scenerio of imminent attack? Why don't you pay attention to what I say and quit making up arguments against statements that I didn't make? We are officially taking proactive action against the enemy all over the world.
...
So, we shouldn't have gone after Hitler? He wasn't killing Americans. This is complete pacifist bologne that solves nothing.
If you wish to draw parallels like this then you are inviting the question of whether or not we are at war with this person and whether or not he is an imminent threat.
Hitler: yes/yes
al-Shabab: maybe/not that we know of
So how do you make the justification for this "proactive" action?


If we were in the middle of a civil war/revolution/war in our own borders, you can expect to have numorous friendly casualties. Your "test" is not applicable to this situation.

Do you think there would not be several americans who would decry the killing of fellow americans, civilian or otherwise, even if we were in a civil war?

[drankin]

Oh so it was a punishment assassination and not a clear and present danger? And that justifies the killing of innocent civilians to you?

He was a jihadist, and a danger to peace efforts and stability in the area. If we had targeted civilians I would certainly agree with you.

btw did you actually even read the BBC article? Yes.

[quadraphonics]

And we probably haven't any statistics about the number of people from that community in which he lived may now join a terrorist group in order to get revenge on the americans who dropped a missile in their neighborhood or killed one of their relatives.

Indeed, the list of factors relevant to the moral calculus that we do not have is very long. Which renders any opinion on it specious, a reiteration of preexisting political biases.


So how many terrorists do you think may have been created by the sloppy job of getting rid of one?

How in the heck would I (or anyone else) know? How many civilians was this guy responsible for killing? How many more would he have been responsible for killing if left alive? What would the effects on Somalia as a polity have been? Given that there are so many crucial factors that we don't (and, often, can't) know, what exactly are we trying to talk about here?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Indeed, the list of factors relevant to the moral calculus that we do not have is very long. Which renders any opinion on it specious, a reiteration of preexisting political biases.



How in the heck would I (or anyone else) know? How many civilians was this guy responsible for killing? How many more would he have been responsible for killing if left alive? What would the effects on Somalia as a polity have been? Given that there are so many crucial factors that we don't (and, often, can't) know, what exactly are we trying to talk about here?

Not the OP which means that this will likely be locked soon.
Ah to be able to have mentor powers and split threads.

That we don't know is the point. Launching a MISSILE into a civilian neighborhood to take out ONE guy who may or may not be a threat is sloppy and irresponsible. If you want to justify it based on POSSIBILITIES then there are all sorts of possibilities to discuss, the creation of terrorists and terrorist sympatizers by launching missiles in to peoples naighborhoods being prime among them. Is this guy so important that the potential fuel given to the supposed enemy due to this action is inconsequencial? This is the sort of thing that we can't say just can't be known, that military analysts ought to be considering and speaking about in an unbiased fashion. (ha! brought it back to the OP even)

[quadraphonics]

That we don't know is the point. Launching a MISSILE into a civilian neighborhood to take out ONE guy who may or may not be a threat is sloppy and irresponsible.

And that would be a good point if we were the ones deciding to launch the missile. However, the guys tasked with that decision have access to considerably more knowledge on this stuff than we do. That's not to say that it was or was not justified, or to assume that their knowledge is complete, but that our lack of knowledge is not in and of itself grounds for passing legitimate judgements on this act.


If you want to justify it based on POSSIBILITIES then there are all sorts of possibilities to discuss, the creation of terrorists and terrorist sympatizers by launching missiles in to peoples naighborhoods being prime among them.

I haven't tried to justify anything. I've simply pointed out that all of the justifications, and counter-justifications, presented here are specious.


Is this guy so important that the potential fuel given to the supposed enemy due to this action is inconsequencial? This is the sort of thing that we can't say just can't be known, that military analysts ought to be considering and speaking about in an unbiased fashion. (ha! brought it back to the OP even)

I'm all for more candor from the military/intel/policy community on this stuff, as the basic issue is one of trusting them to do this job without our receiving all of the pertinent information. But there is a very necessary, firm limit to the level of disclosure that can be achieved, which will still be far short of what's required to really pass definitive judgement on this stuff, at least, without requiring decades of delay. That more pertinent commentary does not seem to have been politically necessary is, I'd say, a sign that people by-and-large do have confidence in the judgements of the pertinent people in these matters. Perhaps that confidence is misplaced, but it is real. Which is to say that I don't expect to see demands for increased scrutiny and explanation any time soon.

But, more generally, there really are pertinent variables that really can't be known, at least at the time when decisions must be made. And yet, the reality of war dictates that decisions be taken regardless. While I'm not against a rational, just approach to war and security policy, we must keep in mind that it is very much an ideal, and a highly unattainable one at that.