Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"

An excellent, well sourced article on how the US has redefined what a 'militant' is so as to play down the amount of civilians deaths. kills civilians.

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”).

.

www.salon.com...

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.”

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

www.nytimes.com...

Genius, Collateral becomes just part of the overall mission objective...

Man I wish I could do that, my debt can become "potential" expenditures paid for or something, wont sound so bad anymore.

reply to post by stanguilles7

That is a truly bloodthirsty philosophy for a President. I guess once you join the globalists you've made your choice and there's no going back....

To play devil's advocate, the Administration is saying that if you are rolling with known terrorists you arent innocent. I think the bigger issue is pointing out that the media is complicit with this disinfo because they are reporting 'militants' killed without giving the context of what that term now means.

This practice is completely sickening - and equally bad is the way in which the media props it all up without any thought of questioning the legitimacy of the information.

Guess we should all have realised that the rise of Big Brother, the Fourth Reich, the Police State - even a New World Order - is well underway in the USA, and elsewhere in the Western world.

I don't think this was Obama's decision - let's not pretend even for a second that the elected representatives of TPTB have anything to do with determining policy such as this. To be blunt, he's a puppet ruler, as are most rulers in the West. The high forces and powers of this world, at work behind the scenes, are most certainly malevolent - though for now they are content with putting on a grand show for the profane, uninitiated 'public-at-large'.

A true leader can choose to be benevolent, to undo the damage done by those who act in the shadows. Obama wouldn't dare, even if he was so inclined (though I suppose that only willing servants now take the high office) - the last president to apparently seek redress ended up with his head taken off by a 'lone gunman'.

This is actually a good thing. To win war a populace must be broken (not win the hearts and minds). It is a lesson we seem to have to relearn each time we go to war. It is the only way you ever really win. Now perhaps once we admit this reallity and the shear terror of what war is we might think twice before actually going to war. Admititng the reality of war is a good step toward reducing how often we do it.

reply to post by stanguilles7


And how long until this justification is applied on U.S. soil? I mean, they did it with "terrorist" and "insurgent" (as it pertains to Occupiers). Policies and tech used in a war zone eventually get imported and used on U.S. citizens. (LRAD, drones, detention w'out trial). The police state never recedes, it only spreads. Unless stopped.

reply to post by Xeven


I don't think I've ever read a more ?????? comment in my life.

You're basically smoothing over the atrocities with an 'end justifies the means' philosophy, albeit twisted and distorted to appear noble.

Here's hoping that your unusual mindset remains a minority opinion. Can you honestly believe that the US War Machine gives a crap about reducing the number of times they go to war? They LIKE war. Get it yet? They are AIMING for destabilisation of the global status quo. They are NOT learning anything - simply propagating their agenda, while the rest of us stand around blinking in the sunshine, hoping for better days.

I don't know what else to say in the face of your comment. If you were below-average intelligence I might understand it, but your syntax demonstrates that you aren't.

Really, I'm at a loss for words. Which is unusual for me.

New definitions for a new world

Militant=Any living thing killed by military action.

Terrorist=Any one that does not agree with the government.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

And how long until this justification is applied on U.S. soil? I mean, they did it with "terrorist" and "insurgent" (as it pertains to Occupiers). Policies and tech used in a war zone eventually get imported and used on U.S. citizens. (LRAD, drones, detention w'out trial). The police state never recedes, it only spreads. Unless stopped.

That's a very "Militant" thing to say-

Just remember this every time you see the word 'militant' in the western press now.

For example:\

US drone strike kills three militants in Pakistan: officials

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A US drone strike targeting a vehicle in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt killed at least three militants on Saturday, security officials said, the latest in a recent spate of attacks.

The strike -- the sixth in 11 days -- took place in Khawashi Khel village, five kilometres (three miles) west of Wana, the main town in the South Waziristan tribal district which borders Afghanistan, a Pakistani security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

www.google.com...

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


You should re-read his comment. I think you completely misunderstood it.

the colonists, in the mighty empire's mind, were militants, terrorists and insurgents

it's all in the eye of the beholder

This seems appropriate

reply to post by stanguilles7


No, his meaning is quite clear, and I stand by what I wrote. I did re-read just to be sure, and I found the same thing I found last time.

He seems to have no understanding of the actual nature of the hand that is guiding US military policy and decisions relating to 'going to war'.

There is no hope for us if people fail to see the reality of the situation that has been unfolding for over a decade now.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment


He seems to have no understanding of the actual nature of the hand that is guiding US military policy and decisions relating to 'going to war'.

There is no hope for us if people fail to see the reality of the situation that has been unfolding for over a decade now.

Now perhaps once we admit this reallity and the shear terror of what war is we might think twice before actually going to war. Admititng the reality of war is a good step toward reducing how often we do it.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Nice to see these things exposed. nothing is ever changed as these things have been going on since the invention of the press.

Originally posted by fixer1967
New definitions for a new world

Militant=Any living thing killed by military action.

Terrorist=Any one that does not agree with the government.

Those are actually pretty good definitions. It would sure avoid a lot of confusion if we can all just agree on the definitions. Can we send them to Webster's dictionary?