It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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”).
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.