Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The point, as always, isn’t justification: It is always morally unjustified to deliberately target civilians with violence (see the update here on that point). Nor does it prove that the bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria is unjustified or should cease. The point, instead, is that the war framework in which much of this violence takes place — one side that declares itself at war and uses violence as part of that war is inevitably attacked by the other side that it targets — is completely suppressed by one-sided media coverage that prefers a self-flattering, tribalistic cartoon narrative.

The ultimate media taboo is self-examination: the question of whether there are actions we take that exacerbate the problem we say we are trying to resolve. Such a process would not dilute the evil of ISIS’s civilian-targeting violence, but it would enable a more honest and complete understanding of the role Western governments’ policies play and the inevitable costs they entail. Perhaps those costs are worth enduring, but that question can only be rationally answered if the costs are openly discussed.

But whatever else is true, if we are constantly bombarded with images and stories and dramatic narratives highlighting our own side’s victims, while the victims of our side’s violence are rendered invisible, it’s only natural that large numbers of us will conclude that only They, but not We, are committing civilian-killing violence. That’s a really pleasing thing to believe, no matter how false it is. Having media outlets perpetrate self-pleasing and tribal-affirming — but utterly false — narratives is the very definition of propaganda. And that’s what largely drives Western media coverage of these terrorist attacks every time they occur in the West.

Undoubtedly, many believe that the West’s violence is morally superior because it only kills civilians by accident and not on purpose.

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:

Undoubtedly, many believe that the West’s violence is morally superior because it only kills civilians by accident and not on purpose.

The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

To the above two posts:

We're supposed to be better than that.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:



The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

To the above two posts:

We're supposed to be better than that.

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:

Undoubtedly, many believe that the West’s violence is morally superior because it only kills civilians by accident and not on purpose.

The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:



The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

Indeed,
The end results are important and worth debate - but - motives are the key
I'm not entirely certain what American Motives are on every front
but I do know they aren't about targeting and killing civilians

They aren't always clear (we lie a lot about our motives)
But I repeat - we ain't outright targeting civilian populations



Motives are damn near the entire conversation in my opinion

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:



The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

Indeed,
The end results are important and worth debate - but - motives are the key
I'm not entirely certain what American Motives are on every front
but I do know they aren't about targeting and killing civilians

They aren't always clear (we lie a lot about our motives)
But I repeat - we ain't outright targeting civilian populations



Motives are damn near the entire conversation in my opinion

JohnStOnge wrote:

To the above two posts:

We're supposed to be better than that.

Better than what? The enemy in this case intentionally imbeds itself so that it's impossible to attack them without risking civilian casualties. If you're going to engage the combatants you have to risk civilian casualties. What are our military people supposed to do? Just not engage them?

There is no equivalency between one side trying to engage targets while trying as hard as it can to avoid non combatant casualties and another side TARGETING non combatants.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Indeed,
The end results are important and worth debate - but - motives are the key
I'm not entirely certain what American Motives are on every front
but I do know they aren't about targeting and killing civilians

They aren't always clear (we lie a lot about our motives)
But I repeat - we ain't outright targeting civilian populations



Motives are damn near the entire conversation in my opinion

My own motivation is Pax Americana

I don't give two shits about some asshole blowing up a market in Assholestan- I dont put silly carebear flags on my facebook profile and I don't waste time with cheap condemnation

if it happens in America then that is the only time I care. kill them. Deport their families. Deport their imam and anybody else who communicated with them in an encouraging or sympathetic way. If those people are overseas, then pay them a visit with a drone or a B2

make it clear that our allies are those who take the same measures and we'll combine efforts with them

I have absolutely zero problems with my conscience over placing Anerican interests over all others

A defiant Hollywood Hills mega-developer who angered neighbors by renting to hard-partying celebs had one of his houses trashed by a Saudi prince, a lawsuit charges.

Danny Fitzgerald claims Prince Aziz al Saud's repeated raunchy parties at one of his upscale Los Angeles homes inflicted more than $80,000 in damage.

At one such party on Aug. 16 in the Weidlake Drive home, guests were "snorting cocaine and smoking marijuana," according to his lawsuit obtained by the Daily News. In addition, strippers were seen dancing naked on kitchen countertops.

The contract is the latest in a buildup over the last two years.

As The Intercept has previously reported, the Saudi government has brought on a dizzying array of American public relations experts and lobbyists to help spin reporters and influence policymakers. Since 2014, the regime has paid the Podesta Group, a lobbying firm run by a top fundraiser for the Hillary Clinton campaign; Norm Coleman, the former GOP senator who leads a major Republican Super PAC; H.P. Goldfield, a lobbyist with the law firm Hogan Lovells and vice chair of Madeleine Albright’s Albright Stonebridge Group; the public relations powerhouse Edelman; Targeted Victory, a consulting firm founded by former aides to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; as well as two major law firms with a lengthy roster of former government officials on its payroll, DLA Piper and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

Saudi fees to Qorvis, its longstanding lobbying firm, have increased dramatically. Last year, Qorvis billed the Saudi Embassy $7 million for its semi-annual filing, more than twice the amount charged the previous reporting cycle.

Just last week, Al Arabiya, an English-language news outlet financially supported by members of the Saudi royal family, announced the creation of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee, yet another newly minted media and lobbying campaign on behalf of Saudi interests in the United States.

The money spent on lobbying has been used to counter growing controversies surrounding the kingdom. When Nimr al-Nimr, a peaceful government critic, was executed in January, the Podesta Group helped the regime shape media coverage, providing a quote to the New York Times to smear Nimr as a “terrorist.” Other American consultants working for the Saudi Embassy used social media and other efforts to attack Nimr and justify the execution.

The kingdom has relied on its media and lobbying apparatus to combat criticism of its human rights record, including the growing rate of executions and beheadings. The influence also extends to promotion of Saudi Arabia’s controversial role in the Middle East, including the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen and the country’s failure to address private financiers of radical Islamic groups such as ISIS.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the key:



The author appears to kind of dismiss the fact that the United States is trying to avoid killing civilians while the other side is targeting them. TRYING to kill them. But it's no small matter. There IS no equivalency here.

As you probably know I would support getting a lot more ruthless than we are. But, regardless, as we are we are going through a whole lot of effort to avoid killing non combatants to the extent that that's possible. Everybody knows civilians are getting killed. But that's a lot different than doing something like was done in Brussels recently where the whole point was to kill civilians.

To the above two posts:

We're supposed to be better than that.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
To the above two posts:

We're supposed to be better than that.

We are.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: We are.

I was talking about honesty.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was talking about honesty.

Support for almost any war (in the larger sense of the word) is generally weak. IMO there's nothing wrong with trying to preserve some of the support by not showing 100% of what goes on. If you're saying you want 100% honesty and fair reporting, you're nuts.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Support for almost any war (in the larger sense of the word) is generally weak. IMO there's nothing wrong with trying to preserve some of the support by not showing 100% of what goes on. If you're saying you want 100% honesty and fair reporting, you're nuts.

Yeah...who would ever want those things.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yeah...who would ever want those things.

Apparently no one. Because it still goes on the 21st century. In the 24/7 newscycle. To the point where anyone who makes baseless claims that run counter to what the "mainstream media" broadcasts is nearly ALWAYS given the benefit of the doubt.

All in the name of "defying the system"

Where's the "fling shit at a wall and see what sticks" emoji?

DSUrocks07 wrote:Bernie Sanders got a lot of coverage yesterday because of his landslide sweep in the Saturday Caucuses.

Guess Ol' Bernie is part of that propaganda machine...or is that different?

You didn't read the article, did you?

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Support for almost any war (in the larger sense of the word) is generally weak. IMO there's nothing wrong with trying to preserve some of the support by not showing 100% of what goes on. If you're saying you want 100% honesty and fair reporting, you're nuts.

Yeah...who would ever want those things.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yeah...who would ever want those things.

OK, we've figured out you're nuts. Or in your case, nut.