Obama redefines "militant" as "all military-age males in a strike zone"

[cb9's_unity]

I found this (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/) article from Salon on Reddit. The information about this blatant white-washing is useful in itself, but the argument within the argument is actually fairly forceful as well. Greenwald (who I don't know much about otherwise) calls out the mainstream media for being "an instrument for state propaganda" when it faithfully relays government casualty reports to the public. The military and media are choosing to call anyone killed by America as a militant, solely on the grounds that they were killed by the military. Obama doesn't think it is important enough to actually identify the Muslims being killed in the country he is supposedly liberating.

It would be good if more people could get an understanding of how the government and media can work together to twist any information to fit their own narrative.

Hopefully this can stimulate some constructive thoughts. Does anybody know how these attacks are generally reported in the Middle-East? Or any other cases of the U.S. pulling stuff like this?

[Rafiq]

Interesting development. Though I didn't know Obama did it himself, personally :rolleyes:

[Robocommie]

Wonderful that the media just repeats the "militant" brand without any kind of critical investigation. Do they even fucking try?

[cb9's_unity]

Interesting development. Though I didn't know Obama did it himself, personally :rolleyes:

That's the kind of thing Obama would have actually had to OK himself. As head of the military Obama really can't pass the blame to anyone else, and liberals can't either, which is why they've been so quiet on his neoconservatism.

[Rafiq]

That's the kind of thing Obama would have actually had to OK himself. As head of the military Obama really can't pass the blame to anyone else, and liberals can't either, which is why they've been so quiet on his neoconservatism.

I know. It's just a lot of the times when we here "Obama" did something, on X source we see it's from some sort of Paulite or anti Imperialist conservative of some sorts.

[eric922]

Let's assume Obama's argument is valid(which it most certainly is not) his definition of militant leaves out all the women and children killed in drone strikes, so even with these mental gymnastics it is still horrible.

I'm really getting sick of hearing liberals defend this guy. They gave Bush hell over this kind of stuff, but even though Obama's expanded it, it's okay now, because their guy is doing it. Do these people have on principles or consistency?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

None of the liberals I know actually defend him, they just say that X Republican would do much much worse. Particularly to the Muslim population here, which based on all the entrapment and show trials Obama has engaged in I don't really accept.

[eric922]

None of the liberals I know actually defend him, they just say that X Republican would do much much worse. Particularly to the Muslim population here, which based on all the entrapment and show trials Obama has engaged in I don't really accept.
Yeah I hear that one a lot too. Liberals seem to fall into two groups when it comes to Obama. One thinks he's awesome and the other tends to think he sucks, but Romney would suck worse.

Granted, I've met some who aren't voting for him and want him replaced with a more left leaning candidate like Berine Sanders, but I think a lot of those liberals would be more at home in a social-democratic party as opposed to a liberal one.

[Pretty Flaco]

I know. It's just a lot of the times when we here "Obama" did something, on X source we see it's from some sort of Paulite or anti Imperialist conservative of some sorts.

we hear that with any kind of historical figure.
"stalin made a pact with hitler"
"alexander the great conquered land"
"christopher columbus found the new world"

etc