General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChomsky: Obama Is ‘Dedicated To Increasing Terrorism’
In a wide-ranging interview with GRITtv host Laura Flanders, MIT professor and author Noam Chomsky plainly stated that President Barack Obama’s administration is “dedicated to increasing terrorism” all around the world.
In his view, the NSA spying scandal clearly illustrates how subservient to corporate and state power the American media has become. “There would be headlines saying this is a bad joke” if the press wanted to be truly independent, Chomsky told Flanders.
“The Obama administration is dedicated to increasing terrorism,” he went on. “In fact, it’s doing it all over the world. Obama, first of all, is running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history. The drone assassination campaigns, which are just part of it… All of these operations, they are terror operations.”
Chomsky continued: “People have a reaction, they don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ And they become what we call terrorists. This is completely understood from the highest level, that as you carry out these operations you’re generating terrorism.”
“Sometimes it’s almost surreal,” he lamented, recalling the congressional testimony of a man from Yemen who claimed a single drone strike turned his whole village against the U.S. — something the extremist Muslims in his region had failed to do.
MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/chomsky-obama-is-dedicated-to-increasing-terrorism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)He's such a waste of bandwidth .
titanicdave
(429 posts)sally5050
(151 posts)I can say "You are important only to yourself" and you can laugh at me but quietly understand that you have this amazing set of books, recordings and other intellectual gifts to humanity.
until you have such a body of work, all of you on this thread that like to criticize Chomsky.. well please STFU...
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)And that goes for the first two geniuses on this thread as well.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
MiddleFingerMom
(25,163 posts).
.
.
I've always considered him to be the genius his reputation proclaims him to be -- bringing complex
situations down to cogent and concise narratives.
.
I can't remember ever not saying, "YES, YES, YES, WHY DON'T THE PTB SEE THAT!!!!"
.
.
"Chomsky is irrelevant" = Limbaugh.
.
.
.
QC
(26,371 posts)of suffering from a "derangement syndrome"?
That was Charles Krauthammer, who accused those of us opposed to Bush of suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
Now it is considered the very height of wit among the kool kidz here to accuse those who don't favor, say, indefinite detention or Chained CPI of having a bad case of "Obama Derangement Syndrome."
Yes, DUers are now recycling Krauthammer's insults, so it's hardly surprising to see them recycling Limbaugh as well.
The right wing takeover of this community has been a wonder to behold.
MiddleFingerMom
(25,163 posts).
.
.
... ESPECiALLY criticism of our President.
.
.
.
Their labeling of Chomsky as irrelevant NOW (while not claiming that when he made the SAME scathing
criticisms about the Bush regime) doesn't make them rightwingers... but effectively they sometimes
are following the same talking points.
.
By the way... I heard someone like O'Reilly infer very obliquely that Chomsky had some serious mental
issues (this was back during the Bush years).
.
What do you wanna bet he takes Chomsky's exact same statements about President Obama and
claims he's had a complete and miraculous recovery.
,
That doesn't mean that Chomsky's statements are any less true today than they were eight years
ago.
.
.
.
QC
(26,371 posts)of the changes we have seen here.
The same crew that can't bear to see Obama criticized has always been very careful to keep their positions on issues precisely calibrated to his. Since Obama's strategy is to campaign left and govern right, that means they have to move right to keep up. You're right that the main driver here is not a preference for Chained CPI or a health care mandate so much as it is the desire to support someone with whom they identify very strongly.
The effect, though, has been to move DU sharply to the right, to make it a place where "entitlement" cuts and mandatory corporate health insurance are progressive and Chomsky a teabagger and Howard Zinn a dishonest commie and bad scholar (and no, I didn't make up those claims--they came straight from DU).
MiddleFingerMom
(25,163 posts).
.
.
... and very vocal and very relentless group of DUer's -- there IS sometimes a silent
majority here who may not feel like coming up on the radar screens of that relentless
group.
.
As far as Chomsky's comments (at least some of them), I can remember very well our
criticism of the Bush regime, specifically regarding his use of drones and their having
almost certainly more to do with the swelling of terrorist recruits than the terrorist
recruiters themselves.
.
Why we give that program a pass now, just because it's coming from "our side", is far
beyond me. The casualties -- especially the "collateral damage" -- have the same
recruiting result as they did during the Bush years,
,
Irrelevant? Show Chomsky's comments (the ones we're discussing) to DUer's in general
and I'll bet you that for every "irrelevant" that you hear, you would hear 10 times or
more people (probably many more than that) saying "right fucking on".
.
.
.
Chomsky was relevant and genius.
.
.
.
Chomsky IS relevant and genius.
.
.
.
Rise Rebel Resist
(88 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)is that better?
Rise Rebel Resist
(88 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He's basically calling drone warfare "terror" and saying that since the US uses drones Obama is the world's biggest terrorist. This depends on all kinds of slipshod rhetoric and sloppy definitions as many have pointed out downthread. I think the kindest way to describe the claims in this article would be as suggestive metaphors, i.e. another crap sandwich from Chez Chomsky.
----------
* blowback: nice idea, catchy too, but an intel invention (yes, Chalmers Johnson openly admitted working for the CIA) and at the end of the day not compelling IMHO.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)What is "irrelevant" about pointing out the results of Drone Murders?
You disagree that this will inevitably make violent enemies??
What is your logic or line of reasoning on this??? Thanks.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Obama's a company man...
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)wow
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)They are about the only ones hiring these days, verdad?
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)People are paid to make it happen, it has customers, products... What did you think it was, a noble calling? It works because it makes money, not because it protects people.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)A. Obama is dedicated to the drone program
B. Drone attacks radicalize and create more anti-American terrorists out of grieving relatives
C. Obama is dedicated to making more terrorists
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You and Chomsky are attempting to impute a motive to Obama's actions. Your opinion may or may not be right regarding the end result of Obama's actions, but those actions do not come close to proving motive.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Obama's actions are relevant. Obama is terrorizing his victims and creating more terrorists in the process.
Most terrorist actions against the US come as a result of US actions overseas. 9-11 didn't just come out of the blue. The US had a long history of many cruel, provocative actions that led to 9-11.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)agree with you about the end result for the sake of argument. Motive makes a huge difference. You can more easily reason with someone who is in error. It is difficult to reason with someone who is intentionally screwing things up.
Civilization2
(649 posts)If you are going to criticize something, making claims about its intent, perhaps you should actually take in the information offered beforehand. You clearly did NOT watch the video as you claim it is an article, and yet you magically know; "Chomsky's entire article is about imputing motive".
and this make your own words so apropos;
"Motive makes a huge difference. You can more easily reason with someone who is in error. It is difficult to reason with someone who is intentionally screwing things up."
blind support of drone murder much.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)cpwm17 already answered eloquently.
I'm just reducing it to a mathematical outcome. Pure logic. I never brought emotion (which results in motive) into the argument.
Its obvious that unless Obama is some secret "Doctor Evil", he doesn't WANT to create more terrorists.....(but he is).
Of course I can somewhat understand his predicament. He may never have gotten re-elected if he had refused to use this new technology paid for by the American taxpayer. Notice the Republicans couldn't attack him for being "weak on terrorism" after not only Bin Laden's death, but the ongoing use of drone forces. There is a healthy population of frightened sheep in America thanks to the MSM, so Obama has to look like he's doing SOMETHING about it. But its the easy way out. Counting on the fact that the deaths of a few "ragheads" half ways around the world won't matter much, especially if dutifully ignored by the MSM.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If so, that's good.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Either in my first post, nor in the article on Chomsky.
That you see an imputed motive says more about you and your interpretation filters.
If I had to ruminate on this I'd say that Obama probably does have a motive: To insulate himself from criticism that he is not doing enough against al qeada in Pakistan and elsewhere. And maybe he has also convinced himself that its actually going to work, who knows.
I'd be curious as to what exact motive you are reading into Chomsky's observation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)doing that?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)The imputing is all on you, unless you can quote the article such as "Obama's motive in all this is....".
And I've already said that of course Obama must have a motive. Most things in life are done with some kind of motive in mind.
But I am curious as to what motive are you reading into Chomsky's writing? I've already told you my guess.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that is motive. So, again, do you agree with Chomsky that this is Obama's intention?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)This is just going around in circles. So I'll stop after this.
Since you still have not defined what you think that imputed motive is I'll have to guess and say you are imbuing an interpretation to Chomsky's choice of using "dedicated to" with a deliberately evil intention.
But again, that is YOUR interpretation of his phrasing.
My interpretation, and I gather Chomsky's, is that Obama is deliberately using drones, and thus deliberately creating more terrorists....whether Obama sees it this way or not.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)terrorists kill people
Obama is using drones to kill terrorists
Few terrorists mean few people killed
now wasn't that fun
TakeALeftTurn
(316 posts)3 or 5 or 10 more are recruited.
It is a great recruitment tool for the Islamic Extremists.
Now where does our argument stand?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Some terrorists disguise themselves as children.
Obama uses drones to kill terrorists (including some disguised as children)
Therefore Obama is a baby-killer.
See how that works?
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)some terrorists hide themselves among children
troops/drones attack the areas where the terrorists are hiding
children get killed in the attack
the terrorists are responsible for their deaths since they hid among the children
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)little (brown) upstarts!
Civilization2
(649 posts)invading sovereign nations and killing their people also tends to create terrorist of the surviving family and friends of our victims.
Drone bombings are terrorism, military invasions are terrorism, renditions, torture, and endless detainment without trial or due process again instills terror in surviving family and friends of our victims.
How do you miss this? It is not wrong when we do it?? Nationalism and militarism met corporatism and now we have a fascist state, and most people did not even notice.
Obama has expanded all of these activities and shows no signs of relenting.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Other than an ad hominem attack?
Ad hominem arguments are definitely irrelevant to an argument.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to dlwickham (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
yurbud
(39,405 posts)including declassified government documents.
They are just the pieces of history that the wealthy wish the rest of us would just forget or at least not bother to connect the dots from what indisputably happened in the past to what is happening now.
Did we colonize North America to Christianize the Native American "savages" or to get some free real estate?
Or take over the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico to Christianize the already Catholic natives or to use their land and profit from the cheap labor of their people?
Did we colonize Hawaii because they were going to row their outriggers over here and lob pineapples of mass destruction at us?
And so on.
The whole War on Terrorism is an embarrassment.
If it really was that, it would simply be a two pronged effort to catch and kill terrorists, and reduce the grievance that might make indifferent people inclined to become terrorists.
Occupying other people's countries and randomly killing the babies, grandmas, and dogs either with foot soldiers or drones will not reduce those grievances--they will increase them, just as Americans would want revenge if some other country had and used the capacity to do the same to us.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This was funny; "Did we colonize Hawaii because they were going to row their outriggers over here and lob pineapples of mass destruction at us?"
And I agree with this; "The whole War on Terrorism is an embarrassment."
The whole war on terrorism just sounds like more manifest destiny bullshit to me.
Civilization2
(649 posts)We are not taking out "terrorists", these are suspected enemies,. of our expanding corporate-military empire,. what ever happened to due process and trials for suspects?
When we bomb these 'suspected enemies' anyone else around them is killed as well (innocents, collateral damage?),. death from above an any instant,. that is not terrorizing whole populations?? How can some people even attempt to justify this insane activity? I just do not get how hopelessly sucked into the fascism many have become.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)If a bunch of guys of a certain age got together and did certain things, they were judged and executed as potential terrorists.
Using that logic, we would use drones to kill any white or Latino guys with shaved heads because they might be gangbangers or skinheads.
And kill any kid wearing baggy clothes for the same reason.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for us lefties to read? They seem to be getting tossed under the bus at an alarming rate.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)guilty of murder for ordering it.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)but declaring Obama guilty of murder doesn't sound like Chomsky.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JFK was a political assassination.
MLK Jr was a political assassination.
Patrice Lumumba was a political assassination.
How does bin Laden fit into that category? He was a criminal, not a political figure.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)our terror war is actually a political battle in Pakistan, in addition to a shooting war.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
karynnj
(59,503 posts)permission or even telling them. That is different than seeing OBL as "political".
Enrique
(27,461 posts)and Chomsky actually mentioned that first.
But a lot of attitudes we take for granted about bin Laden are actually matters of political debate in Pakistan. It's a lot like the sovereignty issue, how many people here other than Chomsky even raised that as an issue? How many journalists? How many politicians? And yet as you say, it is an issue for Pakistanis.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)and Afghanistan - in terms of the NW area of Pakistan and various attempts to get terrorists. So, many politicians spoke of it. Any serious media that covered the hearings - and there were some that did - spoke of it too. As to the issue when it was OBL, nearly every article on the Pakistani react spoke of it - and all articles of Kerry's visit there afterward mentioned it.
That does not mean most Americans heard the complaint. It was not a "breaking story" nor anything that interested the mostly entertainment media.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then killed, at least by some accounts.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)when I object to the killing (rather that capture and trial) of Bin Laden is that trying him in court would be "impossible" for a variety of reasons - would provoke retaliatory terrorist attacks, would be a media circus, etc.
If we killed him to avoid potentially unpleasant consequences from a trial, that's political.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Could they have potentially tried to arrest him? Maybe. But, his capture wouldn't accomplish anything his death didn't. No need to risk lives in that kind of operation to preserve his.
He was killed because he was an enemy, not because he was a political figure.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)his death didn't: if we had captured him, hauled him back to the States, put him on trial thereby humiliating him and putting a spike in his potency as a symbol, that would have made a difference on "martyrdom" and future recruitment for Al Qaeda, imho.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for one, he's not around to plan terrorist attacks.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Coulda been better.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In reality, a gigantic mess.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)there's no way to judge how big a mess it would have been.
And besides, it would have been nice to be able to shut the truthers up, or prove them right--either way, a bonus.
ETA: would have been nice to explore--in public--the origins of the hijackers as well...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just think about jury selection.
Then think about where the trial would be held.
Then think about bin Laden getting access to classified documents and intelligence.
Would the government be allowed to eavesdrop on his communications with his attorneys? How would the government prevent him from using his attorneys to coordinate with AQ?
None of those would have been reasons to not capture him, but I think the optics of him being humiliated, etc and showing justice the American way are exaggerated.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I don't either, when it comes to poor v rich, but I bet the very high profile nature of this case could have been a very good thing for our anti-terrorism effort. I think it would have been an even better thing for putting a period to the whole War on Terra.
But of course the PTB don't want to do that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and put him on trial.
In a compound surrounded by associates, where you have to use the military to get him, it's likely going to end with his death. Pretty much any man inside that building was dead if he was on two feet.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Bushra, Abrar's wife.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Coulda woulda shoulda
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Oh, I think they can.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Are you suggesting that Obama isn't a politician?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JFK, RFK, and MLK were political assassinations.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)When you send the military it becomes "political." It's either an "assassination" or an "execution." And in time of war, both can be "war crimes."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)We declared war on Japan. There was an order to try and kill him which would be an assassination order. I think in a declared war, it is probably not a war crime.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of war is that AQ is not a state.
To put it another way, it was neither an assassination nor a war crime to shoot pirates on sight. Actually, still isn't.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I am assuming war is between states. Mobs, gangs, political organizations, militias, etc. don't wage war. They commit criminal acts.
It gets way too muddy in Afghanistan. My easy definitions are breaking down. Still, I believe we attacked a country governed by people we didn't like in retaliation for something they didn't do. A criminal did the deed. He either was or was not hiding out in their country. Mostly looks like not. We got him. We are still fighting. Why? I am confused.
We made a criminal case into a war. I can't even imagine how an objective court would judge this. Like one at the Hague.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Plenty of nonstate actors participate, and thus make themselves legitimate targets as part of that armed conflict.
They're both combatants and criminals.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)They see civilians as having different rights than enemy combatants. So civilians who are killed are considered to have been executed illegally.
I realize we are splitting hairs, but I object to our acting as though what we have done in Afghanistan is somehow justified by the hunt for the criminal bin Laden. It is no longer a legitimate argument. We executed him rather than attempt to apprehend him. While I am not shedding tears over this fact and it may actually have been the most expedient way, it is hard to argue that it was a legal action. Both Iraq and Afghanistan.
If this was you acting like this in your neighborhood, you would be in jail. But the US government is above the law in this regard.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If a militia or organization engages in armed conflict, they are not privileged from the other side killing them.
To the contrary, they may not only be killed by the other side, but may be put on trial as war criminals for the very act of illegally engaging in armed conflict.
Moreover, they do not have the protections of Prisoners of War if captured, but more basic humanitarian standards.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but we must. Because we can be seen as criminals for having crossed the line. We made our arguments. Our pre-emptive strike policy that flew in the face of our entire legal system.
We did not declare war. We never do. We authorize military action. That sounds illegal to me. Weasel words. Criminality oozes from our actions. The Constitution is thwarted by clever phrasing. Yet, we do not consider ourselves vigilantes or criminals in this matter. How are we any different than George Zimmerman chasing down and shooting anyone who looks suspicious and calling it standing your ground?
I am not sure what the heck we are doing in the Middle East, but I am not changing the meanings of words to accommodate whatever it is we are doing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and privileges upon non-state actors.
Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittler. Osama bin Laden organized armed attacks that killed thousands. The two are not remotely comparable.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)The two are directly comparable.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No innocent people were killed in the operation that took him out.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I consider innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan to have been killed in order to reach our so-called objective. Or are you saying we killed innocent children in Afghanistan for some other reason. Please explain what that reason could possibly be? And now I read we killed 4700 with drone strikes in Pakistan? That's a lot of deaths in a country we haven't even declared a target of a military action. We killing their civilians. Mostly it seems by accident. We bomb every wedding we see which suggests our intell amounts to "there's a crowd, go shoot at them."
At this point I have no idea what we are doing in the area. Not mending fences. Acting like a nation with laws to guide us? Or criminals? Depends on who you ask in the world.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Assassins? Combatants? Friendly Fire? Engaged in dangerous wedding festivities?
We can't even agree on the language of what it is we are doing. Doesn't that suggest we should be doing a better job of defining for ourselves what it is we are doing?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to agreeing with them 100%, of course, upon learning that he actually said that.
http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
More:
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement. There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination.
More
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/12/an-interview-with-noam-chomsky-on-obamas-human-rights-record/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/201105--.htm
Robertson attributes the murder to “America’s obsessive belief in capital punishment—alone among advanced nations—[which] is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise.” For example, Nation columnist Eric Alterman writes that “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a just and necessary undertaking.”
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)My, my, my. Well, it's not like I'm surprised or anything. Sad, though.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts) 
Catherina
(35,568 posts)"Define terrorism you imperialist fucks"
Demit
(11,238 posts)“People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them, that’s not a surprise. Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to acts of terror.”
Can't argue with that.
kentuck
(111,089 posts)They cannot see the fear or feel the pain unless it happens to them.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Was England terrorising the US?
Demit
(11,238 posts)How is that a contradiction to the quote?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)So sure, it's manufactured hatred in both instances, for money and power.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Amonester
(11,541 posts)"dog-food can" (as American pilots called them... hehe) Canadian B-29 bomber for the three years he carpet-bombed them almost nightly...
I don't think most Vietnamese people enjoyed getting agent-orange'd either. War is war, and that's how it goes, how it went since the stone age.
However, I never heard about neither the Viets nor the Nads being able to carry successful mission(s) over any US territory in retaliation.
That's not the case anymore.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)All they will do is defend their masters in the congressional military corporate complex, bet!
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Something the citizen bloggers don't have to worry about. And this is why increasingly the media has no credibility and are not able to do any real journalism. All they do is sell ad space and copy cute kitten stories off the internet.
It will be the free independent writers on the blogs, people on DU who will be seen as the real reporters, analysts, and op-ed writers in the future. We don't need them to tell us what to think. At least I don't! I am ever grateful to the internet for giving me that voice.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)us any more than Enlightenment Protestants needed priests to interpret the Bible.
I too am grateful for the internet, for providing access to your voice and others like it, that do a much better job of informing and interpreting than any paid mouthpiece ever does.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)was enough credentials to establish you as a world class thinker and analyst Sort of like "C student" Sarah Palin.
Focus on the face. Fuzz up the brain. You can be nearsighted or farsighted. Have forethought or only afterthought. It is rare that a person has both. Certainly not something I see on any TV news. All I see are empty suits and blonde pouty lips on my screen. Cheshire cats.
I trust people on DU to dance a jig around these "runway model" journalists in terms of real analysis, intellectual curiosity, and honesty.
Your analogy of the Enlightenment and the comparison of the priests who interpreted for the ignorant masses with our current specious media is spot on. I love it. When was the last time one of those "blonde pouty lipped propagandists for 24/7 consumerism" on CNN wrapped her head around an idea?
Most clawed their way to those positions by their fake nails. That's the only skill they have.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)majored in thinkology. But they probably scored high on the CIA's Jingoistic Journalism Exam, the one they use to weed out those who think for themselves.
So they drone on, explaining in the vulgate, what the Latin means, while we've already read uncensored translations. Can they really be as clueless as they appear?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Soundbites. Clips. Segments. Add them all up and they are "sound and fury that signify nothing."
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)when we've bubbled to the top, media pundits ladle their contemptuous lies, drowning us in overly-sweet, thick quicksand, disguised as pablum.
I've lost my taste for baby-food.
I think of this when I see Diane Sawyer feign concern for some tragedy in our lives. Contempt for us oozes with her every utterance. I don't even think she tries to hide it anymore.
She must be enjoying a lot of personal and professional satisfaction knowing how vital her presentations are to the smooth governance of the rabble.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)because they are paid not to.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)I do this because there are many things that need to be done, or because doing those things is the responsible way to act, or because my unpaid for work helps someone I love. If I only did what I was paid to do, there wold be many holes in my life left unfilled.
One would think these well-paid pundits' intellectual curiosity would lead them to draw some conclusions about the world, on which they report. Actually, I suppose they do occasionally reflect on their roles, but they have convinced themselves that lying to the public is legitimate service, to someone who matters.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Like musicians. Some read music. The others play by ear. I don't think many in the media play by ear.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)They just repeat what they have heard. Myna birds.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That much, I'll give him. 
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)And in order to be a popular president in the US, one has to be the equivalent of a foreign relations cowboy. Chomsky demonstrated this is his brilliant essay "Watergate, a Skeptical View". We had our Jimmy Carter. The nation basically stuck its collective finger down its throat and vomited him back up. No (male) president will ever make Carter's "mistakes" again.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm delicately avoiding a certain r-word. And it's very hard for me to believe that way-with-words Chomsky doesn't know just what he's saying. At this particular juncture in the national, make that international, political conversation no less. Seriously, if it was a Borowitz parody it could hardly be more inane.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)on a Republican, and he is hoping to influence Obama's foreign policy---which is admirable. But it isn't going to work, for the reasons I have discussed above.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)This is pathetic. This place is turning into a real cesspool.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)... because, in this context, you have absolutely no way whatsoever of demonstrating the validity of its use.
And the REASON you have absolutely no way whatsoever of demonstrating the validity of its use is because you have no real reason to believe it is a factor other than that a person is being criticised and said person happens, also, to be black.
Doyou think, perhaps, that conceptually immunising black people from legitimate criticism of their actions might be a little bit "certain r-word"?
karynnj
(59,503 posts)In addition, when Bush 1 started the Gulf War, there were those in the Senate that referred to the Carter doctrine, which was that while trying to become energy efficient, we would fight to protect our sources of oil. In 2009, Carter testified before the SFRC, when Dick Lugar referred to that - and there was no contradiction. Lugar called the first Gulf War a war for oil -- and said that doing this was consistent with the Carter doctrine.
I also would suggest that the only women who have been near a major party's nomination for President or VP have been no less determined to be seen as tough - unfortunately.
TakeALeftTurn
(316 posts)The drone warfare program has :-
killed about 200 Jihadist leaders and about 3,000 low level fighters
recruited about 200 million more people who now consider the American government their enemy, principally due to the high level of innocent civilian casualties - including women and children - plus the terrorizing of entire regions
As the witness to Congress testified - the Jihadists couldn't turn his village into supporters of Islamic Extremism despite trying for years - one drone strike did it for them.
In circa 2005, 25% of Pakistani's considered America their enemy, it's now 92%.
The main reason cited in polls is America's drone warfare program.
recruited many millions more supporters of Islamic Extremists
recruited tens of thousands of new Jihadists
turned Libya from a secular state into one now ruled by Islamic Extremists
turned Egypt from a secular state into one now ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood
exacerbated the civil war in Yemen
the "rebels" in Syria are almost completely comprised of Islamic Extremists - as reported by the NY Times and many other places
The drone warfare program is designed to increase hatred, exacerbate conflicts and perpetuate the wars
Where would the MIC be without enemies?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Politician use war as their modus operandi to justify their existence.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)The upper echelons of government corporations,church and military are full of sociopaths,and I agree with Chomsky. If Obama was NOT trying to create war for profit's sake maybe because of the market sociopaths fuck ups,Tell me, how come Guantanamo is still there.I do not know obama,I just know what he chooses to expose about himself. Since my own knowledge of his personality is limited to a persona,who knows what his GENUINE intentions and allies are.I can guess all day ,but his actions speak way louder than any of his words.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Unfortunately most here will simply flinch.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I stopped counting at the 20th advertiser/bundler one must allow in order to access their stuff.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)This is not an essay written by Chomsky. This is an interview. It is "news" because a prominent member of the left says something critical about a Democratic President. Well, guess what? All of us members of the left have all said something critical about (all not just) this Democratic president.
This is the kind of "divide and conquer" story that makes the right wing salivate. "Oh goody!" they crow. "The Democrats are cannibalizing themselves! Maybe we will get another 1968." The right wing is desperate for another 1968. I for one, do not intend to give it to them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)From a comment at RawStory:
Webster and Raw Story love to throw out chum like this. Webster clearly slanted the piece, sprinkling on a few too many unnecessary adverbs. Oh well, it gives the Progressive Purists and Karl's Keyboard Kommandos something to drone on about.
That's about the size of it. Personally I don't think Chomsky is so innocent but that's almost beside the point.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)
That doesn't have to be Obama's goal, but what's inside Obama's head is irrelevant. In practice, Obama's actions are terrorism and Obama's actions provoke more terrorism.
Chomsky continued: “People have a reaction, they don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ And they become what we call terrorists. This is completely understood from the highest level, that as you carry out these operations you’re generating terrorism.”
It's the most obvious fact in the world that victims of US actions may want revenge. That's why we were attacked on 9-11 in the first place, and US's response to 9-11 provokes even more terrorism.
The problem is most Americans stick their heads in the sand and don't want to know about the nasty behavior of the US Government around the world. Frankly, many Americans are just too stupid to care what the US is doing around the world. Many have no ability to walk in others' shoes. The Golden Rule is rocket science for them.
Here are excerpts from Osama's speech concerning his motivation for 9-11:
http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)It doesn't even take a great mind like Chomsky to see the logic of this.
On Obama's drone strikes in Yemen:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-yemen-us-airstrikes-breed-anger-and-sympathy-for-al-qaeda/2012/05/29/gJQAUmKI0U_story.html
“Every time the American attacks increase, they increase the rage of the Yemeni people, especially in al-Qaeda-controlled areas,” said Mohammed al-Ahmadi, legal coordinator for Karama, a local human rights group. “The drones are killing al-Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning them into heroes.”
From an article on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/01/1198385/--Traitors-in-the-Establishment-National-Security-Bigwigs-Warn-of-Terror-War-Blowback
Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a favored adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, expressed concern in a speech here on Thursday that America’s aggressive campaign of drone strikes could be undermining long-term efforts to battle extremism.
“We’re seeing that blowback,” General Cartwright, who is retired from the military, said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.”
......
Speaking of the CIA, the former head of the agency's counterterrorism center, Robert Grenier, has been airing concerns about blowback for many months.
"It [the drone program] needs to be targeted much more finely. We have been seduced by them and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences."...
"We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan."
.......
But of all the security leaders warning about the potential results of American violence overseas, none has done so more vividly that General Stanley McCrystal:
..."[A]lthough to the United States, a drone strike seems to have very little risk and very little pain, at the receiving end, it feels like war. Americans have got to understand that. If we were to use our technological capabilities carelessly – I don’t think we do, but there’s always the danger that you will – then we should not be upset when someone responds with their equivalent, which is a suicide bomb in Central Park, because that’s what they can respond with.".
........
Are there really this many DUers with their heads in the sand as I see on this thread? Or is it a case of blame the messenger, like it is with Assange and Manning? You may not agree with Chomksy (or General McCrystal, Robert Grenier, or General Cartwright), and that Pakistanis or Yemens are somehow different than other humans and don't give a wit about watching a relative get blown up by a foreign power, but I don't get the blind hatred for one of the greatest political writers in America.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)What does anyone listen to this guy anymore
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)sally5050
(151 posts)I applaud Laura Flanders for getting a high quality interview of the foremost thinker of our time, Noam Chomsky to comment on the latest NSA surveillance news. We are lucky for her amazing professional journalism and Laura deserves our progressive support. Below is link to the actual interview:
http://www.grittv.org/
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Thanks for the grittv.org link that has the whole thing
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Few can stomach it.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)-Over half of our tax dollars fund the military-industrial complex.
-Research their profit party from the Iraq invasion.
-Trust Ike:
And that it's the Bush/Cheney regime behind the worst of the most recent:
Halliburton bills taxpayers $45 per case of soda, $100 per bag of laundry
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblower_hearings_denied.html
Of course such profiteers never want this endless buffet to ever cease!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022486390
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Follow the money. Was it ever more true? Talk about welfare, geesh.
Notice the mainstream "liberal" media never mentions the ridiculous costs of the contractor's services. Today's media is essentially useless. Worse than useless. Their information is MISinformation.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Unhinged.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Barack Obama calls for nuclear stockpile reduction in Berlin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10130273/Barack-Obama-calls-for-nuclear-stockpile-reduction-in-Berlin.html
Good ol' Noam, always good for a belly laugh when a distraction is underway. 
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Scroll to minute 3:48 if you don't understand German. We're not the only people, or the most important people, on this earth.
Obama calls for everyone else to reduce their stockpiles while the US keeps building its own stockpile of deadly weapons. There aren't many people laughing over our actions, as if we were Lord of the earth. By what divine right?
Chomsky sends greetings to Anti-Obama Protesters in Berlin
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)The alternative is much worse, you dickhead. Unrec.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)you called Chomsky a dickhead, I'm sure he's hurt.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)to see the truths that underpin some of what he says.
And likewise, Chomsky doesn't have to pull his punches; he lives in a free country. Vigorous discussion is a hallmark of a strong democracy.
That said, I agree that these drone attacks are generating only hatred for the US, particularly the ones that kill bystanders indiscriminately. I don't know if it will generate more anti-US terrorism, but I do think it diminishes our credibility, with each and every drone strike.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- K&R
[center]''People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.'' - James Baldwin
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." - John F. Kennedy
Wall Street Moral Compass
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness." - Niels Bohr
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
"Children love secret club houses. They love secrecy even when there's no need for secrecy." - Donna Tartt
"Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton
Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government." - Jeremy Bentham
Inappropriate Looking
''Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' ~George Orwell, 1984
link -------------------------------------------------- link
''For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.'' ~Jonathan Swift
[/center]
Catherina
(35,568 posts)
+1
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)in the Barack Obama forum....
Or just shouted from the rooftops. 
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- And that was before I even joined.
[center]
[/center]truebluegreen
(9,033 posts) OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)You have been blocked from posting in the Barack Obama group by Cha. If you believe this is an error, you may contact Cha for more information.
That's OK. Everything was sticky in there, anyway.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)situations. The problem with that being, of course, that no matter which side you're on in some countries, if you say the wrong thing, you and yours can be punished by practically anyone OWNING AN ASSAULT WEAPON - and in some places - even if you're on no side at all, you can be killed for that TOO.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)just want to make sure all the Obamaphants get the opportunity to show how superior they are to Noam Chomsky
patrice
(47,992 posts)valid. Things are more complex than that. What we need is to put ALL of the truths together.
If the propaganda critique goes for Obama, it goes for Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc. etc. etc. - anyone and everyone.
How many people is ANYONE on any side of this question willing to sacrifice to being in error?
''People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.'' - James Baldwin
Cha
(297,196 posts)stupid flag.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Chomsky offers an analysis. People that like Chomsky don't take what he says on faith, they just appreciate his analysis.
It's completely different from politicians for example. The word propaganda applies much more to them, including politicians that I like, than it does to Chomsky.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)nt
yurbud
(39,405 posts)From the LA Times:
The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/27/opinion/op-arkin27/2
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)These policies are wrong headed. And created by chickenhawk Republicans.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Is it because they are an Obama or establishment supporter or because they believe that America has gotta do the dirty work in order to maintain its power? I dunno.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Muslim is he?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Until then I'm too sick to deal with most of you. Shades of the Clintons murdering Vince Foster all over DU today. BY DU. And you pretend there's no reason to wonder about WTF is going on when Chomsky says Obama is "dedicated to increasing terrorism."
It plays so well into RW talking points it's spooky. He could say his policies and actions are having the opposite effect than intended. But no. He actually said "dedicated to increasing terrorism." As if he hates America and wants Americans to be retaliated against. Now, isn't that just special?
Fuck it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)of violent fundamentalist Sunni Muslim insurgents in places like Libya and Syria when it suits our purposes, and even Sunni terrorists in places like Iran, Bosnia, and in 80's Afghanistan.
Do your homework on foreign policy history beyond your sixth grade textbook.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)The Democratic party is the only thing that stands between the American people and Republicans
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
04.03.09 -- 2:18PM
By Josh Marshall
There are a few details and color in Politico from that meeting Obama had with the bank CEOs last week ...
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market."
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that."
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5384414
High theater with people you can depend on like Josh Marshall, who will leak what the administration needs, to keep the people all fired up as if we have a champion lol.
My sister just shakes her head in disgust saying "what a charade" all the time.
Yeah, what a charade. ""My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."" Priceless.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I AM a true progressive. I'll be listening to Noam.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Several policies, in fact
- the policy that we have some sort of right to dominate the rest of the world, through military power if we feel like it
- the policy that we are not responsible for "accidents" due to the previous policy
- the political policy that terrorists are mindless goons who have no aims or goals or ideology beyond "being the bad guy."
obama is dedicated then, inasmuch as he's dedicated to continuing existing policy. The presidents before him were, and I sadly have few doubts the presidents after him will do the same.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--unless you are fine with maintaining the American empire.
duuser5822
(54 posts)But I couldn't disagree more with him on this.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Too bad, he taught me a lot but he is sometimes off his rocker.
Amaya
(4,560 posts)And anyone talking shit about Chomsky is a fool and delusional.
sally5050
(151 posts)his point is that there might just be a cause and effect of our US terrorism to blowback in places like Boston's bombing.
and when does violence end up 'stopping' violence?
it never has in history and it never will.
obama has blood on his hands and I applaud Chomsky for pointing this out so eloquently.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)We should stop our violence and human right abuses against the people of the world and most terrorism against us will stop. In fact, that is the point of the OP. The world would then be a much safer place and the US would quit wasting so much money.
Terrorists that target us are very clear about their reasons that they attack us. Chomsky's solutions will eliminate those reasons.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)For whatever reason, he's hell bent on using drones, the result of which will be to increase terrorism, but I seriously doubt an increase in terrorism is his actual goal.
I think it's far more likely he's listening to people that are telling him the drone programs are going swimmingly and keeping America safe and whatnot, and those would be the people that are looking to accumulate money and power at all costs, even if it means an increase in terrorists down the road.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Although I agree with quite a bit of what Chomsky says here, I think it's fucking ridiculous to claim that Obama is "dedicated to increasing terrorism."
Rex
(65,616 posts)To think the POTUS wakes up in the morning and grins at the thought of terrorism and bringing it about around the world is asinine.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)exactly how he phrased that.
It's crazy stuff. Imputing that motive to Obama and the administration.
Rex
(65,616 posts)that it is a repugnant thing to say. I have my own personal issues with this administration, but I don't think they plan on spreading terrorism around the world intentionally. That would be the goal of an insane country with an insane agenda.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And we have people here agreeing with it.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)If that's not Obama's intentions, that reflects poorly on Obama's intelligence.
There's no way to defend Obama no matter what's in Obama's head.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts) 
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Wow, no matter how wrongheaded a policy decision is, I would never in a million years think this of even the worst people in this country. As stupid and horrible as their foreign policy is, I don't think any of them ever WANT this country attacked.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's bad policy no matter who is in the oval office.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)He's outright implying Obama wants the country to be attacked, which to me is dangerous and irresponsible.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't think that is his intention at all.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Basically Obama is giving the military-security-prison-banking-industrial-complex a giant blowjob.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive, says report
US academics' report says drones kill large numbers of civilians and increase recruitment by militant groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report
Drone victim: U.S. strikes boost al-Qaida recruitment
A young Yemeni whose village was targeted by a U.S. drone strike tells Salon about the experience, and its effects
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/drone_victim_u_s_strikes_boost_al_qaeda_recruitment/
‘Growing hatred of US’: Yemeni testifies to Senate on drone program fallout
http://rt.com/usa/us-drone-senate-yemen-306/
etc.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)What specific claim are you trying to quantify?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Now you have some evidence. bye
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's easy to toss FUD to low-information readers and that's all Chomsky is doing. Likewise, a couple of the articles you posted include hints of FUD-like claims but offer no quantifiable evidence whatsoever that the US is increasing the threat of terrorism anywhere.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Each time an errant bomb or a bomb accurately aimed but against the wrong target kills or hurts civilians, we risk setting out strategy back months, if not years. Despite the fact that the Taliban kill and maim far more than we do, civilian casualty incidents such as those we’ve recently seen in Afghanistan will hurt us more in the long run than any tactical success we may achieve against the enemy.(39)
It is clear from polling and our research team’s interviews that drone strikes breed resentment and discontent toward the US, and there is evidence to suggest that the strikes have aided militant recruitment and motivated terrorist activity.
US drone strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan. A 2012 poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitude project found that only 17% of Pakistanis supported drone strikes. And remarkably, among those who professed to know a lot or a little about drones, 97% considered drone strikes bad policy.(40) As numerous analysts have noted, “(i)f the price of the drone campaign that increasingly kills only low-level Taliban is alienating 180 million Pakistanis–that is too high a price to pay.”(41)
The Waziris interviewed for this report almost uniformly reported having neutral or in some instances positive views of the US before the advent of the drone campaign. One 18-year-old, for example, admitted, “(f)rankly speaking, before the drone attacks, I didn’t know anything about a country called America. I didn’t know where it was or its role in international affairs.”(42) But the strikes now foster the development of strongly negative views toward the US. Another interviewee explained: “Before the drone attacks, we didn’t know (anything) about America. Now everybody has come to understand and know about America . . . . Almost all people hate America.”(43) Noor Khan, whose father, Daud Khan, a respected community leader, was killed when a drone struck the March 17, 2011 jirga over which he presided, remarked that “America on one hand claims that it wants to bring peace to the world and it wants to bring education. But look at them, what they are doing?”(44) One man, who has lost relatives in drone strikes, expressed his deep-seated anger toward the US, declaring that “we won’t forget our blood, for two hundred, two thousand, five thousand years—we will take our revenge for these drone attacks.”(45) A Waziri who lost his younger brother in a strike stated that there would be revenge: “Blood for blood. . . . All I want to say to them is . . . why are you killing innocent people like us that have no concern with you?”(46)
A teenage victim of a drone strike commented: “America is 15,000 kilometers away from us; God knows what they want from us. We are not rich . . . . We don’t have as much food as they do. God knows what they want from us.”(47) Unable to find any other explanation for why US strikes have struck innocent people in their community, some Waziris believe that the US actively seeks to kill them simply for being Muslims, viewing the drone campaign as a part of a religious crusade against Islam.(48)
Recognizing the danger posed by a campaign that breeds such hostility, more than two dozen US congressmen penned a letter to President Obama in June 2012 that described drones as “faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths, and are frequently the only direct contact with Americans that targeted communities have.”(49)
Many of the journalists, NGO and humanitarian workers, medical professionals, and Pakistani governmental officials with whom we spoke expressed their belief that, on balance, drone strikes likely increase terrorism. Syed Akhunzada Chittan, for example, a parliamentarian from North Waziristan, expressed his conviction that “for every militant killed,” many more are born.(50) In another interview, a Pakistani professional told us that a professional school classmate had joined the Taliban after a drone strike killed a friend of his.(51) Noor Behram is a Waziri-based journalist who has spent years photographing and interviewing victims of drone strikes. Having personally witnessed the immediate aftermath of numerous strikes, he relates: “When people are out there picking up body parts after a drone strike, it would be very easy to convince those people to fight against America.”(52)
Numerous policy analysts, officials, and independent observers have come to similar conclusions. David Kilcullen, a former advisor to US General David Petraeus, has stated that, “every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”(53) Der Spiegel has also reported that in Pakistan “militants profit in a gruesome way from the drone missions. After each attack in which innocent civilians die, they win over some of the relatives as supporters—with a few even volunteering for suicide attacks.”(54) As a May 2012 New York Times article succinctly put it, “(d)rones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”(55) Pakistani Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in a recent interview that the drone program “radicalizes foot soldiers, tribes, and entire villages in our region,” and that “(w)e honestly feel that there are better ways now of eliminating Al Qaeda.”(56) It is also important to note that similar counter-productive effects have been noted in Yemen.(57)
While quantitative data is limited, one study, in June 2012 by the Middle East Policy Council, identified a correlation between drone strikes and terrorist attacks in the years 2004-2009. That study found it “probable that drone strikes provide motivation for retaliation, and that there is a substantive relationship between the increasing number of drone strikes and the increasing number of retaliation attacks.”(58) A July 2010 study by the New America Foundation revealed that almost six in ten residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) now believe that suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified against the US military,(59) although a July 2012 journalistic assessment by Bergen and Rowland suggests that drone strikes may have contributed to reduced suicide attacks in Pakistan in 2010-2011.(60)
Indeed, US drone strikes have been explicitly referred to as a motive for a number of specific planned or implemented terrorist attacks. For instance, a suicide bomber who targeted a CIA compound in Khost, Afghanistan identified drones as his motivation, announcing that “(t)his (suicide) attack will be the first of the revenge operations against the Americans and their drone teams outside the Pakistani borders.”(61) Faisal Shahzad, who allegedly attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, viewed his planned attack as retaliation for several US policies, including drone strikes.(62) In addition, Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan who allegedly plotted to attack New York’s subway system was “in part, motivated by drone strikes in (his) ancestral homeland().”(63) Similarly, a group responsible for the bombing of a Pakistani police academy in early 2009 cited the collaboration of Pakistani authorities with the US drone campaign.(64) It is also clear that some US officials themselves consider that drone strikes may influence the likelihood of terrorist activity in the US. A June 2012 deposition suggests, at least, that the New York City Police Department has monitored conversations involving individuals from “countries of concern”(65) following and about drone strikes,(66) to “find those people that were radicalized towards violence.”(67)
Those we interviewed in Pakistan emphasized their belief that enmity toward the US stems largely from particular US rights-violating post-9/11 policies, and could be reversed if the US changed course. Many expressed hope for reconciliation with the US, for good relations with the American people, and aspirations for a peaceful future. A victim of the March 17, 2011 jirga strike, for example, stated: “We don’t have any revenge or anything else to take from America if they stop the drone attacks.”(68) Many interviewees repeatedly implored our research team to ask the US government to stop or fundamentally change drone strike policies,(69) and instead assist their communities through, for example, investments in health and education infrastructure.(70)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And "suggesting" that it might isn't evidence that it does. Ditto the Guardian and Salon pieces. Sorry.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)If a bunch of knowledgeable people say: Hey we've been over there and talked to the locals. They told us they are becoming terrorists and hate the US now because we keep dropping bombs on them------------> That is evidence.
Maybe it's not good enough evidence for you. Maybe you have a higher standard of proof. And there may also be some other evidence that contradicts this evidence. You may wish to present some contradictory evidence.
But I don't think you can say at this point that "There is no evidence" when you have basically eye witness testimony and reports of people becoming radicalized in response to US policies.
We make public policy decisions all the time on the basis of imperfect and inconclusive evidence. If the evidence was uncontroversial, or 100% conclusive, then there might be no debate. Since evidence is often inconclusive and contradictory, that's why we have analysts.
Anybody can be an analyst. Anybody can look at this evidence, apply their own common sense to it, and draw their own conclusions.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's important to remember that while they may use the same tools, or "repressive state apparatus" if you want to sound ponderous, the Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations were and are using them to different purposes. So while it's possible that Bush-Cheney had assorted nefarious motives with their rendition and torture operations, including terrorist recruitment, I see no evidence that the Obama admin does. From what I can gather Obama is using drones for what he keeps telling us they're being used for, i.e., to curb terrorism.
That's a police function and that's exactly how Kerry in 2004 said he would approach terrorism. And the available evidence suggests to me that that's what's happening: instead of increasing recruitment, as Chomsky and others would like us to believe so as to transfer Bush-Cheney crimes to the black guy, Obama and Kerry seem in fact to be diminishing it. And if you read the articles you posted it's easy to see why: if you were a teenager in Yemen and there were drones hovering around I imagine it would curb your appetite for mischief in the same way police cruisers do in small towns.
p.s. I often suspected that the torture prisons were experiments in terrorist creation, but from what I can gather it doesn't work -- innocent torture victims when released make every effort to resume what's left of their previous lives, as do combatants, if their war is still on, otherwise they return to civilian life. So there's little or no net gain in terrorism.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)You just said that.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)in that the policy creates more terrorists than it stops, but he is ignoring the political realities in this country by blaming Obama for it.
Had Obama not gone forth with the drone strikes the republicans would have painted him as weak on defense and putting american lives in danger and the MSM would have helped them.
It would be political suicide and we could very well be dealing with President Romney right now.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)in any real way and Chomsky's claim is insulting and ridiculous. Nor does he offer any evidence that "terror" is actually increasing anywhere, just speculation:
Uh, no Noam. How do "we react to acts of terror"? Let's see, there was 9/11, a spectacular, internationally televised and re-televised catastrophe widely exploited by the US media in collusion with Bush administration as war propaganda. If present-day drone strikes on Pakistani farmers compare in any conceivable way to 9/11 Chomsky doesn't say so. In other words this article a silly pack of lies.
jsr
(7,712 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Remind me why that gives his opinion weight in this question?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The topic of the NSA has shone a very bright light on DU and made it very easy to see who is who.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)without increasing numbers of terrorists and people to spy on.
