Nobody Knows the ID of the 150 People Killed by U.S. in Somalia,but Most Are Certain They deserve it
The U.S. used drones and manned aircraft yesterday to drop bombs and missiles on Somalia, ending the lives of at least 150 people. As it virtually always does, the Obama administration instantly claimed that the people killed were “terrorists” and militants — members of the Somali group al Shabaab — but provided no evidence to support that assertion.
Nonetheless, most U.S. media reports contained nothing more than quotes from U.S. officials about what happened, conveyed uncritically and with no skepticism of their accuracy: The dead “fighters … were assembled for what American officials believe was a graduation ceremony and prelude to an imminent attack against American troops,” pronounced the New York Times. So, the official story goes, The Terrorists were that very moment “graduating” — receiving their Terrorist degrees — and about to attack U.S. troops when the U.S. killed them.
With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said of the 150 dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant” have no meaning other than: anyone who dies when my government drops bombs, or, at best, a “terrorist” is anyone my government tells me is a terrorist. Watch how many people today are defending this strike by claiming “terrorists” and “militants” were killed using those definitions even though they have literally no idea who was killed.
Other than the higher-than-normal death toll, this mass killing is an incredibly common event under the presidency of the 2009 Nobel Peace laureate, who has so far bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries. As Nick Turse has reported in The Intercept, Obama has aggressively expanded the stealth drone program and secret war in Africa.
more
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/
We learned nothing from Vietnam
= new reply since forum marked as read
how to keep ourselves distracted.
One of the reasons to be wary when Washington uses secret intelligence as a basis for war.
Tonkin Gulf Intelligence "Skewed"
According to Official History and Intercepts
Newly Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made "SIGINT fit the claim" of North Vietnamese Attack
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 132 - Update
John Prados
National Security Archive
EXCERPT...
New York Times reporter Scott Shane wrote that higher-level officials at the NSA were "fearful that (declassification) might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq."
CONTINUED...
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm
Anyone ever hear OPLAN 34-A mentioned on tee vee or in history class?
Caro’s Flawed Tale of LBJ’s Rise
Exclusive: Author Robert Caro has labored through decades of his multi-volume study of Lyndon Johnson’s life, only now reaching LBJ’s presidency in The Passage of Power. But the much-praised book misses – or misrepresents – many of the key events, writes Jim DiEugenio.
By Jim DiEugenio
ConsortiumNews July 28, 2012
EXCERPT...
Caro mentions OPLAN 34A, the plan for covert operations against North Vietnam. The seed for this plan was approved by Johnson as part of NSAM 273 in late November of 1963. Caro actually calls it a “reaffirmation.” (Caro, p. 403) If what he means is a reaffirmation of Kennedy’s policies, then this is just wrong.
CONTINUED...
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/07/28/caros-flawed-tale-of-lbjs-rise/
Like you, n2doc, I'm for war if it's to defend the United States and the Constitution from any and all enemies, foreign and domestic. Other than that, I'll try peace first. When administration after administration want to go for war first, there's a reason -- an evil reason.
"so just shower me with the usual insults and personal attacks..."
Much as your opening two paragraphs did and seemed uniquely dedicated to doing. I guess two standards for the precise same thing is "how it works on DU these days..."
