Question for our non-US readers: is the media coverage of the conflict any more even-handed in other countries? I suspect the media coverage in Israel itself is better than it is in the US.
That's BS. The necklacing story was based on a doctored video, probably part of the CIA campaign to discredit him. Thanks for being today's gullible right wing stooge. link to consortiumnews.com
When I was in college in the 1980's I helped organize a fundraiser for the ANC, then declared a "terrorist organization" by the Reagan Administration. Although we knew we were under surveillance by the FBI no one worried much about being arrested and imprisoned. Today, that same action in support of many Muslim organizations in Obama's America would involve a great deal more risk. I never thought I'd feel nostalgic for the Reagan Era, but the country has certainly become more repressive than it was in the 1980's rather than less.
Iran should tell the US and UK that it wants to develop a renewal energy program, and that it is willing to replace its unsafe nuclear technology with solar and wind by 2040. Doing so would be contingent on getting technology, grants, and investment in renewables from the West. The US politicians' heads would explode. The conservatives fear renewable energy more than they fear a nuclear Iran. The US would never agree to it of course, but it would be great political theater.
"Without a demonized enemy number 1, how will hawks win election campaigns?" Without an external enemy, the hawks will look internally. This has already begun, with the continued campaign against illegal immigrants - some of whom have been here for a generation. The other internal threats include all the usual suspects: eco-terrorists, gay marriage proponents, abortionists, American Muslims, etc. You can now add whistleblowers to that list. We can all expect to get a lot more attention if Iran stops being the external threat.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear from the government's spying." How many times have you seen some that comment from some government lackey? Well, I guess this incident conclusively blows that theory out of the water.
Lot of useless comments here from people who obviously didn't watch the video. "That is a conceit only Greenwald could come up with..." Blah blah blah, you troll. If you had watched the video you would understand that (1) Greenwald was paraphrasing another journalist and (2) the headline inaccurately presents the paraphrase anyway. Really, a lecture on "good journalism" from someone who doesn't watch the video they are commenting on. Thanks for the laugh.
The example set by Greenwald and Snowden is inspiring.
I don't understand why we have to engage in speculation about the reasons people answer the way they do. Why can't the pollsters ask a follow up question? "If you believe war is likely/unlikely, why? a) It's the normal state of affairs, b) because I think the US should go to war..." etc. I'd also like to see the exact wording of the question and the methodology.
Isn't it possible that Netanyahu and his gang aren't being stupid with their provocations, but that they're deliberately trying to drawing Arab countries into attacking them? Hasn't the US shown in the past that it will support Israel no matter what the cause, and that it would immediately enter a war on Israel's side? Panetta and others who lecture Israel are merely setting themselves up to be ignored and insulted by its leadership. What's the point of yet another talking-to, when Israel has learned that the US won't change its Israel-first policy?
"The United States needs to put things like drone attacks in the hands of the Department of Defense rather than in those of the CIA, so that they are not covert operations but rather elements of war-fighting."
If it's war fighting you want, then it would require congressional approval. If it isn't approved by Congress then it's covert operations, no matter which agency does the bombing and killing. Likewise with the operations in Libya. If it were Bush doing this then the liberals would be screaming murder. Where the h3ll is our anti war movement?
Yunis "worried that Misrata, the country’s 3rd-largest city, might fall altogether any moment." Yunis is arguing that a massacre of civilians could occur if NATO doesn't deliver supplies. Other commenters have argued that massacres of civilians will occur if NATO doesn't supply air cover for rebel forces. Do you see how easy it is to use this argument once you have agreed to start bombing and shooting in order to "avoid a massacre of civilians?"
"Yunis appears to me to underestimate how hard it is to do precision bombing of small targets from the air, while avoiding civilian casualties." I would have to say that a lot of people, including the writer of this blog, underestimate how hard it is to avoid civilian casualties once you start bombing, precision or not.
This NATO mission started as a campaign to enforce a "no fly zone" to protect civilians. We've already moved into flying support for the rebels, essentially taking sides in a civil war. Now NATO is supplying the rebels and providing training courtesy of the CIA. What was sold to the US as a limited mission has morphed into a full scale old fashioned US intervention, just as the administration had planned.
Question for our non-US readers: is the media coverage of the conflict any more even-handed in other countries? I suspect the media coverage in Israel itself is better than it is in the US.
That's BS. The necklacing story was based on a doctored video, probably part of the CIA campaign to discredit him. Thanks for being today's gullible right wing stooge.
link to consortiumnews.com
I invoke Poe's Law.
When I was in college in the 1980's I helped organize a fundraiser for the ANC, then declared a "terrorist organization" by the Reagan Administration. Although we knew we were under surveillance by the FBI no one worried much about being arrested and imprisoned. Today, that same action in support of many Muslim organizations in Obama's America would involve a great deal more risk. I never thought I'd feel nostalgic for the Reagan Era, but the country has certainly become more repressive than it was in the 1980's rather than less.
Iran should tell the US and UK that it wants to develop a renewal energy program, and that it is willing to replace its unsafe nuclear technology with solar and wind by 2040. Doing so would be contingent on getting technology, grants, and investment in renewables from the West. The US politicians' heads would explode. The conservatives fear renewable energy more than they fear a nuclear Iran. The US would never agree to it of course, but it would be great political theater.
"Without a demonized enemy number 1, how will hawks win election campaigns?" Without an external enemy, the hawks will look internally. This has already begun, with the continued campaign against illegal immigrants - some of whom have been here for a generation. The other internal threats include all the usual suspects: eco-terrorists, gay marriage proponents, abortionists, American Muslims, etc. You can now add whistleblowers to that list. We can all expect to get a lot more attention if Iran stops being the external threat.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear from the government's spying." How many times have you seen some that comment from some government lackey? Well, I guess this incident conclusively blows that theory out of the water.
Lot of useless comments here from people who obviously didn't watch the video. "That is a conceit only Greenwald could come up with..." Blah blah blah, you troll. If you had watched the video you would understand that (1) Greenwald was paraphrasing another journalist and (2) the headline inaccurately presents the paraphrase anyway. Really, a lecture on "good journalism" from someone who doesn't watch the video they are commenting on. Thanks for the laugh.
The example set by Greenwald and Snowden is inspiring.
I don't understand why we have to engage in speculation about the reasons people answer the way they do. Why can't the pollsters ask a follow up question? "If you believe war is likely/unlikely, why? a) It's the normal state of affairs, b) because I think the US should go to war..." etc. I'd also like to see the exact wording of the question and the methodology.
Alaska isn't participating in the boycott?
Isn't it possible that Netanyahu and his gang aren't being stupid with their provocations, but that they're deliberately trying to drawing Arab countries into attacking them? Hasn't the US shown in the past that it will support Israel no matter what the cause, and that it would immediately enter a war on Israel's side? Panetta and others who lecture Israel are merely setting themselves up to be ignored and insulted by its leadership. What's the point of yet another talking-to, when Israel has learned that the US won't change its Israel-first policy?
"The United States needs to put things like drone attacks in the hands of the Department of Defense rather than in those of the CIA, so that they are not covert operations but rather elements of war-fighting."
If it's war fighting you want, then it would require congressional approval. If it isn't approved by Congress then it's covert operations, no matter which agency does the bombing and killing. Likewise with the operations in Libya. If it were Bush doing this then the liberals would be screaming murder. Where the h3ll is our anti war movement?
Yunis "worried that Misrata, the country’s 3rd-largest city, might fall altogether any moment." Yunis is arguing that a massacre of civilians could occur if NATO doesn't deliver supplies. Other commenters have argued that massacres of civilians will occur if NATO doesn't supply air cover for rebel forces. Do you see how easy it is to use this argument once you have agreed to start bombing and shooting in order to "avoid a massacre of civilians?"
"Yunis appears to me to underestimate how hard it is to do precision bombing of small targets from the air, while avoiding civilian casualties." I would have to say that a lot of people, including the writer of this blog, underestimate how hard it is to avoid civilian casualties once you start bombing, precision or not.
This NATO mission started as a campaign to enforce a "no fly zone" to protect civilians. We've already moved into flying support for the rebels, essentially taking sides in a civil war. Now NATO is supplying the rebels and providing training courtesy of the CIA. What was sold to the US as a limited mission has morphed into a full scale old fashioned US intervention, just as the administration had planned.