Quantcast

Obama redefines “militant” to avoid counting civilian casualties?

~ The Rebel ~ 2012/05/31 15:49:09

This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” . . . The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. . . .

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

Read More: http://americanvisionnews.com/3610/obama-redefines...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • littlebuffalo55TBA 2012/05/31 17:13:28
    littlebuffalo55TBA
    +2
    Ah the wonderful world of changing semantics! It's one set of meanings for the Elitist Academic Globalist Socialist Millionaire. But another set for a Conservative who defends freedom in much the same way!

    burning george bush in effigy
  • fuzzy Ken "In G-d We Trust" 2012/05/31 17:00:55
    fuzzy Ken "In G-d We Trust"
    +3
    Where's Code Pink? Amnesty International? The UN? MSNBC? Victoria and the rest of the Muslims and their sympathizers who claim to value life? Pelosi & Reid?
    Had this been Bush I tend to think that this would have caused a major outcry.
  • Liberty... fuzzy K... 2012/05/31 17:30:26
    Libertys Martyr
    +2
    Shame on us as Americans for judging personality rather than policy. Both sides do it too... Republicans don't seem to mind when THEIR party raises spending levels, votes to increase the debt ceiling, or expands executive power.
    The democrats don't seem to mind when THEIR party increases domestic surveillance, invades a few countries under UN resolution, or passes terrible legislation like the NDAA.
  • Max 2012/05/31 16:59:48
    Max
    +2
    I noticed on Twitter yesterday, a headline that read: '20 "militants" killed in Yemen.' I didn't read the story but I guess they were all bad guys. That headline was from a source in Europe not in the US. The mainstream media will just regurgitate whatever the White House feeds them.
  • wolf sloan 2012/05/31 16:12:44
    wolf sloan
    +4
    The master of spin strikes again
  • Sheila 2012/05/31 15:54:41 (edited)
    Sheila
    +3
    Politicians and their fricking definitions. "Well that depends on the meaning of is.....".

    Double standards abound in the political world and I am REALLY tired of it!!! ANYTHING the press can do to help O they have and they should all be ashamed for their coverage.
  • Cuppajo 2012/05/31 15:51:27 (edited)
    Cuppajo
    +3
    And people thought, "the definition of IS" was ridiculous.
  • Sheila Cuppajo 2012/05/31 15:56:50
    Sheila
    +2
    LOL, I really have to start reading other responses before I type mine....lol.... Great minds think alike right? :-)
  • Cuppajo Sheila 2012/05/31 15:57:50

News & Politics

2013/06/19 13:48:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals