-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In a 2007 report, entitled Underlying Reasons for Success and Failure of Terrorist Attacks (pdf) and prepared for Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate by Homeland Security Institute (and recently scrubbed from their web site, here) notes: “a favorite tactic of Hamas, the “double tap;” a device is set off, and when police and other first responders arrive, a second, larger device is set off to inflict more casualties and spread panic.”
It has been documented that this terrorist tactic has been embraced by President Obama.
Obama has adopted the “double tap” tactic by using second drone attacks to kill the first responders to the first drone attacks. Funerals for the victims of the first drone attack have also been the target of second drone attacks. These second attacks have caused the deaths of between 282 and 535 civilians, and at least 60 children.
In a comment that could have come out of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration, a senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said:
Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.
This Obama administration official has committed the irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) fallacy. The conclusion that there are those who would help Al Qaeda is not relevant to the question of accuracy of the documentation.
Obama’s “double tap” policy is nothing short of despicable. Obama has brought dishonor to America and to our founding principles. When America commits the same actions that we condemn when used by terrorists, we become terrorists. The liberals’ silence on this issue is shameful. If George W. Bush had adopted this tactic, the cries of protest would have been deafening.
We wanted change and we got it, from bad to worse.
H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Tom Engelhardt, Scott Shane, Juan Cole, Chris Bertram, Justin Elliott, Glenn Greenwald.
“Definition of feminism taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
“Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.”
Maybe you’re a feminist, anon, and you don’t know it!”
I am a feminist.
I identified as a feminist from 1972 to the late 90s in fact.
It’s a shame few feminists are humanists.
Why isn’t it called humanism?
Oh yeah, it’s because of the butt hurt of so many post 90s feminists that make it impossible for them to consider the problems of men or boys without diminishing those problems and ignoring them with statements like “patriarchy hurts men too”, and “if you want equality for men, get more equality for womenz” or “what about the menz”.
Anyway, yes, I certainly believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and it’s a human tragedy that feminists do not.
FDL summary/riff on the Greenwald piece posted above @110:08
“The entire production seems to indicate this is what people who are granted interviews with members of presidential administrations on national security matters must do. They must make any contestable aspects seem unexceptional so the public will not take issue with the administration when previously unknown details become known.”
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/06/09/newsweeks-manipulative-propaganda-on-drones/
anon,
“I thought you were a librarian or someone known for their understanding of english. Perhaps not.’
I do understand the English language and how people use words in a pejorative way.
“As SM demonstrates, everything is seen through the feminist gaze, a view centered a few inches below the navel.”
That’s your perverted perception of women who strive for equal rights for their sex.
“It’s not so much that I have labeled this a vaginal view. You really might wish to ask why modern feminists demand fealty to this point of view over all others, including and especially views that look to support all human rights.”
What point of view are you talking about?
*****
Definition of feminism taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
“Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.”
Maybe you’re a feminist, anon, and you don’t know it!
😉
Swarthmore mom 1, June 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm
bettykath, The republicans and their tea party members will be very very happy if everyone on the left votes third party and they get to run up huge majorities.
———————
SM, What you say is true but you’re in a box that you need to move out of.
I’m talking about those planning to sit out the election, those who won’t be voting for anyone, about 60% of those eligible to vote.
And it isn’t just those on the left who are unhappy with the choices offered, who are either holding their nose or not voting. My sister and I are opposite ends of the political spectrum but finally hit agreement: our country is f… no matter who is in power.
anon,
Thanks for posting that paragraph. As I was copying and pasting, I missed it.
(An excellent article, David Drumm, with many spot on comments, as well.)
anonymously, thanks for that link.
The entire column is worth reading, especially the part discussing how the Administration and the NYTimes smeared the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
In February, the Times’ Scott Shane controversially granted anonymity to a “senior” Obama official to smear as al-Qaida sympathizers the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, after the BIJ documented the significant under-counting by Obama officials of civilian deaths from drone strikes as well as the Obama administration’s horrifying and possibly criminal practice of targeting rescuers and funerals with drone attacks. It was Shane, along with Jo Becker, who was then provided with the scoop about Obama’s “kill list”.
How the Obama Administration is Making the US Media Its Mouthpiece
Spoonfed national security scoops based on anonymous official leaks – did we learn nothing from Judith Miller’s WMD reporting?
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/obama-administration-making-us-media-its-mouthpiece
From the article:
“The tactic driving all of this is as obvious as it is disturbing. Each of these election year leaks depicts Obama as a tough, hands-on, unflinching commander-in-chief: ruthlessly slaying America’s enemies and keeping us all safe. They simultaneously portray him as a deep moral and intellectual leader, profoundly grappling with the “writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas”, as he decides in secret who will live and die and which countries will be targeted with American aggression.
In sum, these anonymous leaks are classic political propaganda: devoted to glorifying the leader and his policies for political gain. Because the programs are shrouded in official secrecy, it is impossible for journalists to verify these selective disclosures. By design, the only means the public has to learn anything about what the president is doing is the partial, selective disclosures by Obama’s own aides – those who work for him and are devoted to his political triumph.
But that process is a recipe for government deceit and propaganda. This was precisely the dynamic that, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, co-opted America’s largest media outlets as mindless purveyors of false government claims. The defining journalistic sin of Judith Miller, the New York Times’ disgraced WMD reporter, was that she masqueraded the unverified assertions of anonymous Bush officials as reported fact. As the Times’ editors put it in their 2004 mea culpa, assertions from anonymous sources were “insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged”.
These recent Times scoops about Obama’s policies do not sink to the level of the Judy Miller debacle. For one thing, they contain some impressive reporting and even disturbing revelations about the conduct of Obama officials – most notably, that they manipulate casualty figures and hide civilian deaths from their drone attacks by “counting all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”.
For another, they include some internal criticism of Obama’s practices, such as the indiscriminate nature of his “signature” drone strikes (when they see “three guys doing jumping jacks”, the CIA concludes it’s a terrorist training camp), and the deceit inherent in his radically broad definition of “militant”. (One “official” is quoted as follows: “It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants. They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”)
Moreover, these disclosures have real journalistic import. It’s indisputably valuable for American citizens to know that their government convenes secret “kill list” meetings, and that it is launching cyber-attacks on Iran, attacks which the Pentagon considers (at least, when done to the US) to be an “act of war”.
But despite those real differences with the Judy Miller travesty, the basic template is the same. These reporters rely overwhelmingly on government sources. Their reporting is shaped almost exclusively by the claims of underlings who are loyal to the president. The journalists have no means of verifying the assertions they are passing on as fact. And worst of all, they grant anonymity to Obama’s aides who are doing little more than doing the president’s bidding and promoting his political interests.
It is pure “access journalism”: these reporters are given scoops in exchange for their wholly unjustified promise to allow government officials to propagandize the citizenry without accountability (that is, from behind the protective shield of anonymity). By necessity, their journalistic storytelling is shaped by the perspective of these official sources.
And the journalistic product is predictably one that serves the president’s political agenda. Obama’s 2008 opponent, Republican Senator John McCain, complained, quite reasonably, that the intent of these recent leaks was to “enhance President Obama’s image as a tough guy for the elections”. Worse, as the Columbia Journalism Review and the media watchdog group FAIR both documented, these stories simply omitted any discussion of many of the most controversial aspects of Obama’s policies, including the risks and possible illegality of cyber-attacks on Iran and drone strikes in Yemen, the number of civilian deaths caused by Obama’s drone strikes, and the way those drone attacks have strengthened al-Qaida by increasing anti-American hatred.”
CLH But the republicans are against civil rights and civil liberties………
Sigh, I can’t find a youtube video of that Simpsons episode when the aliens take over the bodies of the two primary candidates. Such a simple and brilliant comment on the limitations of the two party system. The problem is that everyone is stacked fiscally for one of two parties, leaving very little in the way of choice between different platforms. No one wants to gamble on the third candidate. It’s become a perception war- only one of those two parties will win, and anything else is a waste- which has led to actual collusion between parties, so that the only choice between different candidates is superficial and ultimately pointless, as both sides are hell bent on mitigating civil liberties, because then no matter who is in office, both sides win.
“The republicans and their tea party members will be very very happy if everyone on the left votes third party and they get to run up huge majorities.”
Yes, let’s imagine that happened in 2012, and again in 2016. What do suppose might start happening in 2016 and become a real thing in 2020 and win in 2024?
“And that’s why you refer to women as vaginas?”
I thought you were a librarian or someone known for their understanding of english. Perhaps not.
It’s just synecdouche used to refer to how single issue so called women’s issues voters fuck over the planet as they strive to imagine new ways that man has oppressed women since the primordial space seed.
As SM demonstrates, everything is seen through the feminist gaze, a view centered a few inches below the navel.
It’s not so much that I have labeled this a vaginal view. You really might wish to ask why modern feminists demand fealty to this point of view over all others, including and especially views that look to support all human rights.
“which women’s issues do you care about?”
Should be pretty obvious to anyone reading here:
In no particular order…
women’s health care issues
freedom of choice and reproductive freedom
equal opportunities to education, work
equal pay for equal work
end to false accusations of domestic violence, rape, or child molestation
end to domestic violence
end to rape
rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody of children
Any others on your litmus test?
bettykath,
I am very glad you publish that info. The article is an example of a war crime. The US is using collective punishment, to include the killing of civilians, to coerce compliance from another nation. This is a govt. completely out of control both internally and externally.
There are two parts to NAL’s post. The first is the atrocities we visit on others simply because we can. The second is the attempt to punish free thinking analysis here in the the US. Citizens who have a moral and intellectual compass will be branded as terrorists. In both cases such actions are lawless and reprehensible.
bettykath, The republicans and their tea party members will be very very happy if everyone on the left votes third party and they get to run up huge majorities.
anon,
“I have two daughters, one mother, three aunts, three nieces, two grandmothers, two cousins in my life, all women. Of course I support and love women and care about women’s issues.”
And that’s why you refer to women as vaginas? Is vaginas your term of endearment for members of the opposite sex? Pray tell…which women’s issues do you care about?
Pakistanis view the drone strikes as an attempt to intimidate their civilian and military leaders into giving in to U.S. demands. If that’s the strategy, it won’t work, said experts and analysts in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
“They are trying to send a message: ‘If you don’t come around, we will continue with our plan, the way we want to do it,’” said Javed Ashraf Qazi, a retired Pakistani intelligence chief and former senator. It’s “superpower arrogance being shown to a smaller state…. But this will only increase the feeling among Pakistanis that the Americans are bent on having their way through force and not negotiation.”
==============================
If Pakistan doesn’t want to play nice, nuke the fucking assholes. Either that or get out. That’s what war is. If Pakistan thinks they have any leverage, they don’t. They can stick negotiation up their ass. That ship has sailed.
The second bomb scenario is an old one. It was used in Viet Nam by the VC. Two bicycles or other bomb carrying modes were parked in a crowded area.
The first bomb went off killing several folks and a few minutes later the second one went off killing the rescuers.
We Americans loudly cried foul and condemned anyone that would do such a cynical cruel thing.
re: Third parties. More than half of the eligible voters, don’t. If they could be mobilized to vote for the same third party, they would be picking the winner. Not likely, however, if they could all be mobilized to vote for the third party of their choice, it would send a strong message. The Green Party and Libertarians are the two strongest of the “others”.
No double-tap mentioned but lots of arrogance toward Pakistan – our, US, way or else.
CIA gets nod to step up Pakistan drone strikes
Share
By DAVID S. CLOUD AND ALEX RODRIGUEZ
Tribune Washington Bureau
Published: Friday, Jun. 8, 2012 – 1:00 am
KABUL, Afghanistan — Expressing public and private frustration with Pakistan, the Obama administration has unleashed the CIA to resume an aggressive campaign of drone strikes in Pakistani territory over the last few weeks, approving strikes that might have been vetoed in the past for fear of angering Islamabad.
Now, said a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive issues, the administration’s attitude is, “What do we have to lose?”
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta made clear the deteriorating relations with Islamabad on Thursday, saying the United States is “reaching the limits of our patience” because Pakistan has not cracked down on local insurgents who carry out deadly attacks on U.S. troops and others in neighboring Afghanistan.
“It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan,” Panetta told reporters here on the last stop of his nine-day swing through Asia. He made it clear that the drone strikes will continue.
The CIA has launched eight Predator drone attacks since Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, was invited to attend the May 20-21 NATO summit in Chicago but refused to make a deal to reopen crucial routes used to supply U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as the White House had hoped.
The CIA had logged 14 remotely piloted strikes on targets in Pakistan’s rugged tribal belt in the previous 5 1/2 months, according to the New America Foundation, a U.S. think tank that tracks reported attacks.
“Obviously, something changed after Chicago,” said a senior congressional aide in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity in discussing a classified program. “I am only getting the official story, but even within the official story there is an acknowledgment that something has changed.”
Another congressional official said the surge in drone attacks stemmed in part from success in tracking down militants on the CIA’s target list, although only one has been publicly identified. It’s unclear who else has been targeted.
Pakistanis view the drone strikes as an attempt to intimidate their civilian and military leaders into giving in to U.S. demands. If that’s the strategy, it won’t work, said experts and analysts in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
“They are trying to send a message: ‘If you don’t come around, we will continue with our plan, the way we want to do it,'” said Javed Ashraf Qazi, a retired Pakistani intelligence chief and former senator. It’s “superpower arrogance being shown to a smaller state…. But this will only increase the feeling among Pakistanis that the Americans are bent on having their way through force and not negotiation.”
A White House official said no political or foreign policy considerations would have prevented the CIA from taking action when it found Abu Yahya al Libi, al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, who was killed Monday by a drone-fired missile in Pakistan.
Each side blames the other for the current dispute.
Pakistan has blocked truck convoys hauling North Atlantic Treaty Organization war supplies from the port city of Karachi since a clash near the Afghan border in November led to errors and U.S. military helicopters accidentally killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers.
As part of the fallout, Pakistan ordered the U.S. to leave an air base in the country’s southwest that the CIA had used to launch drones bound for targets in the tribal areas. Since then, the aircraft reportedly have flown from across the border in Afghanistan.
The U.S. initially halted all drone strikes for two months to ease Pakistani sensitivities, and the attacks resumed only sporadically after mid-January. By May, Pakistani officials were signaling a willingness to reopen the supply route to resurrect relations.
But talks deadlocked over Pakistan’s demands for sharply higher transit fees just before the NATO conference, and President Barack Obama appeared to give Zardari a cold shoulder in Chicago. Pentagon officials will visit Islamabad this week for a new round of talks.
After the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, Pakistan allowed NATO supplies to be transported through its territory at no charge. It later levied a token $250 charge per truck. Islamabad now wants more than $5,000 per truck to reopen the road, a toll U.S. officials refuse to pay.
As an alternative to Pakistan, Washington concluded a deal this week to haul military gear out of landlocked Afghanistan through three Central Asian nations – Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan – as NATO coalition troops withdraw.
The senior U.S. official said the Obama administration and members of Congress were angered when a Pakistani court sentenced Shakeel Afridi, a doctor who helped the CIA search for Osama bin Laden, to 33 years in prison. Navy SEALs killed Bin Laden in May 2011 in the Pakistani garrison city of Abbottabad.
But Panetta chiefly emphasized his dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to clamp down on sanctuaries used by the Haqqani network, a militant group that has been blamed for numerous attacks in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials say Haqqani fighters, including some wearing suicide vests, most recently were involved in an assault last week on Forward Operating Base Salerno, a U.S. base in Afghanistan. U.S. troops killed 14 insurgents and suffered no casualties, officials said.
Panetta’s complaint isn’t new, but his language was unusually bellicose.
He told a think tank audience Wednesday in New Delhi that “we are at war” in the federally administered tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan where the Haqqani fighters and other insurgents have concentrated.
He later confirmed that the U.S. is targeting not just remaining al-Qaida leaders but suspected militants from the Haqqani network and other Taliban-linked groups responsible for cross-border attacks. U.S. officials noted that Panetta leveled his charges in the capital of India, Pakistan’s arch-foe.
“The tensions with Pakistan are clearly going up, not down,” said the second congressional official. “The fact that Panetta was talking about Pakistan in India tells you how frustrated people are.”
Zardari’s government is bracing for elections and can ill-afford to appear subservient to Washington. Neither can the country’s powerful military, which wields vast influence over foreign policy but has seen its image dented by recent crises, including the relentless drone attacks on its territory.
“If the U.S. feels it is doing very well in the war against al-Qaida, OK,” said Riaz Khokhar, a former Pakistani foreign secretary. “But people in Pakistan don’t know who Al Libi is and don’t care who he is. What people care about is that Pakistani sovereignty is being violated repeatedly by drones.”
Despite the intensity of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, the U.S. has steadfastly defended the drone strikes as a vital tool against al-Qaida and other militant organizations. Aside from Al Libi, CIA drone strikes have killed five senior al-Qaida leaders in the last year.
“We have made it very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves,” Panetta said in New Delhi. “This is about our sovereignty as well.”
(Cloud of the Tribune Washington Bureau reported from New Delhi and Kabul, and Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Times from Islamabad. Ken Dilanian of the Tribune Washington Bureau contributed to this report.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/08/4548182/cia-gets-nod-to-step-up-pakistan.html#storylink=cpy
What is proof? Is that subjective?
Sociopaths are conning, but not cunning. The problem is, they have above average intelligence (supposedly). Do you want to drink a beer with them? There’s plenty of that in Crawford. Unless you’d prefer to handle rattlesnakes. Or cut down a cedar tree that doesn’t need to be cut down.
How about reading a book to elementary school children in Florida while the Twin Towers are being trashed. What are your priorities? Kiss the Saudi prince. What is oil worth?