Jeremy Scahill reports:
A new report for a leading neoconservative group that pushes a belligerent "Israel first" agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the U.S. should make censorship of media official policy and advocates "military attacks on the partisan media" (via MuzzleWatch). The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired U.S. Army Col. Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA’s "flagship publication," The Journal of International Security Affairs. "Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight," Peters writes, calling the media "the killers without guns."
"Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza. …
"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts, and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.
"The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters."
Will these people ever go away?
5 comments:
This demonstrates the folly of non-violence.
The enemies of freedom (i.e., the neocons, governments [especially the US government], and various associated groups and entities) have few if any intentions of being non-violent towards us. Indeed, they never have been. The history of government is little more than 6000 years of blood and depravity.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- Declaration of Independence
They have always oppressed us, but if they intend to expand the oppression to the point where we are on the brink of extermination, will we just sit down and let them carry us away?
Gun ownership is critical. Disarming the masses will leave us dangerously vulnerable to the schemes of evildoers. Gun ownership is perhaps the last, best safeguard against tyranny. Let us hope that this safeguard will never be used, but it must continue to exist just in case.
Sorry, but the report by Army Col. Ralph Peters DOES NOT advocate killing the media. In any kind, shape or form. Sure, he bloviates as a well known & storied now accepted neo-con windbag. But he just did not say it. Or even anything close about 'killing the media' as printed in JISA. And yeah, he's been saying more or less the same damn things since 'Nam for the rest of it.
He was also the military analyst for the 'Liberal' NYT for well over a decade too. His views are well known & fairly unremarkable in their common parlance.
Z's Q: "Will these people ever go away?"
No, as long as we've got an Army/Navy/AF/Marines/& Coast Guard.
This has been another sad episode of easy answers to silly questions. JMP
"
"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts, and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media."
Um, what else would "military attacks on the partisan media" mean, exactly?
Of course, these nutjobs already started this process with the invasion of Iraq, striking at Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV (both who had given their coordinates to the Pentagon and Ron Suskind writes Bush was "pleased" when Al Jazeera was struck) and their allies the Israelis have turned targeting the media into an art.
And it's especially insulting -- on Memorial Day, no less! -- that you imply that as long as we have armed services, we'll have people with the neocon mentality. Implying that our armed forces inherently want to kill noncombatants ranges from simply offensive to deranged.
Oh brave. brave sir Robin Z, Now who's got the corner on the histrionics here? Hmmm?
Again logic. Fails you. Is never your friend.
Z says "Implying that our armed forces inherently want to kill noncombatants ranges from simply offensive to deranged". Gee, how marvelously and yet needlessly hysterical Z! You can put your skirts & garters back down now.
Err, is this not what you've just done in the title of the post? Do you fully understand that this is what *YOU* FIRST implied by the title? We're guessing not. And that your command of simple English & 'logic' is not what someone might expect from a Uni student anywhere else in the world.
So once again you did not read & comprehend my comment. Or the original article. Before bloviating about things you evidently have little understanding.
Again, neither I nor Ralph Peters has suggested Killing or even Harming the 'media'.
Z says, 'Um, what else would "military attacks on the partisan media" mean, exactly?'
Why wage a continuous & coordinated campaign of Disinformation, innuendo & Lies to spread to & infect the media with. Sort of like what you try to do here daily, but much more successfully, and better paid. That's what it means.
And you're obviously well familiar with this. Why else would the majority of any weeks post be all about attacking the cruel fate of the administration of the 'ever disappointing & back stabbing' Obama. Scarcely in office for 120 days, and the topic of more abuse from this board than I've seen on most RW sites. There's literally 3+ posts a day deriding him for one petty grievance or another.
So yeah. No one killing anyone, (as a matter of policy planning). Just finishing the touches on a 'media disinformation campaign' that's been ongoing for the past 7 years. Somehow without the notice of anyone 'round here.
Not even ancient history guys. This was happening as you took classes and tried to follow the news. Or not. Or took 'brave' delusional stands about such & sundry w/o really understanding the history involved. Like claiming war crimes had been committed by the leader of the opposition party who opposed the war & detentions and had Zero capacity to do anything about it, after all viable legal channels had been blocked.
Yeah. Find me one such instance in the Laws of War & War crimes trials. Remember now, a Leader of the Opposition, who openly opposed the policy, lost in a vote to stop the policy, was almost, kinda sort of informed about some of what they were doing on less than 6 occasions. Never before they (Bush) actually DID it. Find me One of them.
I find it insulting that those that call themselves 'liberal' see fit to ignore history and then seek to deride the most progressive President in 2 generations with such a consistent beat, that they've got to be paid by the Repugs for all their petty & vindictive efforts.
So stuff your over drawn hysteria down your skirts, put your 'thinking caps' (if they've got any over there), and try a bit harder. It's not the bombs & missiles. It's the concepts & words. Preemptive & aggressive war. Not POW's but 'detainees'. More Orwell's war than Patton's. But then again you'll not quite understand that either.
And old Ralphie? He's been writing the same damn column every few years for literally 25 years. With just a little change for alliteration. But again you'd not know that unless & until you actually looked for it and read it. Which is work, which you're not being paid for, right? JMP
Post a Comment