When Donald Rumsfeld became George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, a few months before 9/11, his intent was to institute a new doctrine of warfare known as “transformation.” He planned to change the military into a high-tech force that he believed would be smaller, faster, less expensive and more effective.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The use of the term WE in the following paragraph certainly IS telling. I state this because in spite of the mention of Hollywood (which is the tool used to normalize violence all across the cultural spectrum), the text suggests that people automatically came by this "love" of and for violence:
"The argument for me is leading toward the big-big question, which is, somehow we’ve got to make war or violence as unacceptable culturally as incest. And we’re far from doing that. If one looks at the history of Hollywood, for instance, and here as well, we celebrate violence and we celebrate war in our culture because we like to tell stories of the heroes that come out of that. But if you made warfare and violence culturally totally unacceptable, then we could talk about weapons and we could talk about this, that and the other and how best to deal with these solutions between two people. But really, the only solution is to make it globally, culturally unacceptable to go to war and to conduct things violently."
Because conditioning is SO pervasive and because many of the so-called rhetorical language frames go without honest questioning, it's difficult to know in which instances a writer's passive acceptance of a particular frame is innocent, and where it's used to manufacture consent.
VERY deliberate forces have used Hollywood and False Flags to create the sort of trauma that responds positively to State Control, and State Surveillance, and the call to (foreign) war.
As I have been pointing out for years, when populations are expertly conditioned so that they arrive at predictably engineered collective responses, the argument that this result indicates consent is no different than seeing Pavlov and his rats on equal turf (power-wise).
Every frame of this narrative, or should I say interview, is entirely couched in the perspectives of males conditioned by patriarchal systems of power.
This probably takes the cake:
"I attended an “ethics in warfare” class at the academy. It was absolutely fascinating. The decisions that these young kids, who are 19 and 20 and in a few years’ time, they’ll be out, and maybe having to make those decisions. And it’s incredibly difficult to make that judgment on whom to kill, and when to kill, and — collateral damage, as they call it — when to kill a victim. It’s a very, very tricky question."
Here's a tricky question for ya:
What the FUCK are U.S troops doing in these areas whether physically present or present as a Drone Force that haunts the upper atmosphere terrorizing civilians on a daily basis?
Who gave you clowns in uniform the RIGHT to do so much harm?
And it does go back to the 1963 coup, and prior to that (in l947), the establishment of the Deep State with its Nazi modus operandi and "values." And it all grew substantially with 911.
Until THESE elements are truthfully exposed for the great evils that they are, these idiot discussions about how humane it theoretically is, under what conditions, to murder people using drones in lands whose citizens have done NOTHING to U.S. citizens will drown out the larger questions of True Cause and Ultimate ongoing effects.
I'm sorry, Mr. Winship. I think your show of deference to Guy Hibbert is scary.
There's so much energy used up in getting an evil "faux food" empire like Monsanto to label its foods. That battle takes the heat off the more important battle: why is a private entity allowed to do untold damage to the natural world and break what it can never fix?
In parallel, Mr. Hibbert seems to be dignifying the drone war by creating the context (or illusion) that it has purpose.
This reminds me of those who worked so hard in efforts to legitimize the use of torture, no matter that it's been proven that it doesn't yield useful information.
Mr. Winship definitely is star-struck by Hollywood and its Illuminati figures. I think he's blinded here by that light. Somewhat. Surely Mr. Winship knows that the CIA has a LONG history of funding those writers, artists, and film makers who embed specific ideas into their works.
Why would THIS be any different? (Zero Dark Thirty, American Sniper, etc.)
Under the guise of provoking important questions about Drone Warfare, a lot of other assumptions end up hammered in as backdrop. Such items as the rationale for BEING in these nations (and I'm talking about the military); and the great trigger that set these diabolical wars into motion.
It's like asking Goebbels' opinion of the use of State media for propagandistic purposes. Thank you, Goebbels?
I grew up watching the Vietnam war on TV. Different newsreels, day in and day out. 'War is bad' was seared into my brain. That experience really helped to shape my character and political views. It certainly hit me on the human level, even as a child.
War is hard, but it is a human enterprise and should be fought human to human, if it is to be fought. I am better in tune with my own humanity thanks to those newsreels (an opportunity no longer available), but I see no humanity at all in drone warfare. After reading this article, I think at least a few drone pilots would agree.
It's still available. It's all over youtube. All those people in the military have cell phones, and they post vilms of what they are doing.
I think the biggest misconception thats being promoted in a weird way is that drone strikes are accurate - if they ARE accurate why would the US govt be scared to release details of people they killed? If those people are civilians (and technically they all are) then we know its pure evil - if they are not accurate (which is almost certainly true) the promotion of surgical kills needs to stop
Thanks Oatsraw. I should have been more articulate. Since Vietnam, the government has put the kibosh on this kind of coverage, so today's youth are not exposed to the realities of war, unless they seek it out. And let's face it, not too many people will voluntarily seek out this kind of reality TV.
Thanks to those who capture it, though.
Indeed, that is the chief canard.
So drones are "sold" to the American people using the following LIES told often:
That the strikes are surgical and seldom to never do innocent civilians get killed. (To the contrary, the civilian kill rate is close to 90%!)
That those who are killed are enemy combatants (rather than people either out doing their thing or individuals with an interest in preserving their home lands)
That these wars are necessary because America was attacked (never mind WHO--as in Inside Job--rendered the attack needed as trigger for already planned wars)
That by using drones, it saves the lives of American soldiers (This is true)
That drone warfare is allowable under some delusional "law of war" or "necessary war" clause.
If U.S. citizens knew the truth about these items and quite a bit more, there'd be FAR more opposition to the use of drones.
And as LOBO pointed out, a huge factor in turning the public away from any support for foreign wars of aggression (Vietnam) was nightly footage of actual acts of war.
The Pentagon and its MIC labyrinth of weapons contractors and suppliers couldn't afford to have their War Plans thwarted... so they teamed up with mass media to anesthetize the news and make sure that NO real footage of their many dastardly deeds shows up.
Imagine if all those anti-abortion fanatics were forced to VIEW photos of dead, pregnant women; and babies left with deformities or left without parents at all. Either they'd implode from their own hypocrisy or turn against these wars REAL fast.
It's one thing to tell a People the truth and THEN poll their opinions and quite another to manage perception like Pavlov did his dogs... and from that managed state, assert that there's collective approval for the unconscionable.
The drones and their missiles, are both phallic, but inverted. Unlike the real thing, they bring only death.
Drones never save lives. That is the biggest lie. It is a lie which, it seems, at first glance, can be justified; but only apparently. The justification is an illusion.
This biggest lie denies, or at least obscures, that the true purpose of these weapons is assassination and massacre. It ignores that this is murder.
Drones only save the lives of the murderers and their associates.
Drone pilots will have a high rate of suicide or other serious self-destructive urges- drinking, drugs- more and more as time goes on. This is probably already happening.
The military will, or most likely does, have a program, perhaps using the chaplains, to make these killings seem necessary at worst, and good- even holy- at best.
But that will also be a lie, and the soul or subconscious will see through it, and the person will feel shame, remorse, and guilt, or perhaps not consciously feel them but only feel anger or depression; either way, the deep knowledge works its corrosion, and that soul can never be at peace until the guilt and remorse is resolved.
Such a resolution is so difficult, perhaps impossible, that many deeply guilty and remorseful people choose suicide, but I doubt even suicide resolves anything for that soul.
But for those who live, unless they are really without conscience, if that is ever possible, will suffer the pain they doled out to others. Every drone killing is also a suicide.
Drone war can never be made right. There are excuses and rationalizations galore. (The same techniques could be used to rationalize rape or child abuse.) They are lies, and morally repugnant even if sometimes only a product of ignorance and fear rather than of intentional evildoing.
Drone killings are neither clean nor precise, we know. The machinery is made in "clean rooms"; but the machinery's purpose is dirty and diabolic: murdering humans- our human brothers and sisters.