dagblog - Comments for "KEEP CALM & CARRY ON, ISIS EDITION (PT 3)"

Sorry, I'm still suspicious -

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 18:49:20 +0000

Sorry, I'm still suspicious - I wouldn't be surprised if Russians were helping to feed stories to kill the US & allies in the PR game and pre-empt the Raqqa effort. Airwars now not reporting on Russian attacks and excesses, only US - beautiful.

Also, a few weeks ago we were fighting against time with hundreds of thousands of trapped residents of Mosul out of food and water, while ISIS was doing large scale random murders. Now we're spending weeks fretting over an airstrike gone wrong and/or a booby trap that killed 100-200 people.

And what was that weird line in the WaPo article - "with the number of casualties in March already surpassing records for a single month" - uh, the date was March 28, and it's the toughest part of the operation going into old Mosul.

Yes, I'm sorry about the people, but for years there have been days of 150-200 or more people killed in Iraq through various infighting and terrorism. I remember one day there was a panic over s suspected bomb on a Baghdad bridge and over 200 died in the stampede or in leaping off the bridge. But here we're fighting some motherfuckers who think nothing of sending a bomb-loaded truck into a crowded marketplace, killing 115 and injuring 170, and we're going to turn it into another round of how America does everything wrong?

We are fighting a group that sends out booby-trapped bulldozers and commits impromptu assassinations of civilians, and other intentional war crimes. While maybe we can do better, we're well-documented taking a slow-and-methodical approach through months of the offensive. Maybe something changed, but the military claims Trump orders haven't had time to have much effect, so I still bet it's just the propaganda war is heating up, both from ISIS & Russia Today. Prove me wrong with facts, I'm happy to reconsider.

not keeping calm:

artappraiser — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 17:26:19 +0000

In reply to KEEP CALM & CARRY ON, ISIS EDITION (PT 3)

not keeping calm:

Panic spreads in Iraq, Syria as record numbers of civilians are reported killed in U.S. strikes

By Loveday Morris and Liz Sly @ The Washington Post, March 28

MOSUL, Iraq — A sharp rise in the number of civilians reported killed in U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is spreading panic, deepening mistrust and triggering accusations that the United States and its partners may be acting without sufficient regard for lives of noncombatants.

The increase comes as local ground forces backed by air support from a U.S.-led coalition close in on the Islamic State’s two main urban bastions — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

In front-line neighborhoods in western Mosul, families described cowering in basements for weeks as bombs rained down around them and the Islamic State battled from their rooftops. Across the border in Raqqa, residents desperately trying to flee before an offensive begins are being blocked by the militants, who frequently use civilians as human shields [....]

It was always mentioned in

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:17:58 +0000

In reply to I definitely see the "human

It was always mentioned in Gaza for example, probably with Hezbollah, etc. But this forcing dozens of people into a building by gunpoint to then try to get it targeted is a bit of an escalation. Requires a team already with homicidal intentions, but just searching for the exact way to commit the murder.

I definitely see the "human

artappraiser — Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:07:16 +0000

In reply to If March 17 wasn't a setup,

I definitely see the "human shield" issue being mentioned allover the place now, not just with Mosul. I think it's like this: you don't chose to run if they take over your hood, you have bought in to being a martyr if need be. All just part and parcel of trying to create heaven on earth, see the Crusades.

If March 17 wasn't a setup,

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 31 Mar 2017 06:58:34 +0000

In reply to Yes and no - “the munition

If March 17 wasn't a setup, ISIS at least appears to have learned it as a new tactic to keep air attacks and heavy weapons attacks away by using the scare of public opinion and further atrocities. All's fair in war at least, not sure about love.

Yes and no - “the munition

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:16:00 +0000

In reply to U.S. ‘Probably Had a Role’ in

Yes and no - “the munition that we used should not have collapsed an entire building” seems a plea for an inquiry or answer, not a hard-and-fast acceptance of fact.

I don't have a dog in the fight, just am curious to get attribution correct.

But ISIS won this round in the propaganda war, even if there's a correction coming. People remember the first hit of news, true or false.

U.S. ‘Probably Had a Role’ in

artappraiser — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:10:43 +0000

In reply to KEEP CALM & CARRY ON, ISIS EDITION (PT 3)

U.S. ‘Probably Had a Role’ in Scores of Civilian Deaths

By MICHAEL R. GORDON @ NYTimes, March 29

The remarks by Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend were the fullest acceptance of responsibility by an American commander for a March 17 strike in Mosul that killed scores of civilians.

excerpt:

But he asserted that “the munition that we used should not have collapsed an entire building.”

“That is something we have got to figure out,” he added.

With an increase in reports of civilian casualties from the American bombing of Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, some human rights groups have questioned whether the rules of engagement have been loosened since President Trump took office.

Pentagon officials said this week that the rules had not changed. But General Townsend said on Tuesday that he had won approval for “minor adjustments” to rules for the use of combat power, although he insisted they were not a factor in the Mosul attack.

I trust Michael Gordon to correctly interpret Pentagon and military speak as he has been on the beat a very very long time. And he seems to be buying Townsend's narrative.

Why would you assume that I

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:07:08 +0000

In reply to One article proves what about

Why would you assume that I think there is anything propagandistic about a specific article that I never read and never commented on and then you want me to try to explain why it is propaganda? I only read it after you brought it up. [But I did not criticize it or simply dismiss it as crap before reading it] I could just as well pick an article that was in fact pure propaganda and ask you to show why it isn't.

To the extent that I do see it as propaganda it is a light example just in the sense of what might be called "institutional propaganda" which like institutional racism might well go unnoticed as such by the crowd and might even be unintentionally so by the person presenting it. Example: While a nearly parallel situation existed in Aleppo the innocent lives lost there are attributed to an evil soulless tyrant but when Americans do the same thing they are given the benefit of every doubt. Callous disregard is not even considered. The excuses made for our military when it slaughters the wrong people from thirty thousand feet might all be correct in a war situation but to ascribe the same actions and same results by rival powers as always being the result of evil intentions for evil purposes is a clear example of propaganda that plants ideas and attitudes rather than being information intended to help a person think for them self and in doing so come to an intelligent conclusion.

Your answer tells me you just basically prefer op-eds pointing fingers for reader. Which is fine, if you think understanding specific situations is a waste of time and want someone else with your own general slant to interpret the news for you.

I do think it is important to understand specific situations, especially if you want to understand the bigger picture that they are a part of. Your insult notwithstanding, I have worked my entire life at doing my own thinking. That is why I do not accept the NYT as always being the final word on both what the facts are and how they should be interpreted.

I agree wih you about the value and necessity of primary news sources having a working business model. I have started several times to blog on the subject but you laid out a condensed version quite well. I have in fact made periodic donations to alternate news sights which I believe are also important and I have a couple of ongoing subscriptions to others. NYT is quoted and noted and analyzed so often that fairly quickly whatever they put out is available. I reject the suggestion that not reading all the NYT daily makes anyone ineligible to comment on national news. It is funny irony that you suggest that those who do not read the NYT are looking for someone to do their thinking for them. You seem to have a bit of confirmation bias working yourself. If I believed everything I read in he NYT I would have thought we were being told good and honest reasons to invade Iraq.

That's sock puppet, young

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:52:00 +0000

In reply to No puppet

That's *sock* puppet, young lady, not just any run-of-the-mill puppet. We all have to specialize in these trying times, so I'm staying focused on socks.

If I wanted to be stalked by

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:50:00 +0000

In reply to Note I didn't defend it, just

If I wanted to be stalked by an anchor, it would be... hmmm, I dunno. I guess I should be content landing in Maddow's gunscope. But Ted's teh awesome, Braves baseball everywhere, 24x7 news, Atlanta as cultural hub... It's Warner that screwed it all up - once Ted lost control, the beancounters took over just as Howard Beale warned us.