
The Key War on Terror Propaganda Tool: Only Western Victims Are Acknowledged - altern8
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/24/central-war-terror-propaganda-tool-western-victims-acknowledged/
======
teddyh
“ _Good evening. Here is the news for Parrots:

No parrots were involved in an accident on the M-1 today when a Lorry carrying
High-octane fuel was in collison with a bollard. That's a BOLLARD and_ NOT _a
PARROT. A spokesman for parrots said he was glad no parrots were involved._ ””

[http://www.montypython.net/scripts/news.php](http://www.montypython.net/scripts/news.php)

~~~
seivan
_Attaches a wallet to my HN account and bitcoins your comment_

One day.

------
Detrus
There are shorter videos from Chomsky on this, but this one breaks it down
thoroughly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZRsdHgxgA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZRsdHgxgA)

The truth is, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq are colonial wars against
insubordinate populations. We extract resources from those countries and their
neighbors. When someone stands in the way they have to be punished so that
other countries stay in line.

There is little hope of winning hearts and minds with all the civilians that
have to be killed. The main goal is to punish and make examples of
insubordination. The West merely needs to scare them and their neighbors to
get its way within a few decades. It worked well enough with Vietnam.

------
golergka
Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against
civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a
difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to
minimize civilian casualties as far as they can?

Yes, it's horrible that sometimes your only choice to kill a high-ranking
terrorist is by taking innocent lives with him. But granted how many innocent
lives you can save by it, it's more horrible not to do it.

There's never been a war where a victory didn't cost civilian lives,
regardless how just was the cost. I really wish western governments would talk
about this openly and have a serious discussion about these issues though,
instead of awkwardly trying to hush it.

~~~
braythwayt
> Is the author seriously suggesting to view deliberate terror attacks against
> civilians the same as military strikes (drones or planes — I don't see a
> difference) performed against enemy combatants, by people who are trying to
> minimize civilian casualties as far as they can?

Why not?

Let’s that the countries of Xanadu (“X”) and Yalü (“Y”) are at war with each
other. Isn’t it meaningful to compare the number of X and Y citizens killed by
each other, regardless of how it is carried out?

If X says “We’re careful to minimize killing Y’s civilians,” shouldn’t we
judge X by how successful it is in minimizing those casualties? Or should we
say, “Oh, well, X is trying their best, so no need to keep count or compare
the counts.”

Quite obviously “terror” attacks and “military” attacks are different things.
But it’s perfectly legitimate to compare them by the number of civilians
killed. It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still
informative to compare them.

~~~
avz
> Why not?

Intention does matter. A military which aims to reduce civilian casualties and
fails is less evil than a terrorist who deliberately targets civilians.

~~~
Udik
We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. The man who pushes the
button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians and how many of them in
that particular case, but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is
well known. He knows that his actions will cause the death of a certain amount
of innocents, and still he pushes the button in order to advance the political
or military objectives of the entity he belongs to. On the other hand, if
terrorists were able to drop bombs on the homes of high ranking army members
and politicians of the West from drones travelling at 30 thousand feet and
controlled from thousands of miles away, wouldn't they do so? Of course they
would. Would that make them better?

~~~
golergka
> The man who pushes the button doesn't know if he's going to kill civilians
> and how many of them in that particular case, but the average number of
> civilans killed per bomb is well known. He knows that his actions will cause
> the death of a certain amount of innocents, and still he pushes the button
> in order to advance the political or military objectives of the entity he
> belongs to.

This is exactly my original point: his "military objective" is usually to
prevent far more civilians from dying in the end.

> Would that make them better?

Attacking officials of opposing force in high-precision strikes instead of
civilians? Yes. It actually would make them better, yes. May be not "good",
but definitely better. How is this not obvious?

~~~
Udik
No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are
inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far
as they can. Then you added that civilian casualties are horrible but
justifiable when targeting an even more dangerous terrorist.

But you are confusing two aspects that are completely unrelated: the first is
a matter of _means_ (how can you wage war), the second of _objectives_ (why
you do it). And then you assume that the western justifications can be taken
at their face value (we kill to prevent more being killed, no political
purpose implied) which is even more naive.

Finally, you seem to admit that having higher precision weapons would make
terrorists better people. Maybe, who knows, as good as we are? That was much
of my point.

------
avz
The article seems to imply there is real malice and deliberate intent to
deceive the public in the media coverage of civilian victims of Western
attacks. This is one explanation, but I don't see conclusive evidence of this
in the article.

More probable explanation is that viewing public's sympathy suffers from
inherent biases and the media simply follows those biases. It's a well-known
fact that media prefers headlines that are more likely to trigger emotional
response.

Also non-Western civilian victims have been a lot more frequent and the media
has a bias towards reporting events that stand out such as unintentional
killing of Western hostages by a drone strike.

(Not claiming this outcome is moral - just saying that it may unfortunately
arise without malicious intent on the part of the media)

~~~
rdancer
If it were so, if the public were aware of the reality at least in broad
strokes, and if the media simply just didn't report on things everybody knew
were going on... how would you explain the outcry after the Bataclan shooting
that "they attacked us", and "now we're at war" \-- while that same morning,
just as every morning in the preceding month, French Mirages rained death on
Syria? How would you explain the ludicrous notion that our soldiers and
officials, when they are killed on our soil, are victims of terrorism, not
casualties of the war we choose to wage?

Perhaps it is because quite to the contrary, the public doesn't think we're at
war at all. We're just killing off terrorists who aim to harm us, with
surgical, precision strikes.

~~~
soared
Because the middle east is not "we" while France and the rest of Europe most
definitely is "us." And war is going on in Syria, so a death that occurs in
the homeland isn't a casualty of war, because the war isn't occurring here.
Its over there. Deaths here are caused by terrorism, deaths there are caused
by war.

------
NumberSix
I recall considerable press coverage of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki
and his son. Granted, both were US citizens but Muslims -- family originally
from Yemen. Many of these issues were raised at that time (2011).

CBS News

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-aclu-condemn-anwar-
al-a...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-aclu-condemn-anwar-al-awlaki-
killing/)

NPR

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2011/09/30/140950953/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2011/09/30/140950953/ron-paul-condemns-al-awlakis-killing)

Forbes (sort of)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/30/ron-paul-
con...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/30/ron-paul-condemns-
assassination-of-al-awlaki/)

PBS

[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aclu-
cri...](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aclu-criticizes-
killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki-a-u-s-citizen-calling-it-a-dangerous-
precedent/11813/)

The Atlantic

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-
team...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-
justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/)

The New York Times carried an editorial by Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar al-Awlaki's
father, on July 17, 2013

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-
kil...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-
grandson.html?_r=0)

~~~
furfish
Would it have received that attention of they weren't US citizens?

------
ghufran_syed
Here's an article about non-western victims of the war on terror:
[http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/pakistan-
peshawar-i...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/world/asia/pakistan-peshawar-
inside-school/)

~~~
icebraining
Yeah, but those are victims of the Taliban. The article was about the victims
of attacks by Western countries: _" Muslim victims of American and Western
violence are completely disappeared."_

------
tptacek
This is a long political editorial with no new reporting in it. There are
better places to discuss pieces like this than HN.

~~~
aburan28
If you have been a techie for many years you would understand that techies are
very much united by political engagement and the issues of our time

~~~
tptacek
I don't know about "techies", but I've certainly been a member of this
community for many years, and I'm pretty sure the guidelines of the site ask
us not to post things like this here.

~~~
efdee
I'm pretty sure those guidelines also ask us not to post comments complaining
about how submissions are inappropriate for this site.

~~~
wernercd
So... if this post is inappropriate (not sure if it is or isn't) then how are
you supposed to correct that?

The post is inappropriate, but it's inappropriate to bring up that fact...

Catch-22...

Edit: Just a quick look but "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime,
or sports" \- not sure where this falls in "most"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
efdee
You can voice your concern by flagging the post you deem inappropriate.

------
icebraining
I find it curious how the only name of a victim cited in this article - is of
a westerner!

~~~
dmurray
From TFA: “Today, if Nabila or Zubair or many of the civilian victims, if they
are watching on TV the president being so remorseful over the killing of a
Westerner, what message is that taking?”

~~~
icebraining
Fair enough; I was talking about the dead - like their grandmother -, which is
who are usually remembered, even in the attacks against westerners.

