What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What are you talking about? I think there was what, the times square bomber who is seemingly too incompetent to even rise to the level of terrorist.

In both the Obama and Bush terms, numerous arrests have been made and plots foiled both domestic and foreign. They've both done a fine job when it comes to national defense since 9/11.
But, how much would be different if there was not a Department of Homeland Security. Would we be more or less safe? Probably would have saved a few billion.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

But, how much would be different if there was not a Department of Homeland Security. Would we be more or less safe? Probably would have saved a few billion.

So no INS, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, Customs, or any number of absorbed agencies? I'd go with less safe.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What are you talking about? I think there was what, the times square bomber who is seemingly too incompetent to even rise to the level of terrorist.

In both the Obama and Bush terms, numerous arrests have been made and plots foiled both domestic and foreign. They've both done a fine job when it comes to national defense since 9/11.

shoe bomber, fort hood bomber, x-mas day (which was a failed attempt in that the bomb didn't go off, but the guy got on the plane w/a bomb, I mean c'mon) all 3 of these point to faults in our system, and I'd argue big ones.

and I'm also concerned with the number of "test runs" that have occurred with people only discovering mid-air that something is amiss.

also : omar, zawahiri, ubl

it's like we've even given up searching for those guys
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

shoe bomber, fort hood bomber, x-mas day (which was a failed attempt in that the bomb didn't go off, but the guy got on the plane w/a bomb, I mean c'mon) all 3 of these point to faults in our system, and I'd argue big ones.

I'm not saying they've been perfect, but overall they've been pretty decent. It's nearly impossible to stop someone insane and determined enough to carry these acts out.

Second, fort hood bomber? Do you even know what you're talking about? That was a shooting by a member of the military who was mentally unstable with full access to weapons. I'm not excusing these lapses but to catch 100% of them? Impossible.

and I'm also concerned with the number of "test runs" that have occurred with people only discovering mid-air that something is amiss.

also : omar, zawahiri, ubl

it's like we've even given up searching for those guys

You referenced homegrown terrorists and that's what I'm referring to.

Your last line is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm not saying they've been perfect, but overall they've been pretty decent. It's nearly impossible to stop someone insane and determined enough to carry these acts out.

Second, fort hood bomber? Do you even know what you're talking about? That was a shooting by a member of the military who was mentally unstable with full access to weapons. I'm not excusing these lapses but to catch 100% of them? Impossible.



You referenced homegrown terrorists and that's what I'm referring to.

Your last line is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

relax on fort hood shooter. it's a busy night but obviously you know what I meant so the point was there

so you think the U.S. has some serious dedicated resources to finding UBL, Zawahari, and Mullah Omar right now? because I recall the Bush admin flat out stating these guys weren't important anymore and they even shut down the CIA group dedicated to finding UBL.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm not saying they've been perfect, but overall they've been pretty decent. It's nearly impossible to stop someone insane and determined enough to carry these acts out.

Second, fort hood bomber? Do you even know what you're talking about? That was a shooting by a member of the military who was mentally unstable with full access to weapons. I'm not excusing these lapses but to catch 100% of them? Impossible.



You referenced homegrown terrorists and that's what I'm referring to.

Your last line is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

also in regard to Ft. Hood guy, the military knew full well this guy was a walking powder keg.

unfortunately they were bound by political correctness in the sense that they didn't code red this guy (like would have happened to a white or black non-muslim soldier for saying the things this guy said) mainly out of fear of how the media could run with that.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

also in regard to Ft. Hood guy, the military knew full well this guy was a walking powder keg.

unfortunately they were bound by political correctness in the sense that they didn't code red this guy (like would have happened to a white or black non-muslim soldier for saying the things this guy said) mainly out of fear of how the media could run with that.

rofl...

557184_f260.jpg


You're unbelievable...
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I disagree with the notion we are not at "war" with "islamofascists" "islamic radicals" "terrorists" or whatever other term you want to use
[...]
props to Obama on predator drone attacks

Too tired to write a full post. Another time.

But I think we have a similar position, divided only by language. Predator drone strikes in third party territory like Yemen are one part of what I'm talking about (when I say "war" is misleading).

The #1 thing that's wrong with "war" is that it suggests clear conditions, and therefore expectations, of victory. Or defeat. Some sort of closure, either way. That can only lead to screwed up public expectations. Over the long term, public impatience is likely to grow, and the risk of bad policy increases. More accurate to say that we won. Today. Just like yesterday. And the day before. Unfortunately, we start up again tomorrow. And the day after . . .
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

rofl...

557184_f260.jpg


You're unbelievable...

I dunno, go back and re-read about how everyone around that guy knew he was going to explode and nothing was done about it.

is there a better answer as to why nothing was done about it?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Too tired to write a full post. Another time.

But I think we have a similar position, divided only by language. Predator drone strikes in third party territory like Yemen are one part of what I'm talking about (when I say "war" is misleading).

The #1 thing that's wrong with "war" is that it suggests clear conditions, and therefore expectations, of victory. Or defeat. Some sort of closure, either way. That can only lead to screwed up public expectations. Over the long term, public impatience is likely to grow, and the risk of bad policy increases. More accurate to say that we won. Today. Just like yesterday. And the day before. Unfortunately, we start up again tomorrow. And the day after . . .

gotcha...and given this perspective I agree with you. I guess I wasn't sure where you were going initially with the definition of "war"
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

A couple of observations: I don't care what nomenclature we use--call it Islamic Outreach, just kill those bastiches, and keep on killing them. What percentage of the world's one billion Muslims they represent is important only in the sense of the amount of resources we need to allocate to eradicate them. Call the Orkin Man. If Obama wants to call them "man caused disasters" while ramping up the effort to rid the world of these p****s, fine by me.

"Dr." Hasan will undoubtedly plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Insanity is a legal, and not a clinical term. You'll never hear any psychiatrist use the term, unless he's testifying. The standard is the MacNaughton rule (apologies to you lawyers) which holds that a man is insane if he couldn't appreciate the nature of his acts.

Well, by the standards of normal people, opening fire in a room crowded with colleagues IS insane. But this piece of s**t new exactly what he was doing, and why. What is interesting and hugely scary about Hasan is why a field grade officer in the United States Army, a guy who owed everything to Uncle Sam--who paid for all of his schooling--would do it. Never mind the fact that Hasan eviedently glowed in the dark with hatred for America and American soldiers, but no one in the Army could pull the trigger and send him packing. Yer outta here.

What is it about the appeal of Islamism to some Muslims--many of them apparantly thoroughly assimilated--that draws them in to a nihilist philosophy which rejects loyalty to the country of their birth, demands total rejection of all of their beliefs, and the killing of as many innocent people as possible? "Dr." Hasan was no middle eastern nutbar, roaming around on the "Arab street," he is a highly educated man (courtesy of Great Satan taxpayers), who decided his faith required him to commit mass murder. He is not insane in the legal sense, and should pay for his crimes with his life. I'm not optimistic that will be the outcome, given the Army and by extension DOD have been very PC in this affair from the beginning. After all, we wouldn't want any savages to take to the streets demanding "death to the great Satan" would we? Can't ruffle the feathers of these 8th century maniacs, can we? To me it's a fairly straight forward proposition: you kill us and we'll kill you.

The built in excuse machine for Muslim killers immediately rattled into action after Hasan's crimes. Remember: he had been ragged on by other soldiers (mostly enlisted) about his religion. Let me tell you how it works. As an enlisted, you shoot off your mouth about an officer's religion or ethnic heritage, and he or another officer hears you, you've had it. Article 15, confinement, reduction in pay, less than honorable discharge. You'll think the barracks collapsed on you. So that dog simply won't hunt.

"Dr." Hasan is what scares me most, for if a guy like that can be turned into a remorseless killer, how can we expect to win this, uh, Police Action?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bear: Here's a point I used to make with my reporters all the time. News is what we say it is. Given that we can't cover every story, every day, our judgement as to what is and is not important enough to merit making the cut is absolute. It's up to us to make good judgements, of course, but in the final analysis, we decide. Period.

Interesting points with which I would say would benefit from clarification...

First, News is what we say it is...not really, news is factual information on events that have occured.

Second, although it is true that we can't report on every story every day...I would say that the news if anything gives a slant towards alarmism. Whether its terror attack in Bangladesh or a murder in Jacksonville or a thunderstorm coming your way...stories that get reported are by definition set to alarm folks. So news whether its slanted left or right...is definitely slanted towards danger and violence...and away from normal life and kindness. This does not hurt what has often been the GOP platform.

Lastly, IMO with news...there should be nothing to decide. It should be about facts that have occurred. Conclusions that we reach about the implications should be way outside of the realm of news.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Lastly, IMO with news...there should be nothing to decide. It should be about facts that have occurred. Conclusions that we reach about the implications should be way outside of the realm of news.

That sounds more like history than news (and probably an idealized version of history).

If a crisis arises, should the media wait for it to play out, sort out all the facts, and then let us know what happened???
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That sounds more like history than news (and probably an idealized version of history).

If a crisis arises, should the media wait for it to play out, sort out all the facts, and then let us know what happened???

There should be no questions on how to approach news. The media should report it right away...but simply tell us what happened. No more, no less. They can and should include fact based causes and other closely related issues...assuming they are known facts. But not so much implications as how would they know?.

Not sure what your inferring...that opinion should be news? I want as little opinion in my news as possible. I'm a big boy, I can figure out implications myself.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

News outlets should try to stick to reporting facts, but I think the point Old Pio was making was the choice itself of the facts you select to report on, or even notice, is editorial -- possibly deliberate, possibly unconscious.

A drone attack knocks out a building in Pakistan. US media reports the US air force claimed the target was killed. Insurgent media reports that AQ leaders escaped and have regrouped. Local Pakistani media reports a baby had its skin burned off. All are, presumably, facts, but the mention-worthiness of each is conditioned by whether your worldview sees the event as a military tactic, a strategic development, or a human tragedy. The fact-choices also change if it was a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv.

There's no such thing as a clean lens. Kantian categories, and all that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

News outlets should try to stick to reporting facts, but I think the point Old Pio was making was the choice itself of the facts you select to report on, or even notice, is editorial -- possibly deliberate, possibly unconscious.

A drone attack knocks out a building in Pakistan. US media reports the US air force claimed the target was killed. Insurgent media reports that AQ leaders escaped and have regrouped. Local Pakistani media reports a baby had its skin burned off. All are, presumably, facts, but the mention-worthiness of each is conditioned by whether your worldview accepts a strike on civilians as a military tactic, a strategic development, or a human tragedy. The fact-choices also change if it was a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv.

Largely valid

I might add that hope that news should just present all the core relevant facts. Every major detail as the goal should be to accurately inform. In your scenario, you would report all of the above...without appeal to emotion (ie without positioning of the baby). Heaven forbid, there might be conflicting and complex information by which the event could be interpreted different ways.

Again IMO, the opinion of where this story goes is left out...ie, inferring that babies being killed is bad or that killing terrorists is great should be left off the news stands...and not be branded as news. That's where news changes to opinion...and if you don't stop there, its primary purpose shifts from informing to delivering propaganda.

Yes, I do think there's a best way to do news.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

News outlets should try to stick to reporting facts, but I think the point Old Pio was making was the choice itself of the facts you select to report on, or even notice, is editorial -- possibly deliberate, possibly unconscious.

A drone attack knocks out a building in Pakistan. US media reports the US air force claimed the target was killed. Insurgent media reports that AQ leaders escaped and have regrouped. Local Pakistani media reports a baby had its skin burned off. All are, presumably, facts, but the mention-worthiness of each is conditioned by whether your worldview sees the event as a military tactic, a strategic development, or a human tragedy. The fact-choices also change if it was a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv.

There's no such thing as a clean lens. Kantian categories, and all that.
There isn't even such a thing as an optically pure lens. There may be a fact, but that fact has to be described with words, each of which has potential nuance and connotation.

"Man who's brother was killed by a drone attack retaliates against US forces," and "Member of Al Quaeda launches terrorist attack," could both describe the same event, and both are really pretty basic facts.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's where news changes to opinion...and if you don't stop there, its primary purpose shifts from informing to delivering propaganda.

Remember that the primary purpose of news media is neither informing nor propaganda. It's amassing an audience to sell crap to.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

There isn't even such a thing as an optically pure lens. There may be a fact, but that fact has to be described with words, each of which has potential nuance and connotation.

"Man who's brother was killed by a drone attack retaliates against US forces," and "Member of Al Quaeda launches terrorist attack," could both describe the same event, and both are really pretty basic facts.

An event can absolutely be interpreted multiple ways.

But I think that its a cop out to think that media has license to ignore the treatment of news objectively or from a nuetral standpoint. Its just as important as the actual selection of news items.

Remember that the primary purpose of news media is neither informing nor propaganda. It's amassing an audience to sell crap to.

:D

Hence news = alarm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top