4 ms·

this is seriously some very thinly sliced semantics, all of which is sidestepping the thing I have now repeated in 5 different comments; that Hersh was right to

this is seriously some very thinly sliced semantics, all of which is sidestepping the thing I have now repeated in 5 different comments; that Hersh was right to point out the incredible level of anti-muslim bigotry, of a very specific religious character that dominated (and probably still dominates) the upper levels of the special forces. Its amazing that ya'll are going this deep on something that is so widely documented. Chris Kyles autobiography spoke to some of this. Mike Weinstein, whose name I've now typed, what, four, five times, has a foundation specifically documenting and challenging religious intolerance and specifically christian supremacy/theocracy in the military and he has his hands full 24/7. https://truthout.org/articles/us-army-special-forces-officially-recruit-for-mission-for-god/ https://truthout.org/articles/us-army-special-forces-officia... Not once has Thomas or now you, addressed this. Jeremy Scahill has covered this in both reported pieces, interviews and at least one book. Here's some more: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018/3/29/christian-takeover-us-military https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018/3/29/christian-take... https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2014/09/09/one-army-under-god https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2014/09/09/one-army-under-... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200968.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08... http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/For_God_and_Country_Parco.pdf http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/For_God_... I could go on, citing any number of people from all across the political spectrum. And for the record, no, I think tptaceks summary was not accurate, either in content or in context. Freely throwing around that Hersh thinks the specops brass is run by a cabal is not the same as what he actually said, none, I repeat none of which was actually a reported piece he himself had published. It was a throw away comment in a speech. Full stop. Which, again, is outside of internet slap fights and access journalism types like Blake Hounshell, utterly uncontroversial. I could post links like the above literally all night and not reach the bottom of reporting on the slowly theocratiztion of the upper reaches of the American military.

danso 8y ago
As I've replied to someone else downthread, I don't believe I made the argument that the U.S. military did not have Christians. What does this have to do with what Hersh claimed? Yes, it was just a speech. But he didn't preface his assertions as being just gossip. I don't agree that we should completely ignore what a journalist says in public. Hersh has been criticized for making questionable claims in speeches: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ He's seen (rightly) as an authority, and he's speaking in a venue where the topic is non-fiction. People have a right to question those assertions and ask for evidence, which he is free to provide or to walk back.
- dtornabene 8y ago
  1) Its not about "there being christians" in the military, thats a total straw man. Its about the most lethal branch of the service being dominated by those who see their conduct as the prosecution of a religious war. How is this difficult? 2) I never said that "we should ignore what a journalist says in public" I was contrasting a few comments that are pretty uncontroversial to anyone with domain knowledge to a deeply reported piece and treating those comments as if they were in any way determinative of his worldview, or that to quote tptacek "he's suffered a precipitous decline" because he notes the dominance of a radical theocratic bent among JSOC. How have ya'll spent more than half a dozen comments now with out reckoning with any of the pieces I've linked? Seriously. I've linked a number of pieces now backing up what Hersh has said. Aren't you a journalist? Even a professor of journalism?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    First, you're misrepresenting my argument. Hersh's decline isn't due to his supposed JSOC Catholic conspiracy; it's due largely to the UBL story. Second, you're sugarcoating Hersh's argument about JSOC/USSOCOM. If all Hersh had said was that there were an unusual and disquieting number of fundamentalist Christians in the high ranks of SOCOM, few people would bat an eyelash. But he didn't say that. He said that USSOCOM was run by a secret conspiracy of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. He is, if not 100%, then at least 96.3% into Umberto Eco territory here. Check back in another 5-10 years (maybe after his Cheney book is published?) and we'll see if he hasn't made it all the way to 23 Skidoo.
    - dtornabene 8y ago
      No, he didn't, and you're misrepresenting what he said and also completely ignoring everything I've linked. I'm not really sure what to make of that at this point. Is it intentional? I feel that after maybe 10 comments of you completely side stepping all of the other links I've posted its fair to wonder if you're genuinely just trolling, rules be damned. Where's the "secret conspiracy" part? And for someone who believes this, as you say he does, why is it only three comments in a speech in Doha? Why is it not a piece that he worked up and published? Because he's referring to a well understood phenomena thats been covered by others and also because he was talking about this in the context of anti-muslim bigotry. Do you have an answer for that? Seriously Thomas, do you have an answer for "this was a few comments in the context of the incredible level of prejudice on display from military and political leaders in the heat of the beginning of the War on Terror"? I don't think you do, because it would undermine your narrative. Also, the idea that Barton Gellman brought down Cheney with a book is .... strange. Love to see a cite on that one.

danso 8y ago

As I've replied to someone else downthread, I don't believe I made the argument that the U.S. military did not have Christians. What does this have to do with what Hersh claimed? Yes, it was just a speech. But he didn't preface his assertions as being just gossip. I don't agree that we should completely ignore what a journalist says in public. Hersh has been criticized for making questionable claims in speeches: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ He's seen (rightly) as an authority, and he's speaking in a venue where the topic is non-fiction. People have a right to question those assertions and ask for evidence, which he is free to provide or to walk back.

dtornabene 8y ago
1) Its not about "there being christians" in the military, thats a total straw man. Its about the most lethal branch of the service being dominated by those who see their conduct as the prosecution of a religious war. How is this difficult? 2) I never said that "we should ignore what a journalist says in public" I was contrasting a few comments that are pretty uncontroversial to anyone with domain knowledge to a deeply reported piece and treating those comments as if they were in any way determinative of his worldview, or that to quote tptacek "he's suffered a precipitous decline" because he notes the dominance of a radical theocratic bent among JSOC. How have ya'll spent more than half a dozen comments now with out reckoning with any of the pieces I've linked? Seriously. I've linked a number of pieces now backing up what Hersh has said. Aren't you a journalist? Even a professor of journalism?
- tptacek 8y ago
  First, you're misrepresenting my argument. Hersh's decline isn't due to his supposed JSOC Catholic conspiracy; it's due largely to the UBL story. Second, you're sugarcoating Hersh's argument about JSOC/USSOCOM. If all Hersh had said was that there were an unusual and disquieting number of fundamentalist Christians in the high ranks of SOCOM, few people would bat an eyelash. But he didn't say that. He said that USSOCOM was run by a secret conspiracy of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. He is, if not 100%, then at least 96.3% into Umberto Eco territory here. Check back in another 5-10 years (maybe after his Cheney book is published?) and we'll see if he hasn't made it all the way to 23 Skidoo.
  - dtornabene 8y ago
    No, he didn't, and you're misrepresenting what he said and also completely ignoring everything I've linked. I'm not really sure what to make of that at this point. Is it intentional? I feel that after maybe 10 comments of you completely side stepping all of the other links I've posted its fair to wonder if you're genuinely just trolling, rules be damned. Where's the "secret conspiracy" part? And for someone who believes this, as you say he does, why is it only three comments in a speech in Doha? Why is it not a piece that he worked up and published? Because he's referring to a well understood phenomena thats been covered by others and also because he was talking about this in the context of anti-muslim bigotry. Do you have an answer for that? Seriously Thomas, do you have an answer for "this was a few comments in the context of the incredible level of prejudice on display from military and political leaders in the heat of the beginning of the War on Terror"? I don't think you do, because it would undermine your narrative. Also, the idea that Barton Gellman brought down Cheney with a book is .... strange. Love to see a cite on that one.