3 ms·

The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone t

The CIA being a nasty organization that does nasty things has been well-known for decades. What makes (most) Americans tolerate this is the same reason anyone tolerates such nasty things -- they're being done to other people. Drone strikes in particular have been discussed since the Obama administration. It's not okay, but as Snowden himself points out, it is normal. What did alarm me was Snowden mischaracterizing Biden's Philadelphia speech[1][2] as something out of a Nazi propaganda film by using out-of-context quotes and selective photography. There are plenty of liberals/leftists for whom drone strikes are their biggest issue (often so they can claim that both major parties are basically the same), but this is a step even beyond that. Given that the collapse of American democracy would be worse even for his pet issues, I find it hard to believe that Snowden is being sincere. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/01/remarks-by-president-bidenon-the-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3Outfs7K8

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 4y ago
As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. Incidentally, if you originally watched the video on CNN, I'd encourage you to check out your own link, past the 40 second mark! Because that leads to a much more light hearted (though not really, if you really think about the implications of this) issue. As this video was streamed CNN distorted the colors, in real time, to try to increase the apparent lighting while also turning the crimson red into something like a fuchsia pink. [1] If you think that link might itself be fake, feel free to just look at any of CNN's coverage [2] and compare it against the source videos. Everybody understood exactly the sort of imagery Biden's writers were looking to evoke. The only question that remains to be answered is why. [1] - https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 [2] - https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-reaction-biden-speech-marine-background-sot-newday-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-r...
- AdamH12113 4y ago
  > I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly. CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't. Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.) The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me: > Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy. > So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever. > On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.) > We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences. > The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible. This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water. [1] https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-independence-hall-mall/ https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-i... [2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-pictures-20220901.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...
ajmurmann 4y ago
Sincere question: what's the alternative to drone strikes when dealing with organizations like Al Quaeda, Taliban or ISIS? It seems that in the past less targeted weapons would have been used causing even more damage to civilians in the vicinity. Drone strikes, raids (which still ended up killing a little girl) or just giving up and withdrawing are the only real options I can see.
- AdamH12113 4y ago
  Yes, the alternative is largely to do nothing. To my understanding, the argument is that drone strikes are questionably effective, cause collateral damage that supports anti-American propaganda, and are wildly out of proportion to any actual threat. They're a form of security theater driven by Special Operations Command apparently holding a dominant position in DoD internal politics. This is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to, so you should probably find other summaries as well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 4y ago

As Biden gets into his speech, and for about 98% of the video - the framing is exactly as Snowden presented. Given politicians are the sort of people that obsess over the implications of the color of a tie, this visual was chosen absolutely intentionally: a flag hung vertically, blood red imposed on a dark scene, and two shadowy marines in the rear. I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. Incidentally, if you originally watched the video on CNN, I'd encourage you to check out your own link, past the 40 second mark! Because that leads to a much more light hearted (though not really, if you really think about the implications of this) issue. As this video was streamed CNN distorted the colors, in real time, to try to increase the apparent lighting while also turning the crimson red into something like a fuchsia pink. [1] If you think that link might itself be fake, feel free to just look at any of CNN's coverage [2] and compare it against the source videos. Everybody understood exactly the sort of imagery Biden's writers were looking to evoke. The only question that remains to be answered is why. [1] - https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 https://twitter.com/burackbobby_/status/1565543514137677824 [2] - https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-reaction-biden-speech-marine-background-sot-newday-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/veteran-r...

AdamH12113 4y ago
> I have no idea why they went for this visual, but it's difficult to attribute it to any motivation that is at all desirable. I think Hanlon's Razor is a better explanation. Look at a wider picture[1][2], and the start of the CBS video I linked above. The building was well-lit, including the doorway area. When Biden starts speaking, the doorway light is turned off, plunging the background into darkness. This was probably done because the lit doorway was brighter than Biden. After a couple minutes, the light comes back up, but dimly. The background is still too dark, but it looks like they only had that one light to work with. Clearly this was being done on the fly. CNN's color shift at ~12:40, on the other hand, probably had nothing to do with the background. Compare Biden's face before and after the shift. Before the shift, he looks yellow. After the shift, he looks much more natural. The lighting was just bad. CNN decided to adjust for it; CBS didn't. Meanwhile, photographers love contrast, and the dynamic range of a camera is much smaller than that of a human eye. So a scene that probably looked normal in person turns into something dramatic in photographs. (And I bet Photoshop was used to enhance that drama even more.) The conclusion I draw from this is that bad lighting produces bad images, and that politicians are not hyper-competent when it comes to such things. The content of the speech reinforces this -- far from being an eliminationist screed, Biden's speech is yet another hand extended to moderate Republicans inviting them to leave the Trump coalition and reject fascism. (Much like Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" speech, I expect this invitation to be ignored, but that's another matter.) Here are some representative quotes, none of which sound particularly fascist to me: > Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy. > So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever. > On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.) > We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences. > The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible. This is bog-standard Americanism. The idea that it's some sort fascist rally speech simply doesn't hold water. [1] https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-independence-hall-mall/ https://billypenn.com/2022/09/01/biden-philadelphia-speech-i... [2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-pictures-20220901.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-joe-biden-picture...

ajmurmann 4y ago

Sincere question: what's the alternative to drone strikes when dealing with organizations like Al Quaeda, Taliban or ISIS? It seems that in the past less targeted weapons would have been used causing even more damage to civilians in the vicinity. Drone strikes, raids (which still ended up killing a little girl) or just giving up and withdrawing are the only real options I can see.

AdamH12113 4y ago
Yes, the alternative is largely to do nothing. To my understanding, the argument is that drone strikes are questionably effective, cause collateral damage that supports anti-American propaganda, and are wildly out of proportion to any actual threat. They're a form of security theater driven by Special Operations Command apparently holding a dominant position in DoD internal politics. This is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to, so you should probably find other summaries as well.