| 6-27-09 - WAR TIME
DREAM - I was sitting in a guard chair on a hill overlooking our
street. It was up high enough so I could see pretty far both
directions up and down our street. The chair was on tall legs like
they would use at the beach to watch for drowning people, but this was
evidently war time and I was protecting our street from violent people
causing trouble.
Some young women came by walking with their dog and
they stopped to ask how things were going, and while we were talking, the
young women's mother came walking down the street in a silk-like purplish
dress, bringing her black Doberman Pincer dog who was basically leading
her instead of her leading him.
I asked the young woman if she would go into my back
yard across the street and get my dog too and she did and brought out my
little white poodle dog. The three dogs got along well, and to get down
off my chair I just leaned forward and the chair and all. with me on it,
tilted forward and I landed on my feet in the street.
The mother was really nice and we, as a group sat and
watched some other young women singing sad war songs from WWII and the mother was
telling me how tough it was to watch her husband go off to war and only
getting a folded flag back. I held her hand with one hand and rubbed
her back with my other hand as I sat next to her and listened to her cry.
The singing was so sad and while we listened, I
thought, "If I could just get over my stage fright, I could do that too
and wouldn't sound too bad either."
A chubby young man came then to model a swimming suit
of the future - it was rather like they wore in the 1920's - pretty well
covered up but had bare arms and legs. We assured him he looked good
despite how chubby he was. He was very self-conscious about his
weight.
Out of the corner of my eye, I could see glimpses of
something white coming down from the sky off to the west and I asked one of the
women if she could see that too and she looked and said she did. So
we turned around and looked west, and indeed there were white blobs of
something coming down from the sky and landing on the ground. However, it
wasn't UFOs, it looked more like square soap bubbles in odd shaped
clusters and when I looked really good and focused on it, I could see that
they were actually coming off the top of a tall building that was hard to
see in the growing darkness off to the west.
I then saw an 18 wheeler truck on top of
that building, and people moving around the truck, and suddenly, the
truck drove off the front of the building the same direction the white
blobs had come down and the truck cab jackknifed off the front of the
truck and the whole truck followed and fell head first off the building
into the street in front of it. I knew there had to be damage to the
building as well as the truck, but surmised that the truck was probably
pushed off the building, not driven by a living person.
A growing crowd came quickly around the truck, and I
decided I didn't need to run over there and help because there were plenty
of people already there to help. I decided I should stay where I was
and continue guarding my own street as it was War Time.
MURDER CITY DEVILS - 18 WHEELS -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPMnK7DZBEc
don't listen if you don't like this type of music
ALABAMA - THE JACKKNIFED 18 WHEELER -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYtJIFVxQXY
18 WHEELS
AND THE GOSPEL
Sadly:
About 1pm this afternoon, an 18-wheeler
truck struck two parked cars on the shoulder of
the southbound side I-35E in Dallas, Texas, then
jackknifed, ...
|
THE WAR TIME ACT OF 1943
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_time_in_the_United_States
 |
|
 |
Anti-Iran propaganda indicates war is imminent
SOURCE
The Guardian, "Are we going to war with Iran?", 18 October 2005.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1594976,00.html
*** An analysis of recent American and British rhetoric exhibits the
hallmarks of pre-war propaganda. The evidence strongly indicates that
the allies have set a course for war with Iran. ***
Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in
the Middle East
The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance
to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US
ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any
failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the
security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the
problem on its own.
Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed
military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president
and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the
agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have
found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities
before.
It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the
confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board -
including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach
of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities
could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this
political process point to the fact that India itself has developed
nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that
Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much
belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear
contribution to Iranian security.
The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in
Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to
control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have
dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a
population of millions, the British army had little option but to go
along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British
soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that
these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside
Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.
But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The
conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it
would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in
any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair
nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another
attack.
But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign
Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran
continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to
support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated
releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence
briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear
weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now
imminent.
Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney,
warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to
attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles
launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly
based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US
attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed
Israeli-Islamic confrontation.
The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers
could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion.
Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line
forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has
barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could
target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one
mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org
thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action
is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack
of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target.
In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is
that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then
it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime
change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.
For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities
have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime
too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia
influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this
logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military
infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging
separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some
Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan
breaking away too.
A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many
believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector,
points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of
the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy
siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US
analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that
Washington is going to war with Iran.
For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may
be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing
control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional
elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would
rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to
President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely
candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr
Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge
compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross
domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr
Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed
Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with
Iraq.
|
|
MEDIA DISINFORMATION
Selling War against Iran
Propaganda campaign portrays Iran as a pariah statE.
by Ghali Hassan
Global Research, February
17, 2006 While U.S. forces and their allies are
continuing the destruction of Iraq and sadistic torture of Iraqi
civilians, the phantom of Iran “threat” is being amplified across
the world. Speculations about possible U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran
have reached a stage of war propaganda by Western media and Western
pundits. The aims are: to demonise Iran and keep the public in state
of war, and create a smokescreen to divert the public from greater
war crimes in Iraq and Palestine.
Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in
Iraq turned “anti-war” activist wrote on
05 April, 2005 that in June
2005 there will be a “massive aerial attack against Iran.” Ritter
alleged that his information come from “someone close to the Bush
administration”. When Ritter asked his source: “Why June 2005?” His
answer was that, the “Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians
get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there
will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon.
June 2005 is seen as the decisive date”. We all know that June had
passed and there was no “massive aerial attack against Iran”. Let’s
hope Ritter’s next prediction of an attack on Iran will be wrong
too.
Gerard Baker, the Times Online U.S.
editor is more bellicose. Baker wrote on
27 January, 2006: “The
unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going
to have to get ready for war with Iran … If Iran gets safely and
unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the
history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the
coming of Hitler”. It should be remembered that, in 2003, Baker was
part of the international criminal gangs that advocated and later
celebrated the illegal war against Iraq.
Mike Whitney, a knowledgeable critic of U.S.
policy, predicted in recent internet postings that “Iran will be
attacked without pretext and without congressional or UN
authorization invoking the executive authority to prosecute the war
on terror by ‘all necessary and appropriate means’”. The fraudulent
‘war on terror’ is the usual cliché that justifies every U.S. attack
on a sovereign nation. Citing
Zoltan Grossman, Whitney
added; “Khuzestan [the province neighbouring Basra] will become the
next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in
the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into
the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and
put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under U.S. control, the dream of
monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved”. However,
Whitney failed to tell the reader how a dying sardine fish
sandwiched between two hard rocks in a rough sea will extract itself
alive. And will the people of Iran welcome the Bush gang? We know
the Iraqis didn’t.
The ongoing fabricated Iran “crisis” is nothing
more and nothing less than a “collection of misinformation,
disinformation, misunderstanding, miscalculation, egregious
prognostications, boo-boos, and the occasional just plain lies”,
wrote Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky. This has allowed the U.S.
and Israel to “mobilize the UN and NATO allies to focus on,
browbeat, and threaten Iran to abandon its [peaceful] nuclear
activities or face some kind of retaliation”, wrote Edward Herman
and David Peterson.
This somehow ‘successful’ propaganda campaign
which portrays Iran as a pariah state and a “threat” is based on a
distorted and carefully orchestrated U.S.-Israeli propaganda. Iran
legitimate right to acquire nuclear energy through peaceful research
is deliberately ignored, even as the U.S. and Israel threaten to
attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Iran is being singled out and
threatened with destruction by the U.S. and Israel is absent in
Western media. In addition, Iran fear of U.S. and Israeli attacks
may motivate Iran to build a deterrent – similar to that of North
Korea – against this real threat also remains hidden from the
public.
According to the Geneva Convention and the
Nuclear none Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is not doing any thing
illegal. There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons
program, and Iran has not threatened anyone. By contrast, the U.S.,
Britain and France are promoting the spread of nuclear weapons by
supporting the expansion of Israel’s and India’s weapons production
and encouraging Pakistan and China to do likewise. In fact, the U.S.
is openly increasing the threat of nuclear war and violence.
Furthermore, the recent attack on Muslims in
Europe, who were rightly protesting against the rise of European
fascism and anti-Muslim hatred – shown in the depiction the Prophet
Mohammed as a “terrorist” –, is a racist campaign to incite racism
and justify war of aggression against Muslims world-wide. It has
nothing to do with “free speech”. There is no “free speech” in
Europe; it has to do with colonial oppression of minorities. In
addition to the huge propaganda campaign against Iran, Western
politicians, Western media and pundits have used the demonstrations
to promote the war against Iran. At the same time, the U.S. and its
European vassals are unjustifiably accusing Iran and Syria of
“inflaming the situation” in the Muslim world. The purpose of the
current war propaganda is a deliberate distortion designed to fool
the world, soften public opinion and start a psychological war
against the people of Iran before an actual war is started.
As a result of this war propaganda, a majority of
people in the West, Americans in particular, not only see a U.S. war
of aggression against Iran is inevitable, but also support it. A
recent Gallup Poll reveals that Americans not only think Iran will
develop nuclear weapons but also use them against the U.S. The poll
also reveals eight out of 10 U.S. respondents predicted Iran would
provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the U.S. or Israel.
Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear
weapons against the U.S. Furthermore, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg
poll has found that 57 per cent of Americans favour military
intervention in Iran. The poll suggests that the crimes committed by
U.S. forces in Iraq have not turned the American people against the
possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.
A report by the
Oxford Research Group revealed
that any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies,
would result in the unnecessary death of many innocent lives. “A US
military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start
of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve
Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with
the possibility of western Gulf States being involved as well.
Military deaths in (the) first wave of attacks against Iran would be
expected to be in the thousands, especially with attacks on air
bases and Revolutionary Guard facilities”, said the report by Paul
Rogers of the University of Bradford. ”Civilian deaths would be in
the many hundreds at least,” said the report. “If the war evolved
into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian
responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher”. The
death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and
children appears not enough to satisfy Westerners appetite for
protracted violence.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, U.S. occupying forces and
their vassals continue their murderous campaign. Hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been
murdered by the occupying forces. Tens of thousands more have been
arrested, imprisoned, and tortured to death. Ongoing humiliation,
sadistic torture, rape and abuse of Iraqi civilians, including
children as young as 8 years old, is a daily “sport” practiced by
U.S. soldiers and their vassals. “The extent of the abuse shown in
the photos suggests that the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu
Ghraib in 2004 is much worse than is currently understood”, reported
the Australian Special Broadcast Services (SBS) TV. According to
producer Mike Carey of SBS TV, the new photos show that “homicide,
torture, criminal abuses, rapes and sexual humiliation” of Iraqi
civilians are common practices by the occupying forces. "We actually
did not broadcast some of the photographs because we thought they
were too extreme” added Carey. Iraqis human rights have never been
violated in such criminal ways before. No wonder why so many people
around the world have resented the criminal nature of the Bush-Blair
“shared values”.
Outside the countless U.S. and British-run
prisons and fortified torture chambers, which the so-called
“sovereign” Iraqi government has absolutely no control over, the
Iraqi economy had fallen below that of pre-war levels (Financial
Times, 16/02/06). The
living conditions of
ordinary Iraqis have worsened many folds since the 2003 illegal and
criminal invasion of the country. Iraq which once enjoyed a
reasonable standard of living is descended into extreme poverty
toady. Illegitimate and fraudulent elections were cleverly used as a
cover up to legitimise not only the Occupation, but also the
presence of violent militia groups and U.S.-trained death squads
brought into Iraq on the backs of the invading forces.
Fratricidal killings and murder of innocent
Iraqis, including the deliberate murder of thousands of prominent
politicians, scientists and professionals by U.S.-trained and
financed death squads and criminal gangs have instilled fear and
terror among the Iraqi population. The independent British
journalist Felicity Arbuthnot wrote recently: “In the distorted
horrors of today's Iraq, many never make it home: disappeared,
kidnapped, shot by the occupying forces for driving, walking, and
playing, in familiar venues. Iraqi lives are the earth's cheapest”.
The number of Iraqis killed by U.S. forces has increased
dramatically as a result of U.S. self-induced immunity from
prosecution. In addition, Western-induced corruptions and looting of
the country’s wealth have plummeted and destroying the Iraqi
society. All these war crimes are masquerading in the West as
“freedom” and “democracy” that the Iraqi people have long been
denied.
Further away from Iraq, in Palestine, Israel is
speeding up its overt theft of Palestinian land in contravention of
international laws and UN resolutions. Israel has just “completed a
process of sealing off the eastern sector of the West Bank from the
remainder of the West Bank. Some 2,000,000 Palestinians, residents
of the West Bank, are prohibited from entering the area, which
constitutes around one-third of the West Bank, and includes the
Jordan Rift, the area of the Dead Sea shoreline and the eastern
slopes of the West Bank mountains”, reported the Israeli journalist
Amira Hass of Israel’s daily,
Ha’aretz. “The prohibition
also applies to thousands of residents of towns and villages in the
northern West Bank like Tubas and Tamun, most of whose lands are in
the Jordan Valley, and some with residents who have been living
there for many years’, added Hass.
In addition, Israel has encircled and isolated
Jerusalem from the rest of the Occupied Territories, making the
creation of a viable Palestinian “state” impossibility. More than
3.5 Palestinians are
living in prison under
unbearable apartheid system of control, checkpoints, road blocks and
walls. And with the elections of Hamas, Israel is increasing the
terror against the Palestinians from all sides. Thousands of
Palestinian men, women and children are still imprisoned by Israeli
occupation forces without charge. Of course, Western governments,
the U.S. in particular, provided the financial “aid” and political
support for Israel’s terror and violations of international law.
Let’s hope that those who think the next war on
Iran is inevitable are wrong, and that common sense will prevail
over violence. Furthermore, in its entire history of aggression, the
U.S. chose its defenceless targets carefully. Iran may be able to
defend itself.
It also depends on people in the West and the
American people in particular. Are they happy with war crimes
committed in their name? Do they want to live in a peaceful world
with the rest of humanity or continue on the path to war, violence
and destruction?
Global Research Editor Ghali Hassan live in
Perth, Western Australia
Ghali Hassan is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Ghali Hassan
|
| What is Propaganda - The History:
http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIroundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda3.htm Neocon War
Propaganda To Be Investigated
Will panel investigate all the
lies, foul play, deaths and cover ups surrounding the Tillman
and Lynch cases or will it be another whitewash?
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 13, 2007
A U.S. House committee has announced it will hold
hearings to investigate misleading military statements
that followed the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman in
Afghanistan and the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch in
Iraq.
As reported by the
Associated Press, the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform said an April 24 hearing will be
part of its investigation into whether there was a
strategy to mislead the public.
It will "examine why inaccurate accounts
of these two incidents were disseminated, the sources
and motivations for the accounts, and whether the
appropriate administration officials have been held
accountable,'' the panel said on its Web site.
The House Armed Services Committee also
is considering Tillman hearings, a spokeswoman for that
panel said Monday.
The Tillman and Lynch cases are two
clear and blatant examples of how the government has
consistently lied to the public about events during both
the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, often spinning
situations and distorting reality in order to put the US
military occupations in a better light.
We have covered both cases extensively
and exposed the propaganda and the cover ups that have
followed, now it seems, rather encouragingly, that some
within the House are taking an interest in uncovering
the truth and exposing the lies perpetrated by the
Neocon White House war machine.
The Lynch case is well documented. In
2003 facing flack and extreme criticism the Bush
administration orchestrated a clear piece of war
propaganda in an effort to rally the people behind the
troops and the Invasion of Iraq.
In April 2003 the US Army's 507th
Ordnance Maintenance Company took a wrong turning near
Nassiriya and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers. Nine of
Lynch's US comrades were killed. The Iraqis took Lynch
to the local hospital, where she was kept for eight
days.
The Iraqi soldiers fled the hospital
days before Lynch's rescuers stormed it. The doctors
there, having already tried and failed to return Lynch
to the Americans after they fired upon an ambulance
which she was being transported in,
described the "rescue" as a Hollywood show, as
special forces stormed in with cameras rolling.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They
cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound
of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like
Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and
shouting, breaking down doors." one doctor later
recounted.
First, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq
was ordered by CENTCOM to tell journalists that soldiers
exchanged fire during the Rambo like rescue, without
adding that Iraqi soldiers had already abandoned the
hospital, then the military released a green-tinted
night-vision film of the mission, adding to the drama.
Releasing its five-minute film to the
networks, the Pentagon then claimed that Lynch had stab
and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about
on her hospital bed, interrogated and possibly even
raped.
Then news organizations began repeating reports that Lynch had
heroically resisted capture, emptying her gun as she
fired at her attackers.
But subsequent disclosures have proved all those
details to be complete fabrications. Lynch was badly
injured by the crash of her vehicle, her weapon jammed
before she could fire, the Iraqi doctors made friends
with her and treated her kindly, and the hospital was
already
in friendly hands when her rescuers arrived.
Asked by the
ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer after the event if the
military's portrayal of the rescue bothered her, Lynch
said: "Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way
to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong,".
Lynch went on the record quickly and has
since gone on to denounce the whole debacle as outright
propaganda. This was perhaps wise given that four of
Lynch's rescuers and colleagues have coincidentally died
since.
Petty Officer First Class David M. Tapper died of
wounds received in Afghanistan. He took part in the
rescue.
Lance Cpl. Sok Khak Ung was killed in a drive-by
shooting. He was also part of the rescue team.
Spc Josh Daniel Speer died when his car crashed into
some trees for no apparent reason. He was part of the
rescue team.
Kyle Edward Williams, who worked in the same company
as Lynch, died of "suicide".
Will the House committee be
investigating these deaths as part of the hearings?
We have
previously reported on how Pat Tillman's tragic
death was also seized upon and used as a cheap
propaganda tool by the government for the war on terror
and the invasion of Iraq. His death may have even been a
criminal plot manufactured to this end, a suspicion that
both military investigators and Tillman's family have
repeated.
After his death it was announced that Tillman, the
All American poster boy, the former sporting hero who
had traded in his football boots for army boots after
witnessing the 9/11 attacks, had been tragically gunned
down by evil Taliban terrorists whilst he was charging
up a hill side to attack, bellowing orders to fellow
Rangers.
A nationally televised memorial service and a Silver
Star commendation cemented Tillman's place as the
nation's first war hero since the story of Jessica
Lynch's capture and phony details of her rescue were
foisted on the public in 2003.
The truth was that Tillman's death was being
exploited for public relations purposes by the U.S.
military and the administration.
Weeks later, the Army acknowledged that Tillman had
been a victim of friendly fire whilst on a routine
patrol.
Tillman's platoon of the Second Battalion, 75th
Ranger Regiment, began the day that he died dealing with
a minor annoyance in the southeastern part of
Afghanistan where the soldiers were conducting sweeps,
the Army records show, one of their vehicles would not
start.
Against their own policy and after the overruling of
some objections, the platoon split into two parts so
that half the team, including Tillman, could go on to
the next town for sweeps while the second half could tow
the disabled vehicle to a drop-off spot.
But both groups ended up in the same twisting canyon,
along the same road, without radio communication. And
after the sounds of an enemy ambush, three Rangers in
the second group wound up firing at members of the first
group — at an Afghan soldier who was fighting alongside
Tillman, and then at Tillman himself.
The Afghan was killed. According to testimony,
Tillman, who along with others on the hill waved his
arms and yelled “cease fire,” set off a smoke grenade to
identify his group as fellow soldiers. There was a
momentary lull in the firing, and he and the soldier
next to him, thinking themselves safe, relaxed, stood up
and started talking. But the shooting resumed. Tillman
was hit in the wrist with shrapnel and in his body armor
with numerous bullets.
The soldier next to him testified: “I could hear the pain in his
voice as he called out, ‘Cease fire, friendlies, I am
Pat f—ing Tillman, dammit.” He said this over and over
until he stopped,” having been hit by three bullets in
the forehead, killing him.
It was also admitted that soldiers destroyed evidence
— Tillman's uniform and flak vest — after the shooting,
claiming that they were a "biohazard". However another
soldier involved offered a contradictory take, saying
"the uniform and equipment had blood on them and it
would stir emotion" that needed to be suppressed until
the Rangers finished their work overseas.
An initial investigation by then-Capt. Richard Scott,
interviewed all four shooters, their driver, and many
others who were there. He concluded within a week that
while some of the gunmen demonstrated "gross negligence"
others demonstrated "criminal intent" and recommended
further investigation to push for the harshest possible
criminal sentencing.
But Scott's report disappeared after circulating
briefly among a small corps of high-ranking officers.
Some of Tillman's relatives think the Army buried the
report because its findings indicated foul play. Army
officials refused to provide a copy to the media, saying
no materials related to the investigation could be
released. A second investigation was then commenced by a
higher ranking officer which called for less severe
punishment.
Richard Scott later gave testimony alleging that Army
officials allowed witnesses to change key details in
their sworn statements so his findings could be
softened.
Scott stated “watching some of these guys getting
off, what I thought … was a lesser of a punishment than
what they should’ve received. And I will tell you, over
a period of time … the stories have changed. They have
changed to, I think, help some individuals.”
The document containing Scott's testimony was
reviewed by the
San Francisco Chronicle. In a published story in
September 2005 the Chronicle highlighted the following
passage from Scott:
“They had the entire chain of command (inaudible)
that were involved, the [deleted], all sticking up for
[deleted] … And the reason the [deleted] called me in …
because the [deleted] … changed their story in how
things occurred and the timing and the distance in an
attempt to stick up for their counterpart, implied,
insinuated that the report wasn’t as accurate as I
submitted it …”
In another section of his testimony, he said
witnesses changed details regarding “the distance, the
time, the location, the lighting conditions and the
positioning” in Tillman’s killing.
There are many other examples of conflicting
testimony in the Tillman case including the fact that he
may not have been killed immediately and was certainly
given CPR hours after being shot in the head three
times.
At least one Army officer, the records show, changed
his sworn statements about which supervisor had actually
ordered the split of the platoon and what conversations
had occurred before the order was given.
A further review of the case by the Pentagon's
inspector general,Gen. Gary M. Jones found that Army
officers told soldiers to remain quiet about the
circumstances of Tillman's death for fear of negative
news coverage.
One or more members of the Tillman family will
testify in the new hearings, in addition to Jessica
Lynch herself.
The Tillman family have been very
reluctantly outspoken since the tragic Death of Pat
Tillman, "All I asked for is what happened to my son,
and it has been lie after lie after lie," Tillman's
father told the
New York Times, explaining that he believed the
matter should remain "between me and the military" but
that he had grown too troubled to keep silent.
Quoted elsewhere
Mr Tillman has stated “The administration clearly
was using this case for its own political reasons...
This cover-up started within minutes of Pat’s death, and
it started at high levels. This is not something that
(lower-ranking) people in the field do,” he said.
"After it happened, all the people in
positions of authority went out of their way to script
this," Mr Tillman has said. "They purposely interfered
with the investigation …. I think they thought they
could control it, and they realized that their
recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a
handbasket if the truth about his death got out."
Mr Tillman is certain that a cover up
has been perpetrated and believes his son's death may
not even have been an accident.
"There is so much nonstandard conduct,
both before and after Pat was killed, that you have to
start to wonder," Mr. Tillman said. "How much effort
would you put into hiding an accident? Why do you need
to hide an accident?"
Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother (pictured
above) has also been very outspoken and recently slammed
the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in a
lengthy article. Kevin Tillman wrote:
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion
decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an
illegal invasion they started.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is
tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The
Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to
keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Indeed, it has been revealed since his death that Pat
Tillman was himself highly critical of the war in Iraq
where he also served a tour of duty. Fellow soldiers
have described the well spoken, well educated Tillman as
having strong views, often openly stating "this war is
so f— illegal." and describing Tillman as "totally
against Bush.”
Moved in part by the 9/11 attacks, Tillman decided to give up his
career, saying he wanted to fight al Qaeda and help find
Osama bin Laden. He spurned an offer of a three year,
$3.6 million NFL contract extension with Arizona
Cardinals and joined the Army in June 2002.
Instead of going to Afghanistan, as Tillman expected,
their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Word of the new hearings comes three years after
Tillman was killed and two weeks after the Pentagon
released the latest findings of its own investigations
into Pat Tillman's death.
The latest report once again faults as many as nine
officers as responsible for mistakes and irregularities
during the investigation into Tillman's death, but also
dismisses the notion of a cover up, much the same as a
previous report did in 2005.
In all, the Army and Defense Department
have conducted five investigations into Tillman's April
22, 2004 death, with the most recent one pointing toward
high-ranking military officers knowing the circumstances
of his death long before Tillman's family.
As reported by the AP,
a memo sent to a four-star general a week after
Tillman's death revealed that then-Maj. Gen. Stanley
McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army
Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it
clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.
The memo was provided to the AP by a
government official who requested anonymity because the
document was not released as part of the Pentagon's
official report into the way the Army brass withheld the
truth. McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the
Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops"
forces and was the highest-ranking officer accused of
wrongdoing in the report.
Tillman's parents have since stated that they
believe the memo backs the cover up theory. "He knew it
was friendly fire in the very beginning, and he never
intervened to help, and he essentially has covered up a
crime in order to promote the war," Mary Tillman said in
a telephone interview. "All of this was done for PR
purposes."
As the AP commented, The memo reinforces
suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with
sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling
with Tillman's family.
Although it is encouraging that the high
profile Tillman and Lynch cases are being investigated,
it seems there are countless others that should be
deserving of the same treatment. One such example is
the case of Jess Buryj, a soldier from Canton, Ohio,
who (it turns out) died in a friendly fire incident –
shot in the back.
When his parents were told by the U.S.
military that Polish soldiers were responsible for his
death, a soldier who served with Buryi could not bear
for the truth to be buried and so told Buryi's parents
that an American G.I. was actually at fault. Buryj’s
father was so shaken by the alleged cover-up that he
came to question whether the body they buried was even
their son’s.
Again and again, the press, the public,
parents and spouses have been lied to about how young
Americans in the military have died. The lies and the
propaganda are endemic, just as the Bush government
cannot afford to allow Americans to see flag draped
coffins coming home, nor can they allow the truth of the
war machine to be exposed and jeopardize their
international killing spree.
VIDEO - FOX NEWS ATTACKS IRAN - JUST
LIKE IRAQ - THERE WAS NO REAL EVIDENCE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
|
WAR PROPAGANDA
by Hugh Rank
http://webserve.govst.edu/pa/Political/Cause%20Groups/war_propaganda.htm
Words are weapons in warfare. Words affect how
people think about themselves and about others. War is probably the time
of the greatest language manipulation, when people are most likely to
deceive others, least able to negotiate, and are under the most intense
emotional stress -- of fear and anger -- with the greatest dangers of
loss, death, and destruction.
PROPAGANDA is often used as a general attack word
to label any claims or charges from opponents, rivals, or critics
Here, however, two terms are used with specific meanings: War
propaganda, here refers to persuasion targeted at an internal
audience: to bond one's own group, to build morale (a belief in "being
right" and in "being able"), to get people to agree, to get involved, to
silence internal opposition, to incite to action, and to channel that
response. ("Psychological warfare"
here refers to persuasion designed to demoralize or terrorize an
external audience, the "Other" -- the outsider, the foe, the enemy.)
.In practice, terms and boundaries shift or are blurred
:e.g.
Pentagon PR and "psy ops":(Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq).
Both kinds of persuasion pose a great danger today.
Unlike all previous eras, TV now gives persuaders quick access to huge
audiences, and powerful new weapons are rather easily available to all
nations, small groups, and individuals. After World War II, during what we
caledl "peace time," (1945-1999), some 25 million people had been killed
in "small" wars: local conflicts about dominance, territory, ethnic and
religious issues, all of which were "justified" by words.
War propaganda can often be deliberately manipulated by
professional persuaders (a "thermostat effect" calculated to heat
up or cool a crisis).However, once started, sometimes war propaganda can
get totally out of control (a "wildfire effect") with
unpredictable, long term effects. Years after a crisis, individual zealots
may still base their hatred of others on "outdated" ideas from earlier
propaganda. Certain beliefs and attitudes, emotions and feelings, can
rather easily lead to seriously harmful actions. There are many crazies
and fanatics in the world: mentally unstable, and angry about real or
imagined problems.
Thus, if our goals are to resolve conflicts, to lessen tensions, to
counter irrationality, and to promote peace, then it helps if we
understand how language has often been used in warfare. From
observation -- and history -- consider this basic premise:
People intensify their own "good" and downplay their own "bad"; and, in
aggression, people intensify others' "bad" and downplay others' "good."
Intensify
their own "good" |
Intensify others'
"bad" |
Downplay
their own
"bad" |
Downplay others'
"good." |
|
October 9, 2007
GOP 'War Propaganda' on Iran
posted by
Ari
Berman on 10/09/2007
The GOP presidential debate in Detroit today was ostensibly
about
the economy (more on that later). Soon enough, however, the
topic turned to foreign policy, most notably Iran.. Moderator
Chris Matthews asked the contenders if they believed a future
president possessed the the authority to attack Iran without
Congressional approval.
Apparently unaware that the Constitution gives only Congress
the power to declare war, the GOP candidates answered, by and
large, yes. They could attack Iran, if it posed an imminent
threat, without consulting the Congress.
Mitt Romney said he'd have to check with his lawyers. But he
vowed to "take action necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons." By my recollection, all the rest of the
candidates said pretty much the same thing.
Only Ron Paul, as has so often been the case in the debates,
forcefully dissented. "Why don't we just open up the
Constitution and read it!" said an exasperated Paul. "The idea
that Iran is on the verge of an imminent attack is just
preposterous!"
He summed up the foreign policy views of his competitors
thusly: "This is just war propaganda!"
VIDEO SERIES - WAR PROPAGANDA FROM ELLA2007 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPf99Z9Wek
|
As a follow-up to my
previous post about how the US Defense Department
was using news analysts to promote pro-war domestic
propaganda, this is a good time to remind everyone that
the media was knowingly complicit in the promotion of
pro-war propaganda as noted in an earlier article in
Salon.com
And for viewers that night who didn't get a strong
enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press
corps was with the White House, there was the
televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC,
for instance, "Hardball's" Chris Matthews hosted a
full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array
of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator
(Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former
Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war
retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war
retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war
Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the
sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years
earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter's White House
(Pat Caddell).
And the media is following the same propaganda
promotion effort with respect to Iran too, as noted by
the Columbia Journalism Review in an article entitled "Lost
Over Iran: How the press let the White House craft the
narrative about nukes", which I recommend. It states
that some experts and analysts have been questioning the
Bush administration claim that Iran was seeking to build
nukes... but "What's striking is how rarely such
questions were asked by members of the press."
I also recommend reading CJR's previous article about
how the allegations of the "Iranian EFPs" in Iraq. Their
article
debunking Bush's EFPs-from-Iran claims was
interesting reading too.
McClatchy indeed does a great job questioning Bush
too, as the CJR notes.
|
| A POINT WELL MADE by Alan Furford
6-27-09
I watched much of this story unfold most of my life, and noted entrapment
by draft in force to actually make the real military work. Viet Nam was a
fine example of draft cannon fodder forced upon the public who in general
were against war. The end result is what we have today on the battle
fields around the world regardless of nationality, and a very, very
cynical attitude from the civilian populations in general.
I worked in the Defense industry, listened and read about all the excuses
supporting the wars of empire, business and power expansion, and noted the
moves made by both major political parties in the US to extend what really
is pork barrel politics, the very industries we were warned about by
Eisenhower, the industrial military complex. It is a very "clubby" outfit
which runs and leads very club minded people striving to be crowd campy,
and somewhat neoconservative around by their noses. Ditto Heads who listen
to druggy half deaf Rush Limbaugh are examples of the clubby set though
many do not see it this way. Limbaugh has made a fortune off this
supposedly campy set merely telling them it is and American right to force
the world to do damn stupid myopic things, like getting hooked on drugs
because of sexual rushes underlined by his own name... all in name of the
pain he seems to be afflicted with, as he sought to face his own reality
as so many druggy Republicans do. Rush supports the industrial military
complex as John McCain and Newt Gingrich do and laughs all the way to the
bank.
Take the F-22 Raptor jet fighter as a fine example of feeding this
industry for over 20 years even when it is rendered obsolete by the F-35
and this is just a small example.
Do a little historical work on this subject if you dare to face reality,
then explain to me why universal health care cannot be funded, and keep in
mind the US military budget can be cut in half while still maintaining
strike force capability unmatched by the rest of the world for decades to
come.
Remember how you had to be a neocon for eight years to be a campy
Republican and a hip person who scoffed at the internet through all of the
Bush family administrations? How soon we do "forget" ...
Did you realize the Governor of South Carolina is a Ditto Head firmly
believing his has a god given right to screw with Argentina and support
the Zionist movement while in bed?
I call them as I see them unfold with regularity...
Good old Newt will at least keep the Republicans talking with each other,
even as their political membership is dropping like a rock kicked into the
canyon of their own greed, a bottomless pit at this time of 2009, their
position desperately protected by expert shot gunner, good old draft
dodger Dick Cheney.
Did you forget old Dick? Have you forgotten God destroyed Ronald Reagan's
mind? Perhaps you remember Richard Nixon... No? He was before your
political time, or are you over 70 and just are losing it like Reagan did.
Perhaps you can't really see why God took Jerry Falwell either.
I trust in God...
The American Way Of War
By Fred Reed
6-27-9
Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following
manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of
war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below
will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it.
The Pentagon may print copies for distribution.
(1) Underestimate the enemy. Fortunately this is easy when a
technologically advanced power prepares to attack an underdeveloped
nation. Its enemy's citizens will readily be seen as gadgetless,
primitive, probably genetically stupid, and hardly worth the attention of
a real military.
(2) Avoid learning anything about the enemy his culture, religion,
language, history, or response to past invasions. These things don't
matter since the enemy is gadgetless, primitive, and probably genetically
stupid. Anyway, knowledge would only make the enlisted ranks restive, and
confuse the officer corps.
Blank ignorance of the language is especially desirable (as well as
virtually guaranteed). For one thing, it will allow your troops to be seen
as brutal invaders having nothing in common with the population; this
helps in winning hearts and minds. For another, it will allow
English-speaking officials of the puppet government to vet such
information about the country as they permit you to have.
(3) Explain the invasion to the American public in simple moral terms
suitable for middle-school children at an evangelical summer camp: We are
bombing cities to bring the gift of democracy and American values, or to
defeat some vague but frightening evil, perhaps lurking under the bed, or
to get rid of a bad dictator no longer of service to us, or to bring
freedom and prosperity to any survivors. (This doesn't work in Europe,
which is honestly imperialistic.) The public can then feel a sense of
unappreciated virtue when the primitives resist. Sententious moralism
should always trump reason.
(4) A misunderstanding of military reality helps. Besides, comprehension
would only lead to depression. As Napoleon said, or may have, in war the
moral is to the material as three is to one, which implies that unpleasant
facts should be played down in favor of cultivating a cheerful attitude.
Most especially, it should not be noted that a few tens of thousands of
determined, probably genetically-stupid primitives with small arms can tie
down a cheerful force however gaudily armed.
Pay no attention to tactics, which are boring. It should never enter your
mind that in this sort of war, if you don't win, you lose; if the enemy
doesn't lose, he wins. Think about something else. Above all, do not
understand that the enemy's target is not you, but public opinion at home.
You don't need to remember this, as the enemy will remember it for you.
(5) Do not forget that a military's reason for existence is to close with
the enemy and destroy him. An army is not in the social-services business.
Do not let the mission be impeded by touchy-feely considerations. If you
have to kill seventeen children to get a sniper, so be it. The enemy must
realize that you mean business. Ignore cultural traits, which are of
concern only to idealistic civilians. Grope the enemy's women.
High-profile rapes are a good idea as they teach respect. It is better to
be feared than loved. Be sure the embassy has a helipad.
(6) Intellectual insularity should be a primary goal, as it avoids
distraction. This salubrious condition can be achieved by having officers
read Tom Clancy instead of history. In military discourse it also helps to
encourage the use of phrases like "force multiplier" and
"multi-dimensional warfare," as these increase confidence without meaning
anything.
Remember that doctrine and optimism should always outweigh history and
common sense. Discourage colonels and above from reading about similar
campaigns fought by other armies, as this might lead to nagging doubts,
conceivably even to thought. Encourage the belief that other countries
have lost wars by being inferior to the United States. "The French lost in
Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us."
Some military philosophers favor actually removing from military libraries
books on what happened to the French in Viet Nam, the Americans in Viet
Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Americans in Afghanistan (a work in
progress), the French in Algeria, the Americans in Iraq (also in
progress), the Israelis in Lebanon the first time, the Israelis in Lebanon
the last time, the Americans in Lebanon 1983, the Americans in Somalia the
first time, and so on. However, the best thinkers hold that it doesn't
matter what books are in military libraries, as only those on stirring
victories will be checked out.
(7) Keep up to date with the latest nostrums and silver bullets. Organize
your military as a lean, mean, high-tech force characterized by lightning
mobility, enormous firepower, and extraordinary unsuitability for the kind
of wars it will actually have to fight. Flacks from the PR department of
Lockheed will help in this. Recognize that an advanced fighter plane
costing two hundred million dollars, invisible to radar, employing
dazzling electronic countermeasures, and able to cruise at supersonic
speed, is exactly the thing for fighting a rifleman in a basement in
Baghdad. Such aircraft are crucial force multipliers in multi-dimensional
warfare. Anyway, Al Quaeda might field an advanced air force at any
moment. It pays to be ready.
(8) It is a good idea to bracket your exposure. Be ready for wars past and
future, but not present. The Pentagon does this well. Note that the
current military, an advanced version of the WWII force, is ready should
the Imperial Japanese Navy return. It also has phenomenally advanced
weaponry in the pipeline to take on a space-age enemy, perhaps from Mars,
should one appear. It is only the present for which the US is not
prepared.
(9) View things in a large context. People who have little comprehension
of the military tend to focus exclusively on winning wars, missing the
greater importance of the Pentagon as an economic flywheel. Jobs are more
important than wars fought in bush-world countries. An American military
ought to think of Americans first. This is simple patriotism. It is
essential to spend as much money as possible on advanced weapons that have
no current use, and none in sight, but produce jobs in congressional
districts. Good examples are the F-22 fighter, the F-35, the Airborne
Laser, the V-22, and the ABM.
(10) Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is
betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example,
argue furiously that the US didn't lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously;
the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the
press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all
of whom were traitors. This avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything
from defeat. Further, it facilitates a focus on controlling the press, who
are the real enemy, along with the Democrats and the general population.
(11) Avoid institutional memory. Not having lost of course means that
there is nothing to remember. Instead, read stirring novels and cultivate
a cheerful, can-do attitude unintimidated by primitives in sand-lot
countries, who are probably genetically stupid.
(12) Do it all again next time.
Allen D. Furford
The Mobius Insight
|
|
Lying War
Propaganda Against Iran
by
Ron Paul
Statement on H Con Res 21
Before
the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2007
Madam
Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This
resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose:
to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various
controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council
charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Having
already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN
resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déjà vu.
Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war
again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the
many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is
leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this
bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
 Clearly,
language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the
map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn
any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a
pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also
deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that
dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the
map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is
off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening
genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of
behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as
we say, not as we do.”
 I
strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to
Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom,
President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency,
outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled
“Exit
From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote:
“Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes
about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between
Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could
be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General
Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world,
including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel
rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the
way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US
foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and
conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
|
|
|
Iran- Amnesia, Ignorance and
Stupidity
by Gary Sudborough Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 at 10:26
PM
IconoclastGS@aol.com
Iran is experiencing a classic CIA destabilization
effort. It has been done dozens of times in the
past, but Americans would rather watch American Idol
than read history. Also, as Gore Vidal says, it is
"The United States of Amnesia."
One can send a dissenting letter to any daily
newspaper now on the subject of Iran, or an e-mail
to any so-called leftist web site and I can
guarantee, they will not publish it. Even in calmer
times, I once conducted an experiment where I sent
radical letters to nearly all the 1600 daily
newspapers in the United States and very few were
published. Few Americans realize it, but we have a
very sophisticated propaganda system in place in the
United States. It rose to great efficiency in World
War 1, when most Americans were isolationists and
didn't want to fight the Germans in Europe. The
Creel Committee was established and some of the best
propagandists of the day were hired to fire up the
American people for war. One of the most effective
propagandists was Edwards Bernays, a nephew of
Sigmund Freud, who later made smoking popular with
American women by clever advertising. Another was
Ivy Lee, a propagandist for John D. Rockefeller, who
helped him cover up some of the damage from the
Ludlow massacre of striking coal miners in Colorado.
He advised Mr. Rockefeller to give to charities,
etc. These propagandists demonized the Germans by
calling them Huns, stated they bayoneted babies and
made cartoons depicting them as beasts engaged in
all sorts of despicable activities. Also, they used
a method called repetition, which they are using
now, and is not only used to start wars, but also to
propagate CIA activities. It is said that a lie
stated often enough becomes the truth. Needless to
say, the war propaganda for World War 1 worked well
and Americans were clamoring for war and war
dissenters were sent to prison or deported.
I wrote an article once called the Drums of War and
stated that if the United States went to war with
Iran a similar propaganda strategy would be used as
that with Iraq. That is that all sorts of unfounded
assumptions and lies would be made, similar to those
used in Iraq, like weapons of mass destruction,
uranium from Niger, demonization of the leadership
and that these unfavorable articles and TV pieces
would grow from a few to an absolute crescendo. Now,
one can't turn on any American TV station without
tremendous coverage of the elections in Iran and the
US wars of aggression on either side of Iran are
completely forgotten. I did read of couple of
interesting articles yesterday. One said that
American and British oil companies were being
invited back into Iraq under very favorable terms-
75% of the profits going to the foreign oil
companies and only 25% to the Iraqi people. The
smoking gun appears at long last. The other story
was about a memo leaked to the Observer newspaper in
England that illustrated the war planning for Iraq
going on between George W. Bush and Tony Blair in
2003, two months before the war started. In the memo
Blair and Bush agreed that if the weapons of mass
destruction excuse did not work, that another one
would have to be devised like having US planes with
UN markings fly over Iraq with the probability they
would be shot at by the Iraqis or some other
provocation would be used.
Remember when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were
openly talking about going to war with Iran?
Remember when John McCain was singing his little
song to Beach Boys music: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.
There is a disadvantage, however, in going to war
with a country with modern missiles that can hit
ships and aircraft carriers. The CIA destabilization
program is the cheaper and more effective method. Is
there anyone out there with a brain who seriously
believes that the United States does not want a
change of government in Iran? Is there anyone out
there with a brain who doesn' t believe that all
sorts of US organizations like the CIA, the National
Endowment for Democracy and the Agency for
International Development are not involved behind
the scenes in organizing and financing these street
demonstrations and protests in Iran? One expects
propaganda out of the mainstream media, but one can
go to leftist site after leftist site and one would
think this is all an example of the Iranian people's
desperate desire for democracy. Even Michael Moore,
who I thought had more sense, is displaying bloodied
protesters on his site. If Iranians are attempting
to influence other Iranians, I find it ironic that
their street signs are in English and not in Farsi.
I saw this in another place, Venezuela, where the
signs were in English and not Spanish. Also, I
remember an article about a Venezuelan student who
claimed he was paid a lot of money by Americans to
stir up trouble. Hugo Chavez is not a popular man
with the American ruling class because he
nationalized the oil and is spending a lot of it on
the poor.
It would be one thing if CIA interference had never
happened before in countries with governments
unpopular with the corporate elite in the United
States. It has happened many,many times. I guess I
will have to go through a bunch of them because as
Gore Vidal says: "It is the United States of
Amnesia." Possibly it is the United States of
Ignorance, as I am not sure if the American people
ever knew of these things. In 1953 the CIA overthrew
Mossadegh in Iran and brought the Shah and his
secret police, the SAVAK. to power. The Shah
immediately privatized the oil and invited the
western oil companies back into the country. In 1954
the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz
government in Guatemala. In 1973, the CIA overthrew
the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador
Allende, and brought the brutal dictator Pinochet to
power, who proceeded to conduct mass executions of
leftists. In 1965, Sukarno was overthrown in
Indonesia in a CIA coup, which cost the lives of
several million of the Indonesian Communist Party.
There were CIA coups against Goulart in Brazil and
Cheddi Jagan in British Guiana. The CIA played a
pivotal role in executing Patrice Lumumba and
bringing Mobutu to power in the Congo. Needless to
say, Mobutu was a very bloody dictator.
If coups and election tampering didn't work, the CIA
had a third option. That was to organize a mercenary
army from outside the country. Does anyone remember
the Contras and their invasion of Nicaragua? This is
not the only example. The United States and South
Africa financed two terrorist armies called UNITA
and Renamo to invade and destabilize the leftist
governments in the former Portuguese colonies of
Angola and Mozambique. Renamo destroyed schools,
medical clinics, farm cooperatives and anything
which could be considered socialistic in Mozambique.
They also cut off arms and legs with machetes so
that Mozambique has one of the highest rates of
amputees in the world. The death toll in Angola and
Mozambique runs into the millions. Of course, this
has nothing to do with imperialism. This is so the
CIA could bring them democracy. This is evidently
what all the geniuses on the left believe about
Iran. I'm sure the Pentagon dropped tons of depleted
uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan so that it will blow
around in the dust storms to bring the Iranian
people a better way of life too- some more cancers
and deformed babies.
Americans simply can not get it through their thick
heads that imperialism, something that has existed
for hundreds of years and has example after example,
is the real driving force behind US foreign power
and not democracy. We don't even have real democracy
in the United States. We are under the control of
corporations. Just because the ruling class in the
United States have found an articulate, intelligent,
personable black man to act as President does not
mean by any extent that American imperialism has
vanished into thin air.
|
|
WAR DATABASE ON THIS SITE
ANTI-WAR DATABASE ON THIS SITE
18 WHEELER DATABASE ON THIS SITE
BACKGROUND OF THIS PAGE - BORROWED FROM:
http://zogsnightmare.com/camps.htm
DREAMS OF THE GREAT EARTHCHANGES
- MAIN INDEX |
Posted by: Mpetti | April 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM