|
In
the good old days, the US used to tell a lie -- crass
propaganda -- and it would stick for a long time.
Journalists would have to scurry for months before
they could expose the lies, but by then it would be
almost irrelevant, e.g., the Tonkin incident lie provided
to justify escalation in the Vietnam War, or the infamous
throwing-babies-out-of-incubators story concocted
to swing American opinion in favor of the Gulf War
in 1991. In the run up to the US-Iraq war, it became
increasingly evident that propaganda has a diminished
half-life [1]. Whereas years ago the reigning technique
was to repeat a lie often enough, now it seems to
have given way to a constant barrage of lies or semi-lies
with a very short half-life. As soon as a propaganda
ploy has been exposed, the current media spinners
will move to the next tall story. They seem to count
on either the poor memory of the population, their
general disinterest or their credulity. There are
also good reasons to believe that the current barrage-propaganda
approach is losing its effectiveness.
It
has become much more difficult to sell wars these
days and the propagandists are remarkably inept. Watching
CNN or BBC reveals jarring shoddy propaganda that
is immediately transparent. Marines "discovered" a
camouflaged chemical weapons factory, but then both
CNN and BBC revealed the source of the story: The
Jerusalem Post; it was then distributed by Fox News.
This was the fastest way to discredit the story, which
only lasted two days - later exposed as a fabrication
by the March 25th Financial Times. In the meantime,
one of the warmongering neocons appeared on CNN, repeating
the story, elaborating the details and saying that
there was now proof of the existence of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). A day later CNN mentioned
finding a Scud missile inside a factory - another
story with a half-life of a day. On March 26th, they
were talking about finding 3,000 chemical protection
suits, as if this proved something. It is like smelling
manure, and then claiming you have found a horse.
This story also is destined for the trashcan if only
because Hans Blix, the ex-UN weapons inspector, mustered
a pixel of backbone to state that it didn't prove
anything. Finally, the first few missiles shot by
the Iraqis on Kuwait were intimated to be Scud missiles
(illegal under UN resolutions), but this turned out
to be false too.
One
must admit that the so-called embedded journalists
don't have an easy time. They tag along with the military
and have to amplify the statements made by the officers
who direct them. High-ranking officers are interviewed,
but no critical questions are posed to them. Transparent
nonsense is uttered, and it isn't challenged. The
next day the recently uttered "news" has been discredited,
but it also has entered both the journalist's and
the officer's memory hole. Never mind, today is another
day and another opportunity to spew nonsense. "Chemical
weapons find", "Scud missile find", "uprising in Basra",
"a column of 1,000 vehicles is making its way South",
"it wasn't our missile", "Syria is supplying night
vision equipment", "surrender en masse", "Basra has
fallen", "a general has been captured"� How many times
can self-respecting embedded journalists regurgitate
the offal that is fed to them? While CNN or BBC issue
warning labels for the reports issued from Baghdad
where there is supposedly a minder/censor present,
there is no such warning issued about the embedded
journalists although their ability to report may be
even more restricted. Perhaps a wee warning beyond
the usual "report from an embedded journalist" should
be issued.
Jacques
Ellul, in his book, Propaganda, states that
for propaganda to be effective, it must have monopoly
and drown out everything else. One of the reasons
that propaganda doesn't stick at present is that there
are so many alternative information channels. CNN
doesn't have a monopoly by any means; at an Amsterdam
airport lounge recently, the waiting passengers rebelled
and forced the attendants to change the channel! The
internet has also become a very important alternative
news source. Robert Fisk's reports on DemocracyNow
or his columns in London's The Independent
prove that he is a one-man propaganda demolition machine.
Listening to his reports from Baghdad allows one to
peer through the fog, and obtain a clearer view of
what is happening on the ground. Every other paragraph
of Fisk's comments demolishes yet another nonsense
statement uttered by Ari Fleischer & his ilk. The
hard task of selling or justifying the war has given
way to a barrage of lies or semi-lies that only last
a few days - thereafter they are immediately forgotten.
The next lies follow directly.
On
March 26th, a missile killed scores of civilians at
a Baghdad market and wounded even more. Houses and
shops were demolished. The subsequent stream of propaganda
is very instructive. It went from: "must check what
happened", to "inevitably collateral damage occurs"
(aka "shit happens"), to "likely that an Iraqi missile
was the cause of the explosion," and finally, on Mar.
28th it was: "it was a missile fired by the enemy"
[2]. Another market bombing on March 29th killing
62+ civilians was immediately denied and blamed on
the Iraqis themselves. Some historical background
may reveal the real reason for these explosions. During
the bombing of Serbia over the Kosovo situation, both
the Americans and the general staff were surprised
because they expected a quick capitulation. Serious
dissension grew within the ranks of the then "coalition
of the willing" [3], and it was necessary to increase
the pressure on the Serbs to obtain their surrender.
This was achieved by hitting more military targets,
then bridges, railroads, factories, and even the TV
station (with some lame justification) [4]. After
the war, it was revealed that most Serbian factories
had been bombed! Even with this bombing intensity,
the Serbians didn't yield, and at this point the laptop
bombardiers started targeting the civilian population,
i.e., plain and simple terrorism in the true sense
of the word. In the Iraqi context, it is also clear
that the resilience of the "regime" is far higher
than expected, and it seems that US planners must
have believed their own propaganda promising an instant
collapse [5]. The current bombing of civilian areas
follows the pattern of turning up the pressure, and
reveals that Pentagon statements before the war --
that "there will be no safe place in Baghdad" -- are
proving true indeed.
Donald
Rumsfeld also claims that meticulous care is taken
to avoid hitting civilian areas with smart weapons.
Hey, they triple check this type of thing! The fact
that some missiles have hit other countries, e.g.,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey, should safely
dispose of such assertions about avoiding civilian
casualties or missile accuracy. The first Baghdad
market bombing took place in the middle of a sandstorm!
How can anything be expected to be accurate under
such conditions? Either the bombings are premeditated,
and thus civilians are targeted or the claims of accuracy
and care in avoiding civilians are bogus. Perhaps
reality is somewhere in between.
During
the past few days, both BBC and CNN have reported
with increasing frequency that the resistance fighters
are dressing in civilian clothes, and that Iraqi soldiers
deviously use the white flag to attack the Marines.
Presto, now we can expect a massive increase in the
number of civilians slaughtered by the Marines. Maybe
the imprisonment of Iraqi soldiers is becoming burdensome
too, and the US was poised to abrogate the Fourth
Geneva Convention in any case. Throw in a bit of the
usual disdain of killing "mere Arabs" and this war
is fast becoming an incredibly bloody fiasco.
The
positioning of B52 bombers and the location of their
refueling are also part of propaganda. A squadron
of B52 bombers is based at the Fairford airbase in
the UK. Why couldn't they be located in, say, Israel
that is closer to the action? Israelis and their apologists
always justify the US's support, funding and arming
of Israel on the grounds that it is "America's aircraft
carrier in the Middle East". Israel is also part of
the coalition of the willing - although Israel deserves
a category of its own like: "chief cheerleader". The
vast majority of Jewish-Israelis also supports the
war; they are cheerleading the war with blue and red
pompons. So why not base the B52s there?
Refueling
is also an issue. B52s and other bombers fly over
Spain on their way to Iraq. For some reason, it is
deemed important to refuel the airplanes over Spain
[6], and Prime Minister Aznar has made certain that
this is possible. The only apparent reason for the
positioning of the B52s and their refueling location
has really to do with propaganda. It is a means of
suggesting that many countries are part of the "coalition"
- one of the most ridiculous propaganda terms in use.
In reality, only the US, UK and a handful of Australian
military are involved in actual fighting; even then,
the Australian contingent may actually be recalled
by their Parliament. It would be far more accurate
to refer to the "US-UK" forces, but to obtain an appearance
of support the B52s must be stationed in the UK. It
suggests that it is not only the US with blood on
its hands; furthermore, it is very eager to smear
some off on others.
Often
when a BBC journalist approaches an Iraqi official,
questions are posed about the futility of further
struggle starting with: "surely the Americans will
win�". On March 27th, a BBC reporter approached Iraq's
ex-ambassador to Paris, and the same question was
asked in various forms yielding the predictable Iraqi
response. NB: No question of any other nature was
even asked! Perhaps the US-UK should empower BBC/CNN
journalists to accept an eventual Iraqi surrender.
The BBC would love to take credit for the final capitulation
of the Iraqis, just like it allowed the silly story
that the entry of one of its journalists, John Simpson,
into Kabul had coincided with the Taliban capitulation.
Even
more acutely, when Saddam Hussein gives a speech neither
CNN nor the BBC discusses what he actually said, but
debate whether he is the real Saddam. The only thing
that is missing is criticism of the way he is dressed
or the way he looks. Anything is proffered to avoid
substance. The statements made by other Iraqi officials
are similarly slighted, although the persistent claims
of shooting down this or that should make all skeptical
of their claims.
Propaganda
also entails censoring things. Most Americans remember
the TV scenes where dead US soldiers were dragged
through the streets of Mogadishu. Within a week the
US's appetite for that intervention collapsed. Americans
only accept clean wars, only the ones that appear
like a video game. All the blood and gore must be
excised, especially if there is blood of American
soldiers, and Americans will not see this on TV. When
Al Jazeera showed dead Americans it elicited a vicious
reply from the censors shutting down websites and
hindering Al Jazeera from broadcasting in the US.
If the US finds out the coordinates of the Al Jazeera
journalist in Basra, then this could be bombed. During
the attack on Afghanistan, the Al Jazeera offices
in Kabul were bombed when their reporting proved awkward
to the media spinners. [Postscript: Their hotel and
offices were bombed on April 1, 2003; Jason Deans,
"Al-Jazeera's Basra hotel bombed", The Guardian,
April 2, 2003. On April 7th Al Jazeera's offices in
Baghdad were bombed killing a cameraman.]
Bush's
practice session for his "war ultimatum" speech was
shown to Portuguese and Italian TV audiences, but
it was never shown on American TV stations. Perhaps
the non-flattering appearance didn't portray the dear
monosyllabic president as a "statesman". The media
spinmeisters prefer to have the president with his
mouth firmly shut, and at a safe distance from the
media. On the eve of the impending war, they chose
to film the dear president from a distance on the
White House lawn. The weight of the burden worrying
about the impending deaths and destruction required
some light distraction by throwing some balls for
his dogs. But wait, even his dogs ignored him, and
they didn't run after the balls he threw! Maybe it
is time for a "pet change" -- Tony Blair could give
the president a corgi, the Queen's favorite dog breed.
The
most important propaganda topic deserving some discussion
is the reason to go to war and its evolution over
time. Months earlier, the warmongers uttered "regime
change" as a justification for the war. This was considered
too crass, and it briefly made way for "Iraq has links
to terrorism", a very short-lived justification. This
gave way to "rid Iraq of WMD." A UN inspection team
was set up, and it was clear from the beginning that
this was meant to fail [7]. Once the UN didn't lend
its imprimatur to justify the war, and the fact that
many Europeans sought to continue the inspections
regime, then another justification was necessary.
Now, "let's liberate Iraq" - in other words, a euphemism
for "regime change" - was concocted without much reflection.
Within days of the war starting, the stiff Iraqi resistance
revealed the absurdity of the new justification. If
the Iraqis are not being liberated, then what are
American troops doing there to begin with? Maybe the
only way this mythological justification can be stretched
is to starve the population of Basra (water supplies
have been cut), and at a later point when the situation
is really desperate, then soldiers can hand out food
parcels for the benefit of CNN viewers. Some plastic
flowers may be flown in as currency for the Iraqis
to receive their parcels. Cheering heartily may earn
some chewing gum [8].
There
are several reasons for this war of aggression, but
the position on this decision and the intellectual
depth thereof were inadvertently revealed during Bush's
ultimatum speech practice session. Therein the dear
monosyllabic president states: "FUCK SADDAM, we're
taking him out". After the eloquent "Axis of Evil"
or "good vs. evil" phrases, one expected yet another
eloquent justification for this war. This impromptu
statement thus reveals a president with a mean-spirited
streak, and a very shallow understanding of what is
going on. It would be interesting for Americans to
view their president's rehearsal, but unfortunately,
this will not be shown to American or British publics
thanks to the self-censorship of CNN and BBC, the
main purveyors of the current war propaganda.
One
of Josef Goebbels' cardinal rules for effective propaganda
was that all news should be as accurate as possible
and credible. Current practice overthrows this rule
by a rapid succession of lies, and news about the
war on major networks isn't credible anymore. A key
question is why this has happened. One theory is that
US propaganda has become a victim of its own spin;
propagandists also have been permeated by the same
arrogance afflicting the warmongers. Propaganda is
something fed to others to sell your "product", and
the spinmeisters are not meant to consume this themselves.
So, they failed because they accepted the basic premise
of an imminent Iraqi collapse. Given that this didn't
happen, the situation has created panic among the
propagandists, and their only response seems to be
to live day-by-day. A few more lies today, some more
tomorrow, and then hope - really PRAY - to obtain
a total Iraqi capitulation. If this doesn't happen
then the US risks the unraveling of its propaganda
line. It doesn't fear that foreigners will rebel -
these already don't buy the US line - but it is the
American people who they fear losing. Many more tall
stories, and suddenly many questions may arise from
this quarter. Too many questions and the whole edifice
may collapse.
Propaganda
is about selling a war in such a way that the core
populations don't realize the realities of what such
a war entails. The American population wants to see
"enemy" defeats, no losses of their own troops, and
they want the effects to be antiseptic - video game
style. Propaganda will attempt to direct your focus
to the glamorous aspects of battle. Above all, propaganda
papers over the fact that this is a war of aggression,
that there are home team losses, and that the results
are massively bloody. Propaganda hides the fact that
there are virtually no painkillers left in Iraqi hospitals,
and that the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi wounded
will be operated on without anesthetics. The screams
of the Iraqi victims as their limbs are amputated
without anesthetics are what propaganda tries with
all fervor to drown out. The propagandists must be
pleased, as they have made it possible to demolish
a country and to exact on the Iraqi people a horrendous
toll - without the American public even noticing.
There
is only one antidote against propaganda, and that
is a relevant sense of history and a strong collective
memory. When we remember the lessons from the past,
and when we remember what happened even a few days
ago, then the job of the propagandists and their warmongering
bosses, becomes much more difficult. It is ultimately
when their message is challenged that war can be stopped;
bloated armament budgets can be pared; international
law can be upheld; and shallow mean-spirited politicians
with blood soaked hands can be put on trial in an
international war crimes tribunal.
[1]
Just witness the demolition of key propaganda by
Seymour Hersh. Before the war started, the US peddled
some documents about sales of "yellow paste" from
Niger to Iraq used to obtain uranium. Similarly,
General Powell suggested that aluminum tubes engineered
to very precise tolerances were destined for uranium
enrichment. Once again, crass and transparent propaganda
died in a matter of days thanks to the acumen of
Seymour Hersh who safely dispatched these shoddy
fabrications.
[2]
Check Cahal Milmo's "US blames Iraqis in war of
words over slaughter at market", The Independent,
March 28, 2003, for a complete sequence of the US
statements on this account. The hypocrisy: the US
is claiming that it didn't target the market, and
then draws up the lame conclusion that it wasn't
its missile. In the same breath, they admit that
cruise missiles have gone astray. This is yet one
more lie that will be uncovered in a few days. A
comparison to the bombing of the Amariya Air Raid
Shelter in 1991 shows that the current batch of
denials mimics closely the initial denials at that
time. The big gaping hole of the bomb through the
concrete finally closed that propaganda chapter,
although the US always maintained that the bomb
shelter was a military target.
[3]
This was also a war with no UN mandate.
[4]
To stop the broadcasting it is enough to destroy
the transmitters. It is not necessary to demolish
the TV/Radio station. If the Pentagon wants to shut
down the transmission and avoid civilian casualties,
then this is possible. However, such actions make
it clear that their purported respect for civilians
is not existent.
[5]
NB: soldiers were told to expect no resistance!
One of the wounded American soldiers during a press
conference from the hospital in Germany stated that
his officers had told him that there wouldn't be
any resistance.
[6]
Refueling is a risky operation and could best be
performed over the Mediterranean.
[7]
The UN resolution 1441, authorizing the inspections
program, was crafted in such a way that it guaranteed
a negative outcome. The US also continued bombing
Iraq in the months leading up to the war while the
inspections were going on - a crass attempt to get
the Iraqis to abandon their commitments, thus lending
a justification for a war. The composition of the
UN inspectors also raised many questions, e.g.,
a Ukrainian UN inspector offered his services to
the Americans after the war started, and another
American inspector was found to be the leader of
a sadomasochistic cult. One should now follow Hans
Blix's career to determine if he also played a less
than honorable role in this futile, and ultimately
deadly charade. Didn't the US nominate him?
[8]
See the definition of the "Hearts and minds thing"
in the War Weasel Word Watch.
This
article is a follow up to Glossary
of Warmongering
Paul
de Rooij is an economist living in London. He does
not spend the whole day glued to the TV - this would
have a detrimental effect on anyone's mental health.
He is grateful for all the snippets forwarded by many
folks. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: attachments are automatically deleted.)
A
War Weasel Word Watch
Entries
with a RF in front of them are from Robert Fisk�s
�The war of misinformation has begun�, The Independent,
March 16, 2003.
| Phrase |
Translation |
| Air
campaign |
Bombardment
of cities. There are no Iraqi airplanes. |
| "Anything
that moves, let them have it" |
And
the civilians too? Command issued by
a British officer on the outskirts of Basra
referring to anything moving in front of
them. -- BBC TV, March 26, 2003. |
| But
certainly the US is going to win |
Why
don't you capitulate right now? The
only question the BBC can ask Iraqi officials. |
| City
falls |
Terminology
used during the Middle Ages. |
| Civilians
fleeing |
The
CNN reason for civilians to flee Basra:
to escape the vicious grip of the meanies.
A reminder to CNN: the city is being bombed,
water supplies have been cut off by British
troops, and there is a lot of shooting and
bombing. |
| Coalition |
US-UK,
but the UK contribution is going to less
than 6% after the current US troop increases.
"Let
me just say that there are a number of
nations in the world that are fully supporting
our efforts, and you heard a number of
them speak at the Security Council the
other day: Spain, the United Kingdom,
Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, the newly independent
nations of the former Soviet Union. [...]
And they do it in the face of public
opposition."
General Colin Powell, Interview on Fox
News Sunday With Tony Snow, March 9, 2003.
(Italics added) www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/18470.htm
NB:
There is no such thing as a coalition of
the unwilling. The silly tautological "coalition
of the willing" is offensive both in its
intent and the abuse of language. Tautology
is as much a give-away of lying as sweat
on the liar's face. |
| Cruise
Control |
"Do
Bush and Blair intend to save Iraqis by
using 'cruise control'?"
-- Comment made by an Iraqi in a BBC Radio
program from Iraq, March 27, 2003.
|
| Decapitation
strike |
No
need to declare war, attack a "target
of opportunity". There is also no need to
consult with Congress either; this one already
handed over its head on a platter. |
| DU
Ammo |
"Coalition
forces are using depleted uranium (DU)
shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately
flouting a United Nations resolution which
classifies the munitions as illegal weapons
of mass destruction.DU contaminates land,
causes ill-health and cancers among the
soldiers using the weapons, the armies
they target and civilians, leading to
birth defects in children.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the
Pentagon's depleted uranium project --
a former professor of environmental science
at Jacksonville University and onetime
US army colonel who was tasked by the
US department of defense with the post-first
Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up
-- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
-- Neil Mackay, US Forces' Use of Depleted
Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal', Sunday
Herald, March 30, 2003.
|
| Embedded
journalist |
The
reason journalism is known as the second
oldest profession.
"The
reporting isn't just embedded; it's in
bed with the Pentagon. And CNN is the
worst of all."
--Jeffrey St. Clair, Life During Wartime,
Counterpunch, March 25, 2003
|
| Fedayeen |
Interpreted
by the various US spokesmodels as "Those
who fight and die for Saddam". It is used
to describe anyone not passively surrendering
to US-UK forces. Also, "irregulars" used
for this purpose for forces in the "pockets
of resistance" to the onslaught. |
| Friendly
fire |
Friendly
fire is the main cause of US-UK fatalities,
but also a means never to admit that the
enemy inflicted damage. The Iraqis must
always be portrayed as bumbling idiots or
criminals - shooting even one US soldier
gives them a tinge of competence. The Iraqis
attacked a convoy of supply trucks using
machine guns and RPGs. However, "friendly
fire" was reported to be the cause for all
the burned out trucks and wounded soldiers.
Didn't the Iraqis even hit one truck? Hmmm� |
| Good
intentions |
"We
want them to realize that we come here
with good intentions"
--British tank commander in a BBC-TV embedded
propaganda piece on March 31, 2003.
Never
mind that the same troops just killed some
people in the town that had just "fallen"
to the British troops.
These statements parallel the justification
for destroying villages in Vietnam, i.e.,
"we destroyed them in order to save them."
Good intentioned Americans have caused barbarous
amount of damage and carnage around the
world. Also, it seems that whatever the
destruction or killing is instantly forgiven
simply because it was well intentioned.
This appeals to all the Christians in the
US and elsewhere. |
| Hearts
and minds thing |
"The
marines were keen to emphasize that, posing
for photographs demanded by the journalists
as they handed sweets to children and
fed military rations chocolate to stray
puppies� 'We have to do the hearts and
minds thing', said Colonel Ben Currie."
-- Andrew Buncombe, The Independent,
March 26, 2003.
|
| Human
shields |
"Civilians
next to the Iraqi forces stationed to
defend the cities. What do they expect,
that the entire Iraqi army moves out of
the cities to defend empty desert?"
-- Cliff Jackson, DoubleStandards.org,
March 28, 03.
|
| Humanitarian
aid |
Justification
for opening the port immediately. Unfortunately,
several thousand truckloads of supplies
are necessary to keep the US forces operating.
Each division consumes 1.5 million gallons
of gasoline per day. Which demand do you
suppose will have priority use of the port?
The first humanitarian cargo ship, the "Sir
Galahad", arrived on March 28th, and over
a hundred journalists were bused in for
the occasion. The supplies were brought
in for propaganda benefit, and are only
a minuscule proportion of the needs in the
area. On March 30th, it was revealed that
more than half the shipment was munitions.
There is very little doubt that the docking
of the ship must have been coordinated by
the military and propagandists. But did
the irony of the name escape them? Sir Galahad
was one of the crusader knights seeking
the Holy Grail.
"�one
[of the] company's greatest weapons is
its humanitarian effort� They know we
are a force for good and that we are here
to help them."
--UK Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Major
Duncan McSporran
|
| Is
it really him? |
An
often-repeated question by BBC or CNN reporters
after a Saddam Hussein speech. Never mind
the content of his speech. |
| Kill
box |
Pacman
warrior terminology. Draw boxes around
enemy positions and exterminate them. |
| Liberation |
Occupation. |
| Military
Experts |
Propagators
of the Pentagon line on TV by retired officers.
They receive official briefings by the Pentagon,
and then attempt to present the war as a
sports event - post-game play-by-play analysis
style.
"The
US military has invaded the US media.
I would like tonight to call for an immediate
removal of all US troops from CBS, NBC,
ABC, Fox, CNN, all of them. US troops
come home!"
-- from Michael Moore's intended Oscar
speech delivered at the Riverside Church,
March 27, 2003.
|
| Oil |
Desperate
means to fund this war. Iraqi Oil exports
will start BEFORE the war ends! |
| Red
line |
Where
finally the Iraqis will use chemical weapons.
The line has been drawn by CNN, not the
Iraqis. |
| RF:
'Allegedly' |
For
all carnage caused by Western forces. |
| RF:
'At last, the damning evidence' |
Used
when reporters enter old torture chambers. |
| RF:
'Inevitable revenge' |
For
the executions of Saddam's Baath party officials
which no one actually said were inevitable. |
| RF:
'Life goes on' |
For
any pictures of Iraq's poor making tea. |
| RF:
'Newly liberated' |
For
territory and cities newly occupied by the
Americans or British. |
| RF:
'Officials here are not giving us much access'
|
A
clear sign that reporters in Baghdad are
confined to their hotels. |
RF:
'Remnants'
aka Pockets of resistance |
Allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still shooting
at the Americans but actually the first
signs of a resistance movement dedicated
to the 'liberation' of Iraq from its new
western occupiers. |
| RF:
'Stubborn' or 'suicidal' |
To
be used when Iraqi forces fight rather than
retreat. |
| RF:
'What went wrong?' |
To
accompany pictures illustrating the growing
anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted. |
| Saddam |
Poor
guy, there is no respect. They even referred
to Hitler by his last name. Proof that Saddam
has been truly demonized is that he is referred
to by his first name. (Granted, there is
some controversy on how his names should
be handled.) |
| Saddam's
fault |
Blame
the victim. If the bombs fall in civilian
areas, then blame Saddam Hussein for putting
military targets in built up areas. |
| Shooting
their own people |
On
March 28th a bomb killed 62+ civilians in
Baghdad. The "coalition" spokesman denied
the responsibility for the bombing. But
surprise, Iraqi forces are now "shooting
their own people" trying to leave cities
"under Saddam's control"! Even for propagandists
sometimes the best defense is an offense. |
| Still
Investigating |
Just
don't want to admit responsibility right
now.
"The
piece of metal is only a foot high, but
the numbers on it hold the clue to the
latest atrocity in Baghdad. At least 62
civilians had died by yesterday afternoon,
and the coding on that hunk of metal contains
the identity of the culprit. The Americans
and British were doing their best yesterday
to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft
missile destroyed those dozens of lives,
adding that they were 'still investigating'
the carnage. But the coding is in Western
style, not in Arabic. And many of the
survivors heard the plane."
-- Robert Fisk, The Independent, March
30, 2003
NB:
the warhead of an anti-aircraft missile
is quite small. By simple deduction, a large
bomb means only one thing. |
| Support
our troops |
No
need to support the war, just our team.
"AP has frequently used the terms 'pro-war'
and 'pro-troops' interchangeably -- a practice
that distorts the views of anti-war demonstrators
and contributes to the media marginalization
of the peace movement."
-- FAIR, March 26, 2003 |
Terrorism
aka looks and feels like terrorism |
Oh,
don't forget that this is a war against
terrorism! In the March 27th press conference,
Bush referred to the guerrilla tactics used
against US troops as terrorism. A top US
general repeated this assertion the following
day.
Any hostile action by regular or irregular
Iraqi forces against an American aggressor
force is NOT terrorism. NB: Iraqis are attacking
soldiers. The Americans are not in a position
to define what is legitimate resistance.
They are also not in a position to specify
where these acts of resistance will take
place. Finally, Iraqi violence now, or during
the past decade, has had nothing to do with
any attack against the US, i.e., 9-11. |
| The
Oscars |
This
is about entertainment. Now shut up. |
There
is still a climate of fear
aka there are still Baath operatives in
the city. |
The
reason why the people don't come out to
shower the invaders with flowers. Supposedly,
the secret police, the Baathists, the military�
instill fear in the population, and they
are fearful to kiss the American soldiers.
Smash the regime, and they will love "us". |
| Tsunami
of democracy |
Democracy
will sweep the Middle East once the flower
blooms in Iraq. The flowers may have to
peer through the rubble first. |
| Uprising
in Basra! |
Military
wishful thinking. They hope there may
be some support for "our" bombing of their
cities. A propaganda stinker safely dispatched
by the Al Jazeera footage. |
| Violation
of Geneva Conventions |
"As
6,000+ Palestinian political prisoners
rot in Israeli prisons, as has been the
norm here for 36 years now, it is ironic
how four US POWs interviewed on TV all
of a sudden become the spark to get the
words 'Geneva Conventions' to be spoken
by US officials."
-- Sam Bahour, Ramallah, Occupied Palestine,
Mar. 26, 2003
|
| War
games |
Oops,
this is not the war we prepared for!
"The
enemy we are fighting is different from
the one we'd wargamed."
-- Lt. General William Wallace, US V Corps.
March 28, 2003.
|
|
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
