posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 03:08 PM
so he says the us is fighting propaganda by countering it... then he calls the counter of propaganda, to be propaganda itself (with no proof of said
then carefully defines what propaganda is...
then determines that IS what the US is doing
then carefully hints at its legality
then offers conclusion based on 0 facts but what he came up with.
sounds like propaganda to me. like he said "rumors, ideas, information deliberately spread to help or harm a person"
all the while he has no examples of said propaganda or counter propaganda... so basically he's spreading an idea and rumors to "influence" people....
you dont have to counter propaganda with propaganda.
1st way to counter it is by having honest journalists, not those distorting an idea, pass it as truth, deem thats what we do, then define whether its
legal or not.
2nd- provide proof. propaganda over.