It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Bad Intelligence" - "Americans, it would seem, are the ideal audience for propagandists..."

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Could I be wrong here? But did these chants not happen after the US threatened Iran YET again?

A reaonable response I think. Also the context, If the US invades then "death to America". DO you really beleive that all Iran wants to do is kill America? Grow up.




posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Siroos

Thanks for the post. Great work, far more than I could piece together at once but very true. Im glad that someone else see the real goals of this "war." As for Iran, Im sure you have a good picture of the current state but to add. I have been in Iraq for about five months now and seen a large unreported funding and support network for insurgents by Iran. One has to asume the US nows about it, right? Well we(army) arent doing a thing about. Its not even on our radar. Whats that about? Im not saying we are directly supporting Iran but we sure aren't working asgainst its will on this point. Its like the US government needs unrest here in Iraq to support a growth in forces that will only be used to lock down Iran in the future.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
Siroos

Thanks for the post. Great work, far more than I could piece together at once but very true. Im glad that someone else see the real goals of this "war." As for Iran, Im sure you have a good picture of the current state but to add. I have been in Iraq for about five months now and seen a large unreported funding and support network for insurgents by Iran. One has to asume the US nows about it, right? Well we(army) arent doing a thing about. Its not even on our radar. Whats that about? Im not saying we are directly supporting Iran but we sure aren't working asgainst its will on this point. Its like the US government needs unrest here in Iraq to support a growth in forces that will only be used to lock down Iran in the future.


Dear Dirk - It's hard for me to believe that Iran would support the insurgents. Iran has much more to gain from the largely Shia controlled Iraqi government since it consists of many pro-Iranian elements. The insurgents are also very anti-Iranian as they largely consist of 1) Pro-Saddam loyalists 2) Anti-Shia Sunnis 3) Anti-Iranian and anti-Shia Al Qaida supporters. What kind of evidence have you seen that makes you conclude of Iran's involvement? I'm curious to know since you are there.

It's also hard for me to believe that the Iranian regime would engage in such a risky venture, since the U.S. could use it as a very good reason to attack Iran. One thing is for sure - Althoug the U.S. covertly supported and favored the current Iranian theocracy in the past, that is certainly not the case anymore. The Iranian regime was beneficial for the U.S. as long as it kept Iran in the dark. But with the years as it grew more progressive and pragmatic, the U.S. also grew more and more uneasy with it. For example, the U.S. virtually ignored the Iranian opposition' s calls for U.S. condemnation of Iran's human right's violations. I know, because back then I was in the Iranian opposition. The U.S. paid more attention to flies than to us. And yet in those days - the days when the revolutionary ideals where still burning with passion, and the radicalism of the regime matched it - repression was wide spread. Nobody in Iran dared to utter a word about politics. In the homes of people, they had art paintings or family portraits hanging on the walls with Ayatollah Khomeini's picture on the back of it, so that if someone knocked on the door, they would quickly turn the portrait or painting around so that the Ayatollah's portrait would show. Family members where afraid of each other as children were taught in school to spie on their own parents and siblings! That's the kind of repression we had back then.

Today, in comparison, restrictions as far as how women and men should dress are FAR, FAR less rigid. Iranian women dress fashionably and just throw a loose fitting scarf around their head. They wear makeup, high heels, tight fitting clothes and hold the hands of their boyfriends. In the past the so called "morale police" would scare the hell of people. People would run in panick as they spotted a jeep of the "morale police" and they would seek refuge in shops or cinemas, etc. I the past they would stop cars in the streets of Iran's cities and search for audio casette tapes of "unsuitable music", or they would ask for a marriage license if you were accompanied by a female in your car. Any violations could bring severe punishments. No such things anymore in today's Iran. If you would pick up an Iranian newspaper in Iran today, you will find how common it is for the editors and journalists to openly criticize many of the policies of the government in the harshest manners - In those days such things were unheard of.

So it's very disturbing to see that the U.S. TOTALLY ignored the Iranian opposition in those days when we really had reason to oppose the regime because of its immense repression, and today when Iran has changed so much for the better and become a much, much more open society, and a society where the citizens are enjoying more and more democratic and political freedoms than ever before - a time when so many Iranians feel so much hope for a better future and a real democratic, free and developed Iran - at such a time the U.S. shows its determination to harass Iran, to attack and invade Iran or to change the regime in Iran.

You can compare Iran today to the Soviet Union of Ghorbachov, and Iran back then to the Soviet Union of Stalin. If we compare the U.S. behaviour to Iran during these two different periods to the two periods of stalinism and the perestrojka of the Soviet Union, it would as if the U.S. kept quiet and ignored the Russian anti-communist opposition during the Stalinist era, but threatened Ghorbachov's reform friendly Soviet Union with a military attack, invasion and regime change as the official policy of the U.S. towards the Soviet Union of Ghorbachov, and a full scale support of different anti-Soviet dissident groups! That's a very good comparison actually.

As Iran today has achieved tremendous progress in developing the country and has great and very realistic ambitions of transforming Iran into a very vibrant and advanced country - economically, industrially, scientifically and culturally, the U.S. has adopted a direct and GENUINE confrontational and hostile stance towards Irain and is determined to undermine her in one way or another, or to replace the regime with a puppet regime similar to those in Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, etc.

IF there is any kind of Iranian involvement in Iraq's insurgency, I'm certain that it is not the policy or actions of the Iranian regime, but possibly of certain very radical elements within the establishment who are not following the official line of the Iranian regime.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Siroos

The insurgent movement is by far a small element here. You're very corect too in the linking support here. Its true the US gains more if the major group here(shiites) dont gain control for their goals of Islamic law in tune with Iran. I guess I should define insurgent here. The support we are seeing is for local thugs and gangs not anti-US groups.

Iran's support is more an inroads into the power base of local government. The unrest isnt just againist the US but the US back Iraqi government. I guess Im saying that our forces arent focusing on that. It would seem if the US truly wanted to a stable government it would focus it efferts on this support network. The question is why we arent.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
Siroos

The insurgent movement is by far a small element here. You're very corect too in the linking support here. Its true the US gains more if the major group here(shiites) dont gain control for their goals of Islamic law in tune with Iran. I guess I should define insurgent here. The support we are seeing is for local thugs and gangs not anti-US groups.

Iran's support is more an inroads into the power base of local government. The unrest isnt just againist the US but the US back Iraqi government. I guess Im saying that our forces arent focusing on that. It would seem if the US truly wanted to a stable government it would focus it efferts on this support network. The question is why we arent.


Ok, now it makes sense. Yes, that is how the U.S. government works. They need chaos and instability so that they can have an excuse for their hidden agendas which they can use as a pretext for invasions, military bases, knocking out the entire infrastructure of a country, etc, etc. So instead of preventing the chaos and instability they will instead either somehow - usually covertly - promote it, or just look the other way. My suspicion for the next phase of the U.S. involvement in Iraq is that the U.S. will somehow want a limited civil war which will create more chaos, knock out stabilizing Iraqi elements that may benefit Iran and a possible independent future Iraq, but more importantly create a new geo-political landscape which will directly threaten Iran and Turkey and involve these two powerful countries in a regional world war. I'm ofcourse talking about the U.S. agenda of creating an independent Kurdistan in Iraq. Something which will definitely not benefit Iran, and something which the Turks will not "allow". I think this is one of the plans the U.S. has for the region, and right now it's waiting to see what will happen in Iran, and assessing when, if and exactly how this next phase of the U.S. agenda will be implemented and carried out.

We know already that the U.S. actively is supporting anti-Iranian etnic separatists, like Mahmoud Chehregani and his separatist network who seeks to instigate a civil war in Iran which will result in that Iran will be cut up into several smaller countries, while other areas of Iran will be annexed to neighboring countries. What the U.S. fails to understand here with its faulty intelligence, is that Iran is not Iraq or Turkey. Although Iran has many different sub-cultures and ethnic groups, the vast majority of these people regards themselves as Iranian - and rightfully so since they are Iranian and have been for most of the past thousands of years. The truth is that most of the ethnic groups in the neighboring countries also are Iranian peoples who have been cut off from the motherland Iran by colonialist powers such as Britain and Russia. The Kurds are such an Iranian group.

The U.S. thrives on conflicts, chaos, instability and unrest - That is how the U.S. prepares the ground so to say to come in and pretend to be the "Liberator" which delivers "freedom" and "democracy" or fights the "war on terror". That is the tragic and sad truth.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
I think Iran is the goal. The US public will never be given the real reasons, ie its moving towards freedom without the US and will become regional powerhouse. Here's an outlook that would force the US to act in Iran. As for propandist, they do very well in the US. Most of US history after WWII is spent hiding the thousands of people the US has killed.
Iran: A Bridge Too Far?

by Mark Gaffney - Information Clearing House October 26, 2004

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


Dirk - You have a VERY realistic view on the current affairs of the U.S. in regards to Iran! I'm really happy and impressed to see that there are people like you out there (non-Iranians) who see things for what they are! Thank you! And stay safe! The world needs people like you.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Siroos

Hey, thanks for the breakdown. I never really put Turkey into the picture as such. Thats make more sense, I never could get why we helped to kill Kurds in Turkey in the 90s. Keep up the great work.

Side note, Im big on this "pipeline" thing, if you have anything on that please U2U me if you have the time. Thanks



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
First of all you have no evidence or proof that Iran is trying to obtain any nukes. Iran has the lawful right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.


I'm all for that. As long as they make it clear and open it is for peaceful purposes only.



And then, you have to learn to separate between crowds of anti-American radical demonstrators in the streets of Tehran from the parliament and government of Iran.


I provided you with evidence, twice, that they were shouting death to America IN parliament. You made, and continue to make no comment whatsoever on that article out of London.



We cannot say that the U.S. should be attacked and forbidden to have nukes because you have KKK followers burning crosses in the U.S., or evangelic preachers who spread anti-Islamic hate propaganda.


Fortunately, they have no sway over the government. Bush used the evangelicals like a street whore, and cast them aside when they served their purpose.



But those radical Iranians who want to chant "Death to America" and burn American flags have as much right to do so as the Americans in the U.S. who have bumber stickers reading "Nuke Iran!" or whom I in person saw burning Iranian flags on the streets when I was visiting.


Sorry, but I have an extremely hard time believing that happened. I have never, in my 28 years of life, seen "nuke Iran" on anything, or seen an American burning an Iranian flag, ever. Where did you visit? And where did you see an American burning an Iranian flag? Most Americans have no knowledge, propaganda or otherwise, about Iran to feel strongly enough to burn their flag or call for nuking them. Closest thing I can remember were T-shirts in the eighties that had a picture of Khomeni and said "Ayatollah Assahola". It was a joke, not a threat of death to him.



There is ample information available on the internet on American travellers to Iran who describe how amazed they were to find that the Iranian people were so incredibly friendly towards them, including priests and revolutionary corps guards.


I don't doubt it. I never said I had anything against the Iranian people. I hope they continue to modernize and prosper as they have been doing. I just hope the fundamentalist leaders lose power to the reformists sooner rather than later.



To be honest with you, most of the misunderstanding is on the U.S. side - Not on the U.S. government's side, but on the U.S. public's side. Americans just have an EXTREMELY false and twisted image of Iran and Iranians. That is why so many Americans who come to Iran are so tremendously pleasantly surprised!


If Americans had the twisted image that all Iranians wanted us dead, why the heck would they go to Iran? To commit suicide? No. Obviously we don't have as twisted an image as you think, or we wouldn't be in the position to be pleasantly surprised upon arrival.



While there are many, many knowledgable and enlightened Americans, I must say from experience that the vast majority of Americans do not have much knowledge at all about other countries, culture, people, politics, and in particular world affairs.


It's not because we are dumber than everybody else in the world, but because the education system here is not that great. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that summed it up nicely, and it didn't say "Nuke Iran!", it said, "It will be a great day when schools have all the money they need, and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber". Americans do not choose not to be knowledgeable, many just can't afford it and don't have time to read while making ends meet.



Iranians in general have no hostile feelings towards America as a nation and as a culture, and instead acknowledge the tremendously positive achievements of the U.S.A., and have great admiration for those positive achievements.


And I don't know any Americans that have hostile feelings toward Iran, just fear that your fanatical religious government will obtain nuclear weapons and one may end up in the hands of those who do have hostile feelings towards us. If those fears are unfounded, it's not because your government is trying to make it clear they are not hostile towards us. Again, they (parliament) did shout death to America in parliament, go back and read the article.



We just want the U.S. to cease its bullying, interference, and oppressive policies in the world.


I want the same thing, but I do not want more nuclear weapons to share the planet I live on, and I want the ones that already to exist to cease existing. Peace on earth will not be possible if everybody has nuclear weapons. If Iran is not trying to make them, hopefully they will allow the U.N. full access to nuclear facilities and Bush and his idiot cronies will have no reason to bother Iran, and it can continue to grow unhindered. I would like to visit Iran one day.



Yes, I agree, but I repeat that it's a tiny, tiny minority of very radical groups who guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. And the regime in Iran does not condone it. The regime in Tehran knows that the U.S. and Israel will use such behaviour in its propaganda against Iran.


But I showed you that was false, the conservative majority in parliament does voice it's desire for death to America. If the source I provided you is wrong, please tell me how. I would like to believe it isn't true that any governing body could be so inflamatory as to call for the death of an entire nation.


cjf

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   


It's hard for me to believe that Iran would support the insurgents





AP Nov 29, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran -- The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: Train for suicide attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, for suicide attacks against Israelis or to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie.

It looked at first glance like a gathering on the fringes of a society divided between moderates who want better relations with the world and hard-line Muslim militants hostile toward the United States and Israel.

But the presence of two key figures -- a prominent Iranian lawmaker and a member of the country's elite Revolutionary Guards -- lent the meeting more legitimacy and was a clear indication of at least tacit support from some within Iran's government.

Full AP Article
or...Iran Recruits 10,000 for Jihad against US, Israel
or...another
The are many more instance of this occuring in Iran private and under the eye of the regime.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
Siroos

Hey, thanks for the breakdown. I never really put Turkey into the picture as such. Thats make more sense, I never could get why we helped to kill Kurds in Turkey in the 90s. Keep up the great work.

Side note, Im big on this "pipeline" thing, if you have anything on that please U2U me if you have the time. Thanks


Dirk - I sure will look up some info about the pipelines for you. It's amazing how this whole pipeline thing has vanished as if it never was an issue. For someone who is very familiar with that whole vast region, one cannot forget what an incredibly important issue it was prior to 9/11. It was one Americas greatest foreign policy concerns at the time.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
the Iranians are very smart about how their foreign policy with the world. no doubt they want nuclear tech but is it for energy or more? maybe its response to Israel's nukes. but we dont know y now instead of long time ago. what is Iran's intentions? just energy? or the total annihilation of Israel which has been Iran's top priority. if that is it, and if somehow the Israelis find out then the ME is in big trouble now.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Siroos
First of all, I repeat again - The Iranian parliament has not chanted "Death to America" - At least not in the last 15 years.


Once again I ask you to explain this, dated 5/28/2004, please:



TEHRAN -- In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.

In a speech to legislators, reformist Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari accused the clerics of the Guardian Council of acting without justification when it barred candidates from running in the election.

A number of conservative legislators shouted in protest, and, in a bid to end the bickering, hardline legislator Mahdi Kouchakzadeh asked parliament to condemn the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"To attract the attention of everybody to what is our main task, I invite you to pray for the devastation of the American belligerent occupiers," he said.

Fellow conservatives responded by chanting "Death to America."

It was a sign of how much the new parliament, in which conservatives hold about 180 of 290 seats, differs from the previous one, dominated by reformists. Before, only a few would have shouted anti-American slogans.
www.canoe.ca...


Anyone who is familiar with the segment of some very conservative elements in the Iranian parliament would know that these slogans are nothing more than slogans. Also, in Persian saying "Death to..." does not imply that one plans to or wants to kill someone. It's a symbolic manner of speech indicating one's opposition to someone or something. It can be equaled to "Down with..." So I wouldn't take it so seriously. I understand that it comes across as very threatening and un-diplomatic, but there is no threat involved, and undiplomatic it is indeed - That I agree with. But you have to understand that Iran is in the process of shedding it first layer of revolutionary skin so to speak. Even the majority of conservatives today are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives of 15 years ago. There are some "fossiles" left from the old days, but they are rendered powerless. However, these fossiles do take advantage of the U.S. harrassment of Iran and the threats against Iran.

At a time when Iran had shown ample evidence of goodwill toward the U.S. and was adopting an increasingly friendly stance towards the U.S., and warming up to the idea of a dialogue which could possibly lead to the re-establishment of diplomatic ties between the two nations, Bush jr suddenly declared that Iran was a member of the "axis of evil". And from that point he launched a vicious campaign against Iran, spreading misinformation about Iran and outright threatened Iran. Up to that point even the most conservative elements within the Iranian establishment distanced themselves from any harsh anti-American statements.

These most conservative elements have now lost all trust in the U.S. as they have seen that Iran which had nothing to do with Al Qaida or any anti-American terrorist attacks, and which was minding its own business and even increasingly year after year showed more good will towards gradually establishing friendly relations with the U.S., and witnessed how instead the U.S. unprovoked started to provoke Iran by first making it a member of the "axis of evil", and then harrassing and threatening it over and over again.



[edit on 30-4-2005 by 27jd]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
Anyone who is familiar with the segment of some very conservative elements in the Iranian parliament would know that these slogans are nothing more than slogans. Also, in Persian saying "Death to..." does not imply that one plans to or wants to kill someone. It's a symbolic manner of speech indicating one's opposition to someone or something. It can be equaled to "Down with..." So I wouldn't take it so seriously.


Thank you for at least acknowledging that they did say it. I'll take your word for it that 'death to' doesn't mean literally. But being as we're not aware of that Persian symbolism here, you can see why many Americans feel threatened. And I agree with you that the Saudis and some elements in Pakistan likely hate us more, but it takes away from the focus on those who are more discreet when the Bush administration can so easily point to those who are shouting for our deaths, even if symbolic.



At a time when Iran had shown ample evidence of goodwill toward the U.S. and was adopting an increasingly friendly stance towards the U.S., and warming up to the idea of a dialogue which could possibly lead to the re-establishment of diplomatic ties between the two nations, Bush jr suddenly declared that Iran was a member of the "axis of evil". And from that point he launched a vicious campaign against Iran, spreading misinformation about Iran and outright threatened Iran. Up to that point even the most conservative elements within the Iranian establishment distanced themselves from any harsh anti-American statements.


Well, hopefully we'll get back on that track as soon as Bush is gone. And just as you advised me not to worry to much about what those in parliament say, I advise you not to take so seriously what Bush has said. In case you haven't noticed, their focus is no longer so much on terrorism or the threat of Iran, but on social security and Bush's nominations. They no longer have to frighten people into voting for them. Of course they're still sure to maintain a certain fear level to attempt to secure the next election for the conservatives, but nowhere near as much as before the elections. I doubt there will be any attack on Iran, the American people want their soldiers home from the current war, not starting a whole new one. I just hope Iran doesn't pursue nuclear weapons, and that their nuclear program is indeed peaceful. Even if what you say is true and your leaders don't mean 'death to' literally, we don't need anymore nuclear weapons on earth. We need far less, preferably none. If every nation on earth is entitled to nuclear weapons and every nation obtains them, it is a certainty that nuclear weapons will be used in the future. The chances are high enough right now. Earth needs to get back on the road to non-proliferation, and hopefully one day we will reach a point in time where nukes no longer exist. I agree with Kofi Annan, who recently stated:



All nations must work toward "a world of reduced nuclear threat and, ultimately, a world free of nuclear weapons"
www.cnn.com...












[edit on 5-5-2005 by 27jd]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

I just hope Iran doesn't pursue nuclear weapons, and that their nuclear program is indeed peaceful. Even if what you say is true and your leaders don't mean 'death to' literally, we don't need anymore nuclear weapons on earth. We need far less, preferably none. If every nation on earth is entitled to nuclear weapons and every nation obtains them, it is a certainty that nuclear weapons will be used in the future. The chances are high enough right now. Earth needs to get back on the road to non-proliferation, and hopefully one day we will reach a point in time where nukes no longer exist. I agree with Kofi Annan, who recently stated:


Well, a good start would be if the nuclear countries who signed the non-proliferation treaty live up to what the treaty requires them to do, which is to begin disarming. Instead the U.S. is moving in the other direction and expanding its arsenals and developing new weapons, and by doing so violating the treaty, at the same time as it accuses Iran for having vioalated the treaty without having any proof or evidence.

I'm totally for a nuclear free world. However, one can't achieve such a world by provoking countries, starting wars, threatening to attack....etc, -- This will just give non-nuclear countries that feel threatened even more reason to desire WMD themselves.










[edit on 5-5-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   


I'm totally for a nuclear free world. However, one can't achieve such a world by provoking countries, starting wars, threatening to attack....etc, -- This will just give non-nuclear countries that feel threatened even more reason to desire WMD themselves.


Well I decided to resurrect this thread because it is still very Relevant! Siroos - I have enjoyed your posts on this thread - especially the above quote - this "Revolving Cycle" seems to be exactly what is happening! Israel feels threatened by Iran's growing "Nuclear Capability" which then brings US/U.S. into the picture - which then makes Iran feel threatened - which in turn makes them feel as if they need the advantage of Nuclear Capability now more then ever - which only makes Israel/U.S. want to "Preemptively Attack" them more them ever!

Indeed this Propaganda has already begun to Flow in the U.S. Media = the threat of an Israeli & "Allied Backed" Invasion of Iran. Here is the thing however - it feels to me as if we have seen this Movie already! OH yes I know - it is called "IRAQ"! I still remember before we Invaded Iraq in 2003 reading in the newspapers: "Iraq has NUCLEAR WEAPONS". This - as we all now know - turned out to be nothing but *PURE PROPAGANDA* radiating from a News Media in which the U.S. Government is in Total Control - being used as a Tool to control Public Opinion! Now we are hearing the very same stuff about Iran. I don't know about you all - but after the way Iraq turned out I don't really have that much confidence in OUR OWN Intelligence Capabilities! What is wrong with Diplomacy any way? I feel that the Iranian people are good people - it is just their Insane Fundamentalist Religion driven Government that is the problem! We should be more focused on Promoting an internal Coup rather than Threats of Invasion of you ask me personally! What do you guys think?

[edit on 9-12-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Yes, America has been duped, to the most extreme.

But be honest, was there anything they could do?

Media is the key.. obviously.

Think about it, in the lead up to the iraqi war.. Fox, CNN, and all other major outlets were reporting solidly on the 'pro' war stance.
Thank murdoch for that.

Regardless of waht the people thought, said or wanted...
The media still picked the right people to say the righ tthings, and selected WHAT stories to run, and what presidential speacehs to say.


Hell, every member of the public could of been AGAINST the iraq war..
but the TV was the judge, jury and executioner in this argument.

Its not the publics FAULT.. its clearly the governments fault.

They saw 911 coming, they allowed it to happend, they used to horror of that event to turn american feelings against possible threats.. they presented false evidence declaring a nation a threat, then they acted on it.

simple.

Now, when this plan has gotten COMPLETELY out of hand, and the powers that decided to execute it, hav realised.

'' jesus, we have really messed up.. there's NO answer to this monster we've unleashed ''

But jesus... your so in the crapper, you cant just leave and think hey we've gone that'll solve our problem.

The ARab would hates America.

AND RIGHTLY SO!

all they have seen are the lies, the dead women childeren, and President GW on the TV, smirking.... spouting total rhetoric painting them.. as the enemy.

America was duped.
But your aware now.

If you dont take action, and publically execute your president and his men for this HANEOUS, DELIBERATE LIE which resulted in a NATIONS DEMISE.,.. the world will never forgive you.

because ALLOWING these men to continue in power, to continue on this murderous trek, shows complicity.

Your allowing them to continue doing it, and in the end you will become liable.

America needs to BEG Forgiveness if it has ANY hope of gaining back the moral superiority it achieved after ww2.

You need to FOCUS your ecnoomy on RESTORING This nation you have obliterated.

You need to SET SADDAM FREE, apologise, and prey to god he has enough clout left to control this civil war.

it sounds drastic,but jesus...

you really have NO OTHER OPTIONS.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I've been reading this thread, and I think the OP's point has been proved amply by most of the responses. I was particularly glad to see that the pathetic propaganda surrounding the shooting down of the Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes was nailed. There was no excuse for that barbarous act, and if another country's ship had shot down a US plane there would have been hell to pay.

It's sad, but the number of American citizens who understand the extent to which their media is pure propaganda is tiny. All this stuff about Iranian nukes continues, despite the fact that the CIA have said they're a minimum of ten years from acquiring the technology.

What is clear is that there is a propaganda campaign going on against Iran right now, and US citizens are falling for it yet again. Bush wants to break out the nuclear bunker-busters, not content with having contaminated most of Iraq with depleted uranium, which will cause birth defects for ... well, the foreseeable future there.

It's sad, but American citizens are too used to seeing the words "Pentagon sources say..." and "White House sources say..." followed by the most outrageous BS... and they swallow it every time. The US media never fact-checks any of this stuff, they just report it blandly and obediently, usually coated in some patriotic sugar.

At least most of us in the UK have a healthy suspicion of our politicians, although propaganda is still in evidence here, it's a lot more insidious and subtle... but once you wake up to it, you can still see it.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   


despite the fact that the CIA have said they're a minimum of ten years from acquiring the technology.


You see this is EXACTLY what I am talking about! I have heard this mentioned in the Media *ONLY ONCE* by *ONE ANALYST* - the majority of the Talk goes in the opposite Direction = Threats of Attacking Iran! Is it me or are the people who are (or at least were) in Power in America really just acting like Immature little kids? Listen I don't like Iran's Government either - but saying that you will not talk to them because you don't want to reward "Bad Behavior"? Now you are treating THEM like little kids & acting like you are the World's "Daddy" or something! More than a little foolish if you ask me! Lets just talk Directly with Iran & cut a deal with them! Who knows maybe the current Regime will get Overthrown anyway - which would give us even more leeway (especially if the new Government is Moderate & we recognize it as legitimate right away)!

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join