It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Is Western Propaganda over Georgia Coordinated?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:47 AM
I am a firm believer that Moscow has everything to gain and almost nothing to lose by debunking Western propaganda. Not simply over the Georgian but over all manner of issues.
And I’ve been most impressed by the truthful quality of Russian media coverage throughout Georgia’s war.

Examples of Western Propaganda
The latest war began on the 7th of August when Georgia agreed to a ceasefire, then hours later launched a surprise attack killing between 16,000 and 2000 civilians and also 12 Russian peacekeeping soldiers (there with the legal blessing of the U.N and Georgia state).

1. According to the Daily Telegraph “day 1” of the conflict was the 8th of August
This is significant because it allows it to start it’s timeline with Russian troops “invading” South Georgia.
2. If Propaganda could compete in the Olympics this article would win a bucket load of gold medals.
Because it even describes Russia actions as “unprovoked”. Maybe if 12 American troops had been killed, and if1600 hundred pro-American Mexicans had been killed any American military action would also be unprovoked?

3. unnamed “official” Russia attack disproportionate. The unnamed official is a classic Western propaganda trick, we do not know who they are, what they stand for, or what standards were used to distinguish them from any regular Joe Blobs. I know a London official who works in the stock exchange. Does that qualify him to educate me about Iraq?

The official said Russia is probably trying to destabilize Georgia politically to kill its chances of joining NATO.

“Probably” if anything Mikheil Saakashvili behaviour as a U.S satellite state will embolden Georgia’s chances of joining Nato, and the Kremlin isn’t alone in realising this. “Probably” (in spite of this) Russia is trying to stop Georgia incorporate South Ossetia by force.

P.S. Given the imposed presumption that “Russia is an aggressor and a threat” anyone who runs headlines like “Russia hits back at Nato warning” isn’t exactly a beacon of neutrality. However thanks to the BBC Royal Charter
it is certainly at times one of least biased Western news sources.

[size=18]What Really Happened…

1. Like the Abkhaz of Abkhazia the Ossetians are neither Russians or Georgian. They are both ethnically and culturally distinctive.

2. For both propagandistic and administrational reasons Stalin split Ossetia. He gave the North to Russia and the South to Georgia. The people of course had no say, but it made little (if any) differences to their lives as both areas remained part of the Soviet Union at that time.

3. The current conflict is the Ossetians third war against Georgian occupation: 1918-20, 1991, 2008.

4. The 1991 South Ossetia War ended on June 24th 1992 under the Sochi Agreement:

5. Two past referendums in Ossetia’s Georgian republics have shown (overwhelmingly) that the people favour retaining their independence.
2006 Referendum: 99% voted for independence
In 1992 it was 98% who voted for independence

6. In spite of turbulent politics South Ossetia has enjoyed good relations with Russia for almost 250 years. Many were recently given Russian passports, apparently so they may once again experience the freedom of movement they had under the USSR (i.e. before Georgia’s independence annexed them). Or was it in preparation for Georgia’s attack? Either way these passports helped many refugees reach the refuge they sought.

7. Russian troops never invaded Abkhazia, they are there under U.N resolution GA/10708
They “merely” increased their numbers after Georgia attacked South Ossetia.

In My Opinion…
The Georgians have a nasty populace for them to want to occupy a culturally and ethnically distinct people against those peoples will. It’s hardly like the West where the vast majority of people oppose these actions (even if their governments insist on them).
Everyone would be better of if Georgia left Ossetians decision down to self determination. It might actually prevent another 3 war.

I believe Georgia’s attack was…
1. Insanely foolish due to the Russian numbers they knew they would be against.
2. Treacherous because of the way they were talking peace an hour and a half before.
3. And barbaric since rockets in civilian areas don’t exactly constitute precision guided weapons.

But anyway…
Who’s been co-ordinating the propaganda of this armed conflict in “our” media?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:27 AM
Seeing as Rupert Murdoch owns a whopper chunk of the worlds mainstream media... he is obviously one.

NATO countries are reporting this one from the side of the US/Georgia/NATO. It is highly possible that the NATO officials from each member country are reporting it to their media as they want it to be told, and the media is doing it.

Not all EU countries are reporting it as the Russian being completely in the wrong. There was actually a split in the EU of how to deal with this situation because many know what is actually happening.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:35 AM
Nato, reuters/AP and other western newsfeeds that deliver ready-made pieces for the paper and news, News corp has a lot of media to shove down our throat. And so it goes.

But i have to say that in the Netherlands we rate pretty low on the propaganda scale. No shouting and every bit of news also talks about the Russian side of the story, why they blew their cap of and invaded Georgia (bombing of the S.O. capital. etc) So not every country is being readied for hating Russia. Maybe we have to much money invested in the country, dunno. But in any case it is not going as fast as some hawks in the US would like to it seems. Their power is crumbling and you can see it in the behaviour of the Nato countries not being as harsh as the US would like it. I don't think Georgia will be a Nato member any sooner as before.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:35 AM
I believe there is two sources for media propaganda:

1) AP and Reuters are the main global media portals so to speak, most of the stuff that ends up on the news comes from these two sources originally. Both are rumoured to be under Rothschild control.

2) Editors in media companies, probably connected to some sort of secret society within the illuminati pyramids or actually with family relations to the core bloodlines that run the whole show.

The media never was really all free, from the start the systems were infiltrated and over time swung over to propaganda. Due to compatimentalization and hierarchic command structures everything gets controlled by a small number of people who dedicate themselves to property rights and influence peddling.

It might seem like an impossible task for the layman, but once you read up a bit how things are really set up, it becomes clear that it's actually fairly straightforward, with the really complicated process being silencing the truth which inevitably starts poking it's pretty head everywhere, especially now in the information age. This is where a lot of psychological warfare has to be laid down on the population, so they don't see the truth, even when it is stareing them down in the most obvious of fashions.

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:45 AM
I agree with everyone.
Yes Rupert Murdoch does control News Corporation. [size12]See its holdings here:
It’s a disgrace that they can own so much opinion forming-information delivering media. And once more they are only one media empire; for example Time Inc

These put to shame the idea we are a “free country,” or that “brave men and women die for our country”. No sadly, they die for the state, and when you look at their propaganda over “little” things like…
1. Having a war with Iraq
2. Making England remain part of the EU, and 25 out of 26 nations sign a Lisbon Treaty 95% similar to the (rejected by referendum) EU Constitution
Only for Respect “for the us the masses” to be saved at the last minute by the technical democracy of Ireland. Lisbon Treaty:
3. Support Israel’s establishment, then it in it’s (largely compensation free conquest) of Palestinian lands-private property, all of course justified because it was their's like 2000 years ago!!!
It has only resulted in the holy 1 to 9 death ratio between well armed migrant Israelis (who I believe have also frequently seen their own arrival in Israel as a "pilgrimage" towards The Holy Sand, whoops, err, did I say Holy Sand?, oh I meant “Holy Land” (a phrase it would seem well used in Bush’s vocabulary:
4. Using your taxpayer’s money to fund military expenditure, to fund the stock exchange, to create investment opportunities for their pointless cash, so that they may donate a fraction of this to the stability of the political system.

Then you realise that the difference between living in a “free country”, and “freed state” really matter.

But all in perspective…
How they educate-inform people through news companies is "only" real life brainwashing. Politics doesn’t really matter when you realise there is not much you can do about it apart from know the truth. This is one of the good things about the state we live in. The fact that they publish the truth with confidence because they know it will fly over most peoples heads. This is what makes us stand out from "aggressive dictatorships" such as the old Soviet Union; although sadly it is (aside from economic wealth) one of very few things that does mark us out.
Even so i'm glad we are in a wealthy system.
I guess that's better than no wealth at all. Well providing of course we use our wealth wisely, which of course we always we can.

Don't know about you but politics is little more than a entertaining theoretical science: With never ending drama, that may some day ask you to fight a war, destroy the earths climate by denying you any great impact on it, or just demand a very small amount of your income to fund various unholy operations.


log in