Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by tyreay

I knew you were going to say that. I don't actually think you are a liar. I do think you are brainwashed though. I did the search again(suicice bombs april 13 2203), just to see if anything has changed. I found a bunch of opinion blogs and this:
As the fog of war lifts, the propaganda model followed by the United States to sell the US-Iraq War is now clear, and the best way to understand this campaign is to consider it as psychological warfare against the US population.

The US-Iraq war started years ago, but it was only in Sept. 2002 that a decision was made to finish the job, and the hot war phase started on Mar. 19, 2003 [3]. It was in mid-September that the US sought to pass a UN resolution with onerous conditions attempting to elicit an outright Iraqi rejection, and thus create a trigger for war [4]. Unfortunately for the US, several Security Council members objected to the purpose of the proposed resolution and forced its watering down, resulting in UNSCR 1441. It is important to view the ongoing bombing campaign against Iraq in this context.
The bombing campaign beginning in September 2002 was meant to provoke the Iraqis to reject the UN resolution--which would have given the US the needed pretext for the war.

After Nov. 2002, public diplomacy sputtered along until it was completely replaced by the war drummers after Feb. 6, 2003 -- when Powell ineffectively accused Iraq of violating UNSCR 1441 in his address to the UN Security Council. From that point, it was clear that war was inevitable, and no further attempts were made to justify the war in a serious way. The justification phase was simply over, and it was time for the war-drummers to take over.

Targeting the home population.

When one thinks of "psychological warfare operations" (psyops), one thinks of airplanes dispensing leaflets over Iraqi army positions, but it also encompasses threatening, starving, and even terrorizing the enemy population. Psyops is meant to instill deep fear and defeatism. The implements of such psyops are blunt, transparent, and of questionable effectiveness. One generally doesn't think of psychological warfare as something waged against the home population; but this is perhaps the best way to appreciate the US experience during the past few months. The objective of such a campaign was to stifle dissent, garner unquestioning support, and rally people around a common symbol. Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, have been subjected to a propaganda barrage in an effort to neutralize opposition to the war, and this fits directly into a psyops framework.

Psyops appeal to the base human behavior of large groups. In the case of the enemy, fear and even terror are likely to achieve the desired results. In the case of the home population, it is the stoking of jingoism, the "we-ism" in the crowd, the intimidation of dissent-- and the fear factor is there too. The American flag acreage on display everywhere is a clear manifestation that we are dealing with psyops targeting the home population.

Psyops specialists know that one of the strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our" team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding" of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced anti-war movement.

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down. Some at the Pentagon must have been upset at this because the US armory had upgraded much of the video capability of its weapons. The "smart weapons" had been upgraded to "smart multimedia weapons". Alas, the images generated from these weapons are now mostly meant to make Rumsfeld chuckle. Ah! one can only imagine him watching these with Wagner playing in the background!

Another dubious claim is that regarding the discovery of a "suicide-belt factory"--with the suicide outfits neatly hung in dry cleaner's plastic. This is a rather absurd story, for the simple reason that suicide bombing was a concept foreign to Saddam Hussein's "regime". Some of the foreign volunteers fighting in Iraq may have been so disposed, but it is difficult to imagine their setting up such a factory. The propagandists seem to want to have it both ways: on the one hand Iraqi soldiers must be threatened by enforcer squads in order to coerce soldiers to fight, but on the other hand, some people are so motivated that they are willing to die for the "regime". It is highly unlikely that this story is legitimate, and it was produced to provide another after the fact anti-terrorism justification.

There is perhaps a simple proof that the suicide-belt story was a sham. If the story were true, then we would have heard it repeated many times over. Journalists would have been allowed to inspect this a bit closer. But the story disappeared in no time, and indicating that it had served its purpose. It is also curious to see the faces of some of the same soldiers reappear in several of these seemingly staged events. One of the soldiers in the suicide-belt factory seems to be the same one showing off a tacky poster in one of the palaces.
The emergence of a general rule: If a "news" item about a grotesque aspect of the regime, WMD, or terrorism, appears on TV for a day or two and then disappears, it is safe to bet that it is a fabrication. Similarly, if the reporter from such a story is not identified, then you are watching another fabrication.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05142003.html

---------------------------------------------------
I told you at the beginning of this thread that psyc-ops has actually admitted to making up stories and then you posted the Army link, which is really just someone's oninion, anyway.
Then when I ask you for something other than another opinion you get upset and self righteous. I have never seen anyone use a paste and post opinion and not have who they are arguing with, question the source. Come on. If I did that you would be livid.


This graph tells a different tale than you believe.

Originally Posted by alias

I prefer to defend my country in war after being attacked so viciously and savagely by terrorists.

Originally Posted by alias

I told you I saw it on the news during the invasion. Either you are calling me a liar or not.

Originally Posted by tyreay

There is perhaps a simple proof that the suicide-belt story was a sham. If the story were true, then we would have heard it repeated many times over. Journalists would have been allowed to inspect this a bit closer. But the story disappeared in no time, and indicating that it had served its purpose. It is also curious to see the faces of some of the same soldiers reappear in several of these seemingly staged events. One of the soldiers in the suicide-belt factory seems to be the same one showing off a tacky poster in one of the palaces.
The emergence of a general rule: If a "news" item about a grotesque aspect of the regime, WMD, or terrorism, appears on TV for a day or two and then disappears, it is safe to bet that it is a fabrication. Similarly, if the reporter from such a story is not identified, then you are watching another fabrication.http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05142003.html (and by the way Counterpunch has no terrorist ties as much as you would like that)

Originally Posted by alias

Just like in times past when America was at war and others did not choose to help out, we will continue the mission and accomplish it in spite of your complacency.

Originally Posted by alias

The truth is the truth and you still have not denied my claim. You prove me a liar.

Originally Posted by tyreay

This has to do with Iraq in what way? The terrorists were all from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Defending our country in Iraq, against terrorists, is not what we were doing, until we invited all the terrorists there to attack our boys. I would also point out that insurgents(Iraqi's who don't want us there because of our inability to really help them), who now use terroristic tactics, are not part of any of these groups you hate so much. I now believe you saw it. (Sorry I called you a liar, but your unwillingness to actually try and provide some proof, for so many of your posts in this thread, led me to believe this. Now that you have shown some type of support for your statement I atleast know you think it is true.) None of this changes the fact that I question the 'paper' and the evidence presented to support it. There is alot of evidence against it being the truth which I guess you refuse to consider or even look at. Evidently you didn't read my last post or you would get this. I'll put it in here again:A true American is concerned with this country's future, the safety of our boys and what the rest of the world thinks we are doing, and is not just prooccupied with defending the current administration's questionable, at best, actions. Oh, you mean like the revolutionary war when we spoke up against injustices in the government(starting with the boston tea party)? Sounds an awful lot like you have something to do with this directly. Are you actually part of this mission or are you just feeling important?
It is true that the truth is the truth and I am not out to prove you are a liar. I would point out that your certainty, that you proved your point to be the truth, is flawed. It has nothing to do with 'liberals always discount sources when they lose arguments so this is no surprise'. It has to do with the facts as you presented them and the only source you insist on using and nothing else. If you would show me a creditable source I would probably be inclined to believe you, and state that I stand corrected.
Also it would be nice to hear how you feel about us using dirty bombs, and if you support this action what your reasoning is. Now I have asked nicely. Please, will you now respond to this question, or will you just change the subject again?

Originally Posted by alias

You are the one having a problem with definitions. You will not accept the fact that Iraq by being in numerous UN violations and supplying bomb vests to the Pals and money and the oil for food program was a destabilizating factor in the Middle East. That's your opionion and that's fine.

What I said and what I saw is the truth, accept it or not. You can't accept it because then your agenda of Iraq not being a terrorist state falls flat. What is a credible source to you? NBC, CBS, the New York Times, CNN? I don't really care any more. I'm off on vacation for a couple days. See ya later and try to find a credilbe source.

Originally Posted by alias

Do you want the USA to win the war or not? Do you just want us to get out and let happen whatever happens? Explain to me what your goal is in Iraq so I know where you stand.

Where was the German aggression against the USA? The Germans never bombed us or attacked us? Why did we fight them?

Originally Posted by ETO Buff

I actually found this thread while I was searching for something else, but one thing caught my eye, and I would like to respond to it. The above question was asked, and since World War II in Europe is my avocation (hence my user name and e-mail address), I would like to answer it.

Germany's aggression against the U.S. officially began on 11 Dec 1941 when Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States during a session of the Reichstag. Following that, there were multiple U-boat attacks on land targets on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast, as well as sinkings of several civilian ships. U-boats also continued to attack and sink thousands of tons of U.S. shipping, which they had begun in 1940.

All of this is in addition to the espionage Germany was conducting in the U.S., as well as the brief financing of the American Nazi Party, until the assets were seized and Charles Lindbergh withdrew his support of the Nazis subsequent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The other reason we fought them is because our British allies were being bombed relentlessly, and they asked for our help.

I hope that answers your question.