Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[lilithu]

When 9/11 is investigated by every branch of government and comes to the same conclusions

That statement itself is propaganda.

 

[tomspug]

Very astute.

Did you know that the U.S. media is only just now reporting on the fact that our Defense Department used our own tax money to propagandize U.S. citizens?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

They hired pundits to pepper our "liberal media" with arguments, appearing as military "analysts", designed by the DOD to justify the torture centers at Guantanamo and direct public opinion favorably.

Despite an initial denial of any knowledge of this program by the White House, emails from the DOD produced in response to a Congressional inquiry revealed that persons in the Bush Administration knew and participated in this propaganda program.

Was Karl Rove involved in the military analyst program? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Your tone in this post seems to be that any other administration would act differently. If you own a coffee shop, is it immoral to do your best effort to convince people that your coffee shop is the best coffee shop? Absolutely not! Likewise, ANY government (ANY) will spend money to support its efforts (international or domestic), making persuasive arguments to the American people.

Is the Pentagon actually paying people to say what they want? That NY Times article you linked to actually doesn't seem to imply that at all, but I suppose you could draw that conclusion if you already think that it's true.

Think about it. If President Bush makes a State of the Union Address, is that propaganda? No! Every singles SOTU address EVER showcases a president touting the successes of its current administration. Last time I checked, tooting your own horn is not propaganda. It may be biased, but it's not immoral.

As for the liberal media, while people like O'Reilly tend to take this generalization to the extreme, the simple truth of the matter is that at this point in history, members of the press tend to be predominantly liberal. Can you refute that? However, I do not think that this makes them automatically biased. On the contrary, I think that it has very little impact on the honestly and clarity of their reporting. It does, however, affect WHAT they choose to report on.

The fact that the Pentagon chooses to go to lengths to put positive spin of their policies in the press doesn't automatically mean that they are lying. To a certain degree, there is probably a need for more exposure to the 'conservative' perspective on places like Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. Besides, I certainly never see it on the news very much. Maybe the Pentagon wouldn't have to go to such lengths if the media would cover both sides of the issues. I'm not saying that is the case. For what it's worth, your perspective could be entirely true. I'm just saying that there are other possibilities.

 

[tomspug]

That statement itself is propaganda.

Let me know when you've read the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

[doppelganger]

Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law | Center for Media and Democracy

 

[Magic Man]

Your tone in this post seems to be that any other administration would act differently. If you own a coffee shop, is it immoral to do your best effort to convince people that your coffee shop is the best coffee shop? Absolutely not! Likewise, ANY government (ANY) will spend money to support its efforts (international or domestic), making persuasive arguments to the American people.

The difference is that my coffee shop is supposed to work only towards my own good, not for the good of the public. The government is not supposed to "sell" itself, it's supposed to work for the good of the people. They're not supposed to try to persuade us that what they're doing is right. They're supposed to give us the facts, and let us decide. The facts will tell us what we need to know, without any spin from them.

 

[Magic Man]

The fact that the Pentagon chooses to go to lengths to put positive spin of their policies in the press doesn't automatically mean that they are lying.

No, but it doesn't give me much confidence in what they're saying. For instance, I'm currently looking for a new job. I've posted my resume on a couple of sites, and have gotten a few responses. They have all been "I saw your resume, and I want to invite you to an exciting, lucrative opportunity" kind of spiel. When they use that many positive adjectives and talk themselves up, it makes me a little suspicious of them. They might be good opportunities, but I tend to doubt it unless they give me some further reason to think so.

 

[lilithu]

Let me know when you've read the 9/11 Commission Report.

I've read the report. You're statement is propaganda.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

I have to side with lilithu on this one. It is not accurate to state that every branch of our government investigated 9/11 and then we got the 9/11 Commission Report. Bush and Congress passed a law that created the commission. They didn't do the investigating themselves and I don't believe that other branch (the judiciary) was involvled in the 9/11 Commission.

That being said I believe I understand your (tomspug) point.

 

[lilithu]

I have to side with lilithu on this one. It is not accurate to state that every branch of our government investigated 9/11 and then we got the 9/11 Commission Report. Bush and Congress passed a law that created the commission. They didn't do the investigating themselves and I don't believe that other branch (the judiciary) was involvled in the 9/11 Commission.

That being said I believe I understand your (tomspug) point.

You're right that part of my objection is the factual inaccuracy of claiming that the 9/11 report represents all of govt. But beyond that, I disagree with the claim that there was unanimity within the branches of govt that were involved. And even where there was agreement, I disagree with the implication that there was agreement on how we should respond.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

You're right that part of my objection is the factual inaccuracy of claiming that the 9/11 report represents all of govt. But beyond that, I disagree with the claim that there was unanimity within the branches of govt that were involved. And even where there was agreement, I disagree with the implication that there was agreement on how we should respond.

Yes, you are quite right. The Commission made a number of recommendations and those were vigorously debated.

 

[Alceste]

Hi Alceste,

You made the absurd claim that Saddam never sponsored Islamofascist groups. This is undisputidely false.

Saddam did sponsor Islamofascist groups and you can't (or haven't) refuted it.

Oh brother. :thud:

Tell you what, I will leave you with some reading material. You would need to bone up on neocon psyops programs for us to be able to find any common ground.

Also, it would really do you good, as they are using pretty the same propaganda techniques in their build-up for an assault on Iran.

 

[Alceste]

how is that then? how are you going to stop it happening again? and you dont have to be brown just islamic isnt that obvious, oh thats how you could prevent it by converting and introducing sharia,thats it war over

Ever wondered why they chose the US instead of, say, Switzerland? Can you think of any reason the middle east might be a fertile ground for anti-American sentiment? (Like, say, instead of anti-Irish sentiment? Or anti-Belgian sentiment?)

Here's a clue

And an educational video

They don't want to take over your world kai - they want YOU to keep your mitts off THEIR world. Non-violent Western countries grasp this basic concept. That is how they prevent themselves from being attacked at home by guerrilla fighters from foreign lands.

 

[doppelganger]

Ronald Reagan supported "Islamofascism" more than Saddam Hussein. Heck, Reagan even extensively supported Hussein, giving him the weapons the use of which on the Kurds resulted in Hussein being convicted and killed two decades later. And unlike Hussein, Reagan also funneled weapons and money to the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, including Saudi jihadists like the young Osama bin Laden, giving birth to Al Quaeda. Reagan liked to call them "freedom fighters" back then.

 

[Alceste]

And unlike Hussein, Reagan also funneled weapons and money to the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, including Saudi jihadists like the young Osama bin Laden, giving birth to Al Quaeda. Reagan liked to call them "freedom fighters" back then.

The gloriously Ironic thing about that is that conservatives credit Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union because of his actions in Afghanistan. The CIA didn't just provide weapons, money and training, they also provoked the USSR into war in Afghansitan by organizing border skirmishes and attacks within the USSR by their pet freedom fighters. The military expenditure of fighting a continuous, unwinnable war was too much for the Soviets to bear, which many analysts believe contributed to their economic collapse.

Kind of like what is happening now with the US. You kind of have to go, WTF?

 

[doppelganger]

Oh, and I almost forgot, the Reagan administration was also funneling arms to Iran as part of Iran-Contra (though Teflon Ron managed to avoid getting caught in it). Elliot Abrams, OTOH, pleaded guilty to charges of withholding evidence during the Congressional investigation (and the plea bargain was to fend off the filing of a multi-count felony indictment), was subsequnelty pardoned by Bush, Sr. along with several other Iran-Contra convicts, and now serves as a national security adviser to Bush, Jr. And Poindexter, who was convicted on several felony counts, also served in the Bush, Jr. administration.

Isn't that special?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi dopp,

Oh brother. :thud:

Tell you what, I will leave you with some reading material. You would need to bone up on neocon psyops programs for us to be able to find any common ground.

Also, it would really do you good, as they are using pretty the same propaganda techniques in their build-up for an assault on Iran.

Refute the claims that I have made.

I made some very specific claims and all you can do is post a typically arrogantly reply.

I am looking for more substance than that.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hey dopp,

Can you find evidence that refutes the claim that Saddam harbored such terrorists as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahman Yasin?

 

[doppelganger]

Hi dopp,



Refute the claims that I have made.

I made some very specific claims and all you can do is post a typically arrogantly reply.

I am looking for more substance than that.

Sorry, Joe, but you aren't responding to me. That piece you quoted is not something I wrote. You need to direct your questions to Alceste.

 

[McBell]

Hey dopp,

Can you find evidence that refutes the claim that Saddam harbored such terrorists as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Out of curiosity, what evidence, outside of US Government reports, do you have that he did?

AND what does this have to do with 9/11?

 

[tomspug]

No, but it doesn't give me much confidence in what they're saying. For instance, I'm currently looking for a new job. I've posted my resume on a couple of sites, and have gotten a few responses. They have all been "I saw your resume, and I want to invite you to an exciting, lucrative opportunity" kind of spiel. When they use that many positive adjectives and talk themselves up, it makes me a little suspicious of them. They might be good opportunities, but I tend to doubt it unless they give me some further reason to think so.

I agree. I don't think it's something the government should be doing either. However, what is ludicrous is to suggest that these sort of practices of government is somehow unique to the Bush Administration. This is simply the signature of the US government as we know it.

That was what I meant with the coffee shop analogy. Not to say that the government should be run like a business (it shouldn't. I'm talking to you, Mitt Romney) but that this is the way our government DOES business and it's not exactly something that is easy to prevent.