Is there propaganda in the USA?

[Richard Hawkes]

Aha! So when all those polls suggested that most Europeans objected to a war in Iraq and most Americans supported a war in Iraq, in fact the opposite was true!! Or neither. Now I see; it all makes perfect sense

[Mapraputa Is]

But what about that infamous tape with Muslims dancing on the streets after they learnt about 9/11? How can we know when it was filmed, maybe a week before? Why did they dance - maybe this was a wedding ceremony? Maybe children were told their favorite teacher is sick and they can go home? Maybe a journalist paid them to perform some national dance? Maybe they did not understand what happened and thought France was hit?

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Maybe they did not understand what happened and thought France was hit?
If it was France then it would've been ze engleesh dancing in the streets. You see, they burned all our sheep and keep trapping us at their ferry ports for days on end just to wind us up. Its a national sport

[Richard Hawkes]

Seriously though, its easy to get people stirred up about things. Most people probably wouldn't have entertained the thought of nuclear weapons actually being used, but when you say "chemical weapons against US forces" and paint a picture of Saddam as bit of a psycho (well, he is), consider his previous record and then ask about deploying nukes to defend the troops some people will think "well why not?".
This may have something to do with people's perception of chemical weapons as equalling nukes in their power and indiscriminate "fallout", when in fact they do not. Chemical weapons are not very efficient tools of war; they don't work the way we see in films like Outbreak (about a virus I know) where one tiny vial can destroy an entire city. When Saddam has deployed them in the past, massive quantities were used in relatively small areas and the planes had to pass over many times. The chemicals themselves quicky disperse and the area is harmless again. However the public tend to think of chemical coulds sweeping across the country killing indiscriminately. They think of that film clip of a cat in a glass box full of nerve gas, writhing horribly for minutes until dead.
Of course they're horrible, nasty weapons and nobody should have them but I don't think we should be so suprised when some people think fighting chemical weapons with nukes is okay.

[Mapraputa Is]

Agree completely. I also read that chemical and biological weapons are so problematic in use (you need even consider wind direction! :roll: ), that conventional weapons are actually more effective. Now I do not know a lot about "small scale tactical nuclear weapons", need to do some research... I guess, my point is, to make an informed decision is so time-consuming, that it's unrealistic to expect this kind of efforts from every citizen. Then what do "percent of war supporters/opposers" really mean besides effectiveness of propaganda?
Here is a case study.
Iraq and Sept. 11 are linked
This was one of the sneakier aspects of the news conference. Bush attempted many times in the opening statements and the responses to reporters’ questions to tie Iraq to Sept. 11, not through logical or evidential ties, but by using the rhetorical trick to mention the two in the same sentence, strongly implying that Iraq was behind 9/11 but not actually coming out and saying it. For instance:
Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. Sept. 11 changed the strategic thinking, at least as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. Used to be, we thought you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his kind of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we’re now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home. So therefore, i think the threat is real, and so do a lot of other people in my government.
Notice how he moves from “Saddam is a threat” to “Sept. 11 …” And also, “We thought you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his kind of terror.” Then he follows it up with, “Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we’re now a battlefield.”
Notice that Bush just said that the attacks on Sept. 11 were “his kind of terror,” which is demonstrably not true. It is true that America is a now a battlefield, but regarding al Qa’ida, not Iraq. Bush’s false tying is a sneaky trick to try to pull, and I hope people see through it.'
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003_03.php (scroll to "Bush attempts to make case for war, puts exile on the table" entry)
[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

By the way, the author of this blog, Chris Allbritton, is an interesting guy. More quotes:
"In March of this year, Chris Allbritton, a former AP and New York Daily News reporter, became what Wired called "the Web's first independent war correspondent." He did it by asking readers of his blog to send him to Iraq at their expense. Allbritton raised $14,500 from 342 donors on a simple promise: that he would send back from the war original and honest reporting, free of commercial pressures, pack thinking, and patriotic hype. He needed a plane ticket to Turkey (where he snuck over the border and found the war), a laptop, a Global Positioning Satellite unit, a rented satellite phone, a digital camera, and enough cash to move around, keep fed, and buy his way out of trouble. While some reporters were embedded with the American military, Allbritton sent himself on assignment, never even asking permission to be in the country.
The Internet did the rest. On March 27, his reporting drew 23,000 users to his site (www.back-to-iraq.com), thus proving, not that anyone in the public can perhaps be a journalist, but that anyone who is a journalist can have a mini-public on the Net. A Business Week report even asked of Allbritton's pay-to-read model, "Is this the future of journalism?" I doubt that, but it is an alternative path to finding the future. "
http://cjr.org/issues/2003/5/alt-rosen.asp

[Mapraputa Is]

Iraq and Sept. 11 are linked
Case study: answers
"The idea of an Iraq-al Qaeda link is certainly appealing to anyone making the case for going to war: Since 9/11, attacks by al Qaeda have ranked, and continue to rank foremost in the anxieties of America's collective psyche. And opinion surveys routinely find these days that a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. has found evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. More interesting, perhaps, is how the number of Americans suspecting an Iraq link to the events of 9/11 grew in the year following the attacks: Within days of the attacks, only 3 percent cited Iraq as a possible culprit. Yet, by January of this year, 44 percent were telling pollsters they believed Saddam was involved, and a similar number believed most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi nationals. (None were.)
So how is it that that Iraqi involvement has become part of the prevailing mythology of 9/11 for so many Americans? The answer may lie in part in a conscious campaign by early advocates of the Iraq invasion within the Bush Administration to link Saddam and al-Qaeda. Indeed, some 70 percent of Americans tell pollsters they believe the Administration implied an Iraq-al-Qaeda link. That campaign began within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Former NATO commander-in-chief General Wesley Clark told NBC last month that people in and around the White House had made a concerted push to link 9/11 to Iraq, and revealed that he'd been urged to make that link during his TV appearances. He asked for evidence to back such an assertion, but none was offered."
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html

[Richard Hawkes]

One theory as to why no one has found his chemical stocks is that he'd pretty much abandoned the idea after his disgusting "experiments" on the Kurds. They're pretty useless against a well equipped/prepared invading force like that of the coalition - though not to be taken lightly. Actually the thought of being gassed scares me about 100 times more than the thought of being blown-up for completely illogical reasons!
So why did Saddam make everyone believe he was hiding something by acting so suspiciously? Why the bluff? Another reason why he was his own worse enemy? That's assuming of course nothing turns up.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Notice how he moves from “Saddam is a threat” to “Sept. 11 …” And also, “We thought you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his kind of terror.” Then he follows it up with, “Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we’re now a battlefield.”
Notice that Bush just said that the attacks on Sept. 11 were “his kind of terror,” which is demonstrably not true. It is true that America is a now a battlefield, but regarding al Qa’ida, not Iraq
A good example of guilt by association, emotional rhetoric and opinion presented as fact! Just your average political speech.
This kind of stuff only works on people who've largely made up their minds already, and I think many good, rational people looking for answers welcome this kind of talk especially in a climate of uncertainty and/or fear. I'm a firm believer that most people believe whatever they want to believe and that its near impossible to change anybody's mind about anything. Sew the seeds, sit back and wait.

[Richard Hawkes]

Ha ha, that's why all those tree huggers in Europe were against it remember. Someone said "those damn Yankees!" and they couldn't think about anything else!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Aha! So when all those polls suggested that most Europeans objected to a war in Iraq and most Americans supported a war in Iraq, in fact the opposite was true!! Or neither. Now I see; it all makes perfect sense

Would you really base any opinion on the polls alone? Based on other information from Euorpe I would say that the polls got it right. But then was it based on one poll of 1,000 people over the phone where the question was number 17?
Map chose to ignore my other post, but if the question had been worded differently do you think the answer would have been the same?

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

After reading this and your previous post in this thread I might be inclined to ask what your problems/insecurities with us are? Do you think we just hang out here to be targets of opportunity for some disgruntled person's anti-American sentiments? The air of superiority and looking down at us comes through clear enough. In any event, it seems that you find all the Americans lending a hand in the SCJD forum "considerate" enough. Or are they merely tolerated as long as they are useful?
[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

I didn't realise it was a requirement to be right-ring to use java ranch.
It's not Americians people dislike but Americian foreign policy.
And I don't think your media helps you in rooting out the concerns of the rest of the world.
Tony

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

It's not Americians people dislike but Americian foreign policy.

No way, now you cant escape. You are anti american now
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Terrorists emanating from Iraq, be they Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Queda, Republican Guard, or some name yet unknow, that's an easy argument to believe. Would anyone think that copy cats will not spring up.
There was an uproar about sexed up claims of WMD, I hear very little uproar about nonlinks to Al Queda.

[Jason Menard]

What's interesting is that some of you folks who are implying how ignorant people are to believe that there could possibly be any Saddam/Al-Qaeda links really don't know what you're talking about it would seem.
Have you ever heard of Ansar Al-Islam?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s04-wome.html
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/23/wirq23.xml
While I'm sure you know far better than people such as Powell, it's fair to assume that it is at least as likely as not that Saddam's intelligence services did support Ansar Al-Islam in their fight against the PUK and that Ansar Al-Islam has Al-Qaeda links.
However whether or not that is true is of little significance. The aims of the War on Terror were never only to go after Al-Qaeda. This has been made abundantly clear in speeches by Bush as well as other government officials. The President has always stated that any international terrorist organization and any state that provides support for terrorist organizations or cunducts terrorism may find itself looking down the barrel. If anyone inferred that the US was only talking about Al-Qaueda, then the mistake was all yours.
It is a fact that Hussein both supports terrorism and has conducted it. Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. in Kuwait. It is well known that Iraq had continued to support the MEK and the PLF, as well as Abu Nidal, and Hussein provided incentive to Palestinian terrorists in the form of payments to their families in the sum of $25,000 each. Iraq's ties to international terrorism are indisputable. As such, the linkage between Iraq and the War on Terror are obvious, except to those who have already made up their mind the other way.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
And I don't think your media helps you in rooting out the concerns of the rest of the world.
Tony

And you think your media, particularly your vaunted BBC, helps you in understanding our concerns? I'm intimately familiar with both British and American media and there is no great difference between them.

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And you think your media, particularly your vaunted BBC, helps you in understanding our concerns? I'm intimately familiar with both British and American media and there is no great difference between them.

So it's Americian Concerns v Rest of the Worlds Concerns then.
Tony

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

So it's Americian Concerns v Rest of the Worlds Concerns then.
Tony

Are you in a position to speak for the "Rest of the World"?
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And you think your media, particularly your vaunted BBC, helps you in understanding our concerns? I'm intimately familiar with both British and American media and there is no great difference between them.

Jason, you heretic!
Of course the Beeb speaks for the whole world. It says it right in the charter of BBC World Services!
Besides.... Brits of the BBC/Guardian/Independent stamp are just better than those detestable Yanks. In every way. Just ask them, they will tell you in detail......

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
While in Asia last year I spoke to a group of bright Americians, they where shocked when I told them of the anti-americian feelings rising in Europe.

I'm shocked myself, though perhaps not for the same reasons as your 'Americians'. It's 'Americans', BTW, and even then you may give offense to the odd Canadian. 'Yanks' is safer.
Anyway, obviously I must be one of the dull ones because I don't agree with your apparent POV, nor that of these 'Americains'.

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
America leaves it up to the individual to care (and research), it is therefore doomed to a unhappy, neurose, violent society.

A trifle simplistic. For instance, nobody gets turned away from a hospital because of lack of insurance. My mother had an uninsured double-bypass. Paying back is hopeless, but it's not quite the same as being left to die in the gutter.
As for the violence, have you had a look at crime rates (and the trend as well) in London versus New York? The results might be a surprise....

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
I think the greatest lie that Americians tell themselfs is that the rest of the world is jelous of them.

In some cases this is demonstrably true. OTOH, why would an established Frenchman envy anyone in the US. His salary is high, personal tax load is lower. His society is going off the edge of a cliff on pensions and social divisions, but he doesn't see that in his comfortable suburb.....

[R K Singh]

oh so its all about information ..
if my knowledge is correct then in US, people are able to 2-4 news services only .. [dont ask me names, I read this in The Week magazine]
And in India I have 9 different indian information resources + fox + sky + BBC + CNN + TV5 + PTV world + etc and I do watch all of them [excluding etc ].
Yes in India you get 80 channels in Rs. 200/- [$4 appx.] and I can afford it.
I think I have more world information then you + I have an eye on what is happening in my Aangan[a place which is surrounded by your home]

[Jason Menard]

if my knowledge is correct then in US, people are able to 2-4 news services only
Your knowledge is not correct.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Your knowledge is not correct.

Then please correct me.

[Mapraputa Is]

Tom: Map chose to ignore my other post, but if the question had been worded differently do you think the answer would have been the same?
I was hoping to find another poll, I remember reading in Time, this time (um, pun...) people were asked not only about acceptable level of casualties among US military personal, but about Iraqis also. Time is such a whining humanitarian magazine... I forgot the numbers and I cannot find it now!
Do I think the answer would have been the same? No, I do not. As you formulated it, I do not think 6 out of 10 people would say "yes" (I hope). But don't you think your wording is more manipulative than one that the original question used?
Original question:
18. Would you support or oppose having the United States attack Iraq with nuclear weapons if Iraq attacked U.S. forces with biological or chemical weapons?
Would you answer "yes"? From your posts I infere you would not, thanks, I feel better. I also have no idea what was on the minds of the people being surveyed, and if it was 20% or 30%, that wouldn't be a big deal. 6 out of 10 statistic was what scared me, because how the question was formulated, "having the United States attack Iraq" -- I do not know. I would be scared to answer "yes".

[Jason Menard]

Then please correct me.
It varies according to where you live. If I counted correctly, my provider gives me around 25 different stations with news (some of those stations carrying news from multiple sources), including network news, local news, cable news sources, and international news sources (including BBC and a station called News World International which carries broadcasts of news networks from all over the world). I don't subscribe to any of the Chinese or Spanish packages that also contain news though.
The major television news providers are FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and to some degree PBS, which just about everyone in this country has access to. Every local network also carries local news for their market in addition to national news coverage, with the local networks being ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, WB, and PBS. Many people in this country are able to receive channels from multiple markets, which would mean double the amount of local news coverage for each additional market. Additionally there are several (too many to count) cable and satellite news providers, both domestic and international in flavor, which a good portion of people have access to.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

R K Singh: Then please correct me.
The main advantage American people have is the language! Hundreds TV channels notwithstanding, if you know English you can read news from almost everywhere! Russian newspapers have sites in English (to speak about what I know), then there are independent journalists like Chris Allbritton I told about in previous posts etc. I already told about "Asian Reporter" newspaper that lies free on every corner in Portland, pick up and read what Asian community think (they have different perspective, and they review obscure books I would never heard about otherwise). You can even read Iraqi bloggers, reporting what they see, so what's the point in saying "I think I have more world information then you"?
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
It's 'Americans', BTW, and even then you may give offense to the odd Canadian. 'Yanks' is safer.

Better not be heard calling someone from Georgia a "Yank"!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
The main advantage American people have is the language!

Virtually every American has access to the internet either from home, work, or local school or library. As Map said, most foreign news services have their news in English. I read the Czech news every day. My cable system carries something like 400 channels of which at least 25 are news channels. I can get French news, Greek news, and a host of others. Some of them are subtitled but alas not all of them. My father-in-law is addicted to the French news even though he isn't French.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Best propoganda sources in USA are the print media. Webifying them has been nice too. I don't know how to count them.

[Tony Collins]

As for the violence, have you had a look at crime rates (and the trend as well) in London versus New York? The results might be a surprise....

I'm a Londoner and it's not a violent place, AMERICANS like to quote the London violence thing, but it's just like any other British city, young lads fight with their fists. Our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic temper. But on the whole England-Scotland-Ireland and Wales are compassionate countries.
You must know that, if not why are you here.
So I mis-spelt your America, I just heard Americiiian, ringing in my ears.
T

[Tony Collins]

I stood on a concrete barrier, facing east as the sky turned from gray to orange. An impossibly huge crimson sun broke through the horizon, silhouetting the large gantry cranes and casting long shadows behind the towering cement factory. It became smaller and brighter as it rose above the haze, its brilliance outshining the long flames flickering atop the oil refinery stacks. I could feel its warm rays kissing my face.

For similar poetry try free-republic.com, or any of the other numerous US sites, if Muslims expressed this sentiment how would they be judged.

[Mapraputa Is]

Have you ever heard of Ansar Al-Islam?
[ a bunch of links]
So *these* are proofs?
"A radical Islamist group – with possible links to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein – is growing and threatening the stability of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq."
"Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001, is a prototype of America's enemies in the "war on terror." The group serves as a testament to the global spread of al-Qaeda affiliates, achieved through exploitation of weak central authorities and a utilitarian willingness to work with seemingly differing ideologies for a common cause."
"Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may be working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il,"
"Bitter fighting is raging in the mountains of northern Iraq between Islamic militants accused of links to al-Qa'eda and one of the West's key allies in a troubling diversion in the countdown to a possible war with Saddam Hussein."
If anyone inferred that the US was only talking about Al-Qaueda, then the mistake was all yours.
We aren't talking about war on terrorism here, we are talkling about propaganda. We are talking about "the number of Americans suspecting an Iraq link to the events of 9/11".
--------------------
"and before our current political regime, it was considered American to question and to demand proof of the truth. "
Someone on the Internet

[Richard Hawkes]

Saddam had/has links with terrorists, no one can seriously deny that. Trying to directly implicate Saddam in 9/11 through rhetoric to gain public support for an Iraqi invasion, however, is just opportunistic and sneaky. Whether that was the intention no one can really say, but, people believe it and speech writers certainly know the power of well chosen words and sound bites.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Would you really base any opinion on the polls alone? Based on other information from Euorpe I would say that the polls got it right. But then was it based on one poll of 1,000 people over the phone where the question was number 17?
I suppose not but then again people are very quick to dismiss survey results when they don't tally with their own opinions. And sure it was question 17 but 6/10? That a pretty high margin. Of course the wording and previous questions all influence the outcome.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm intimately familiar with both British and American media and there is no great difference between them.
You mean they're all anti-American??

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Then please correct me.

Thanks to all for correcting me.
Now I am sure something is hidden here when he says

They have two news channels. We have seven.

OR

Seven is a large number-more television news than any country in the world; more than America, the crucible of 24-hour news culture. America has only three 24-hour news channels; we have 10, 15, who knows at this point!

I will really appreciate if someone tell me what is hidden , what is not being told to us.

[R K Singh]

is the catch "24 hr" news channel ??

[Thomas Paul]

I guess the message is don't trust everything you read in an online newspaper.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:

I'm a Londoner and it's not a violent place, AMERICANS like to quote the London violence thing, but it's just like any other British city, young lads fight with their fists. Our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic temper. But on the whole England-Scotland-Ireland and Wales are compassionate countries.
You must know that, if not why are you here.
So I mis-spelt your America, I just heard Americiiian, ringing in my ears.
T

Where the lads get pissed up on Friday afternoon and insult passers-bye.
And no, compassion is not why I live here. There are other reasons.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I guess the message is don't trust everything you read in an online newspaper.

Its not online my dear, I read it in paper back addition[cover page].
Cant you see, it took me three days to say thanks to all of you. [I was searching on 'net addition' the same article ]
But I dont think the writer will say just like that, there has to be a catch. Actually that week in India 2/3 24 hr news channel were launched and writer works for one of those new news channel.