War propaganda: fundamentals

applied exegesis in the context of the USA colonisation of Iraq

"We" do not want war!
"The enemy" wants War!
"The enemy" is the devil in disguise
"We" defend a noble cause!
Enemies atrocities versus "our" 'glitches'
Euphemism galore!
"The enemy" utilises evil weapons!
"The enemy" suffers terrible losses
Everybody agrees with "us", duh!
Anyone in doubt is a backstabbing traitor

redSome semanthic previsionsred
redGeneral war-reversing rulesred
reverse engineering
By fravia+ (March 2003 ~ version 022 ~ in fieri)

"Peace cannot be kept by force.
It can only be achieved by understanding

"Violence is the recourse of cowards"
(Well known lore)


The attacks against the United States, on September 11th 2001, are a tragic and absolutely indefensible event.
The sympathy on our planet for the United States, now unfortunately squandered by the Bush administration, was complete, absolute and world-wide.
The attacks can and should not be condoned, nor should they ever be underestimated, nor bypassed in silence.
The attacks did represent a tragic setback for our civilization, and a criminal, barbaric act of terrorism.

This said, the concept of a "just war", invoked to justify the United States' reaction to these attacks has serious flaws. While the attacks themselves are indefensible on any grounds, as I said, I cannot regard the present "war against Iraq" as wise, nor do I believe that it will lead to any "security" nor seems to me in any way characterizable as a "just" war.
Moreover it seems to me likely that a unilateral assault on a desperate, poor and already starving(1) population will of course amplify anger toward american policy and increase, rather than decrease, the threat of international terrorism. I also seriously doubt that human rights are served by plans to fire some 800 cruise missiles on a city the size of Los Angeles.

I believe that a sound exegesis of many of the texts that seekers are able to find on the web will demonstrate my point.

Yet, notwithstanding the many USA propaganda lies and "Saddam demonisation" attempts, let's be, at least among us reversers, also quite clear about the Iraqi President, a man who, frankly speaking, is very easy to demonize.
Personally I have no doubt whatsoever as to the terror of the Iraqi regime, if you need proofs, read the reports of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteurs on Iraq, Van der Stoel (UN press release HR/CN/856), 1998 and Mavrommatis (UN press release GA/SHC/3659), 2001. You can find more documents, of course, using the search engine at http://www.un.org/News/Press/full.htm and/or the archives search facility at http://www.un.org/News/Press/archives.htm.

But the fact that the iraqi regime might be easily demonized does not justify in the least the awful 'ripple effects' already travelling around the globe, of these unfounded USA claims about a "right to strike first" and to "suspend fundamental human rights protection". The consequence of this barbaric involution, that recalls what happened in Germany in last century's thirties, will be devastating for humankind.

As usual however, our web searching skills and our capacity to see 'through' propaganda patterns may be useful to show whose hands, and why, are moving which puppets. Alas, in this case, many of the puppets are going to die. On both sides.
When somebody points at the moon, 
only a fool looks at the moon, 
reversers look at the pointing finger, 
and sometimes bite it off.
(Ancient reversers' lore)

Analyzing Semiosphere and LieScape

 Over 70 years ago, the British diplomat Lord Arthur Ponsonby (1871-1946) wrote in his book Falsehood in Wartime about the perennial propaganda claims of wartime leaders. Let's examine them anew, on the falsariga of a nice book by Anne Morelli (Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre). We will concentrate in this essay on the "semiosphere" and "liescape" surrounding Iraq, but occasional references to the II Wolrld War, the Vietnam War or the Israeli/Arab wars should keep readers aware of the fact that hysterical war-propaganda is NOT limited geographically, politically, racially, or temporally. As you can check in the newspapers you are reading, the TV-"information" you receive, Goebbels' articles, Reuter's press releases or the Old testament.

"We" do not want war! 

The FIRST common denominator of all propagandists, and of their warmonger masters, is the continuous, rancorous affirmation that they "DO NOT WANT" a war. No, no, no, really. War is a very unpopular choice, and the old Latin spell: "si vis pacem para bellum" has always been used to assure the propaganda slaves that all war preparations are "in the reality" just steps taken to AVOID a war, of course: we do not want a war, we may be compelled to go to war, but only to DEFEND ourselves, never never never because we want a war.

"We stand for peace, we do not want war,"... (General Musharraf, Dictator of Pakistan) ...said at a dinner in the presidential palace. "We will never initiate a war unless it is thrust . . . upon us. We want peace, we do not want war. We understand all the hazards that will follow."

"Given the choice, we do not want war, but if it is imposed on us, we will fight," Saddam said on Iraqi state television"

"At a news conference last week, Blair said he was eager to avoid war in Iraq and determined to work through the United Nations. "Let me make one thing plain," he said. "We do not want war. No one wants war."

"SECRETARY POWELL: Right now we're not talking about war. Right now we're talking about finding a peaceful solution to this. Nobody wants war. President Bush does not war. I do not want war. "

" We do not want war with France! We do not want anything from France! Nothing at all!" (Adolf Hitler, 27 September 1938)

"President Bush spoke forcefully, but calmly Tuesday. His message to the nation and the entire world — and even to Saddam Hussein — was that the United States does not want war, but will not shirk from it if the danger posed by Iraq’s murderous dictator does not subside."

More on this sequence:
"the United States does not want war. But Iraqi intransigence has engendered..."
"the United States does not want war, but merely to disarm a tyrant..."
"the United States does not want war but it has been shoved down our throats..."
"the United States does not want war but will lead allied forces into battle to secure an authentic peace..."
"the United States does not want war but we must stand and fight the war that the rest of the world chooses to ignore..."
"America does not want war. America does not start wars. America does not oppress people. America is not the cause of the world’s problems. And America does not have imperial aspirations."

And yet, often times, real simpletons speak loud and clear the truth  :-)
"Sometimes that means you have to disturb the peace to make peace. It means sometimes that you have to wage war to end tyranny and terror. Sometimes you have to bomb the hell out of people to get them to do what you want. America does not want war. America wants peace. It's the evil Iraqi dictator who wants war. That much is clear. The murderous Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm, his constant deception and games of hide and seek make it clear that Saddam wants war." ("President Bush", march 2003)

"We are not spoiling for a battle. We are not eager to put our fighting men and women at risk. We do not wish to shoulder burdens and assume costs that others, by right, should share. But we will not allow the scorpion that bit us once to bite us again. We have not ruled out any options. If Saddam provokes a fight, he will get one, and he will lose." (Martin S. Indyk, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs)

"We" want Peace, "the Enemy" wants War! 

The SECOND common denominator, is a direct consequence of the first...

The 'enemy' is always the aggressor, many times a 'madman', and often a 'tyrant', a 'dictator', a 'devil', capable of all most infame actions. He has no heart, no brain, no logic. He does never respect treaties, he is -per definition- a traitor. Note also that treaties are always 'holy and sacred' for those that would like them to be respected, and just 'scrap paper' or 'obsolete' or 'no more actual' for those that want to ignore, break, violate them.

"Saddam WANTS war to spread. That's why he is developing nukes. He WANTS to attack Israel, cause them to retaliate, which would lead to Armageddon. If we stop him before he can do that..."

"It's the evil Iraqi dictator who wants war..."

"Saddam wants war, because he knows the blame he will get for using chemical weapons and for putting women and children on US targets, among other things..."

"If Saddam provokes an American-led invasion, we should support it, not because of international consensus, but because it is the right thing to do... "

"The Iraqi regime had been given a clear warning from the UN and there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from all this - Saddam wants war"

"Saddam has made the case for war against his corrupt and dangerous regime ten times over, by his own hand..." (Senator Arlen Specter)

" A cruel tyrant to his own people, who continually attacks his neighbours, Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in wars that were triggered by him, in the repression of his compatriots and the purge of opponents and even members of his own family... " (Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar)

"Actually, Poland never was a democracy. An infinitesimal, degenerate upper class ruled not only over foreign nationalities, but also over what they called their own people. It was a State ruled by brute force, by the police and, as a last resort, also by the army. The lot of the Germans in this country was terrible... Poland has sown war and reaped war..." (Adolf Hitler, Speech at the Langer Market in Danzig Tuesday, September 19, 1939)

Real warmongers claim always to be lambs in a world of wolves, who are of course responsible for the 'collateral damages'.

The enemy is the devil in disguise! 

reverse engineering    The THIRD common denominator, the 'demonisation' of the enemies, is of paramount importance.
For most human beings, it takes an awful lot to allow them to kill another human being. The only way to drill them is to justify the killing, making the enemy look as beast-like and as evil as possible.
The demonisation is often also accompanied by a 'leader personification' of the enemies, due to the fact that you cannot seriously hate a whole 'population' without being as ridiculous (and dangerous) as the nazi with the jews, it is not 'bon ton' any more to hate a whole race in these 'politically correct times... so you have to concentrate your propaganda name-calling on the leader(s) of "our" supposed 'enemies'.

Hence it's Milosevic, Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Napoleon, the Kaiser... whomever, and sure not (yet) 'the Serbs', 'the Germans', 'the Iraqis', 'the Russians', 'the French', 'the San Marinoers' :-)
Since, alas alas alas, 'war cannot be avoided' if "we" are facing pure 100% evildoers, hissing snakes, venoum spitting spiders, kids eating monsters and women raping monkeys (monsters and monkeys being in both last cases the subjects). The leader of the enemies 'must' be a dangerous, sadistic, indefendable criminal "tyrant". Brainless zombies with a three seconds attention span, the target of all kind of propaganda, need a clear distinction between 'good white hat guys' with blue eyes and blond hair and evil 'dark hat baddies', with bad manners and a low treacherous, cowardish attitude.

"The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming." (President Bush)

"Exceptionally dangerous criminals like Saddam should be forcibly removed from power, with disregard for the norms of non-interference in sovereign states." (The Jerusalem post)

Bush tells the cheering throng in Cincinnati that "On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured"

President George W Bush: "The danger is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world"

"So if it is clear -- and it is -- that the problem of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will not go away as long as Saddam and the Baath are in power, it follows that Saddam, and not just the weapons stockpiles and Scud missiles, ought to be the target of any military effort" ( the USA Foreign Policy Research Institute)

Powell described Saddam's "conniving and continued" effort to "fool" the U.N. inspectors and the rest of the world, as "evil genius"

"In my judgment, you don't contain Saddam Hussein [Bush said, referring to the preference of some European allies] You don't hope that therapy will somehow change his evil mind"

The secretary of state acknowledged that war is not pleasant. But he said that the Germans should understand that "sometimes war cannot be avoided when you are facing a form of evil that Saddam Hussein embodies"

President Bush "referred to Hussein at various points [of a prime-time news conference, televised live on all the major networks from the East Room of the White House, March 6 2003] as a cancer, a murderer, a master of deception and just generally an inhuman fiend who must be destroyed or exiled".

On the other hand, the Iraqi daily newspaper Al-Iraq denounced "the forces of evil and aggression, led by the great Satan — the United States — and its arrogant idiot President Bush"

"In America, we say everybody is precious, everybody counts, everybody is equal in the eyes of the Almighty, [Bush told American troops at Fort Hood, January 2003] That's not what the enemy thinks. They don't value innocent life. They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers, and that's the way we're going to treat them"

But never forget that the contrary may happen: here an example of an attempt to "de-leaderize" the culprit question... and attack instead a whole population/race because of the faults of a given specific leader. This seems to happen mostly (actually: almost only) with jews, and is a classical sign of heavy racist attitudes.

"The fact that Sharon has been a top "statesman" in Israel for so long and is now its prime minister reveals much about the nature of Israel. What kind of a state would choose such a brutal and sinister monster as its top leader?"

Iraqi newspapers often refer to the USA/UK invading troops as "flocks of sheep doomed to die in Iraq" or as "a snake slithering through the desert"

We defend a noble (and/or holy) cause! 

The FOURTH common denominator is that there are -of course- NO specific political or economic interests to defend. Not at all. The aims of "our" war are all the noblest you can think of: freedom, democracy, development, human rights, defense of a minority ruthlessly oppressed (by a majority, la va sans dire), progress of humankind, liberation of the masses... you name it.
The fact, for instance, that the US National debt has reached 6,5 trilliards and that the successful use of the euro (introduced one year ago) as reserve currency and oil-currency could blow the hot baloon is seldom mentioned to explain the iraq affair.
The other simple matter of fact: that USA Oil-imports amount to 11.2 million barrels per day, 63% of it from saudi arabia, and its 60-year-old monopoly lease of Saudi oil fields will come to an end in 2005, is also almost never discussed.

Anyway, in general "our" cause may even be "holy", and holy causes (Gott mit uns) MUST be defended against pagans and unbelievers. War as crusade. See old testament, Osama bin Laden, Conquistadores, Crusaders.

This is easy to understand: people usually, even propaganda conditioned zombies, do not like the idea to have to die or to have to kill for specific geopolitical targets or for someones' economical gains. But they may accept to die or kill for 'democracy(2)', 'religion', 'ideology' and of course, 'to defend themselves'. This explains the curious and almost absolute silence always surrounding the geographical, political and economical targets of any conflict.

Remarks by President Bush at the West Point Academy, June 2002: " We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. (Applause.) By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it. (Applause.) As we defend the peace, we also have an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. "

"As we preserve the peace, America also has an opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom and progress to nations that lack them. We seek a just peace where repression, resentment and poverty are replaced with the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade"
Note that "extend the benefits of freedom and progress to nations that lack them"... "as we preserve peace"

"Every nation now faces a choice between lawful change and chaotic violence; between joyless conformity and an open, creative society; and between the celebration of death in suicide and murder and the defense of life and its dignity"

"Saddam Hussein abets the terrorist culture through his brutal, autocratic rule; he is a regional keystone. When he is felled and Iraq becomes a democratic ally, it will help America provide freedom the greater Muslim world has never seen. "

""In this war we defend not just America or Europe. We are defending civilization itself" [Bush told the German parliament] "We oppose an enemy that thrives on violence and the grief of the innocent. The terrorists are defined by their hatreds. They hate democracy and tolerance and free speech and women and Jews and Christians, and anyone that disagrees with them"

"We fight for freedom, and we stand for freedom, and we won't relent until we defend freedom at its core. (Applause.) And that's why the budget I sent up there has got a significant increase in defense spending, because we owe it to the defenders of freedom to give them the best equipment, the best housing, the best training, and another pay raise. (Applause.)" (February 2002, remarks by President Bush at the "republican retreat luncheon")

Germany "will be a proud and free homeland for us all. We want to thank the Führer for that. He can depend on his people at the front, at home, and in the wide world. He leads us, and we follow him. Without a shadow of doubt, we follow him bearing the flag and the Reich... Earlier we sang of peace on earth in our songs. Now the time has come to fight for it. Peace through victory!" (Goebbels, Xmas 1941)

"We're going to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein and his murderous allies; we refuse to leave the Iraqi people in slavery, [and] when the war . . . is won, all who have joined this cause will be able to say to the Iraqi people, 'We were proud to fight for your freedom,' " President Bush said [28 March].

And for the 'holy' part...

"The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians" [Bernard of Clairvaux "In praise of the new militia"]

"Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know God is not neutral between them" [President Bush, Speech to the Congress, Sept 2001]

The terrorists hate the fact that... "we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit", and that the United States was called to bring "God’s gift of liberty to every human being in the world" [President Bush, Opryland, Nashville]

We should stand up to carry Islam as a complete way of life and live or die for the sake of Allah and his religion that he chosen for mankind, which is Islam. We should fight the disbelievers and their agents. [Islamic sermons given under the auspicies of the Palestinian Authority, by Sheikh Akrama Sabri]

"The enemy" commits atrocities, "we" may experience some glitches 

The FIFTH common denominator is that the enemies is intent on evildoing, and purposedly commits atrocities, while we always make some unavoidable and regrettable 'mistakes'

Our armies are composed of holy paladins, performing a duty. They deeply believe into with professionalism and in the most civilized manner, and are of course always 'at the services' of the civil population, even at the service of the 'enemy' civilians, come to think of it, always trying the outmost to avoid any 'collateral damage'.
Since we are fighting for a 'just war' (and against a criminal enemy) our troops will be always welcome and loved by anyone, and eo ipso find enthusiastic ovations from the invaded enemies once "we" will --of course-- win.
The enemies' armies, on the countrary, kept together by terror and intimidation, are composed almost exclusively of criminal torturers, soulless terrorists, bandits that ignore every 'civilized' convention, women rapers and children killers, sneaky cowards that routinely hyde in churches, schools and hospitals and use the civil population at large as a 'human shield' (these last evil techniques may also help to explain some possible 'glitches' of our, where necessary).

[scattered babies]
Saddam allowed babies at a Kuwaiti hospital to be "pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor" [said President Bush (the first, father of the second one). The story has been demonstrated to be untrue, made up by a Kuwaiti diplomat's daughter]

[disgusting cowards]
"They have executed prisoners of war. ... They have used women and children as human shields and they have pretended to surrender and then opened fire," [Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said. "I've never seen anything like this. It's disgusting."

[Prisoners of propaganda]
British Defense Minister, Geoff Hoon, told reporters on March 24 that there was "an enormous difference" between "the factual photographs of prisoners surrendering to the allied forces as against the appalling, barbaric behaviour of Iraqi forces dealing with American prisoners." Meanwhile the United States observed that "the Geneva Conventions are not technically applicable to detainees from the war in Afghanistan or the wider campaign against terrorism"

Euphemism galore! "Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"

The SIXTH common denominator is based on the fact that euphemisms sound better than the truths they relate to. And that slaves love to watch (and believe) paid anchormen, TV-channels, "experts" and newspapers that belong to their masters.

Public relations firms that most people have never heard of - such as Burson-Marsteller, Hill & Knowlton, and Ketchum are working hard, and earning a lot, as fabrics of lies, to serve the puppetteers' interests. As usual the aim is only one: zombies, running forever inside their TV-squirrels' wheels, should believe whatever they are said, vote for they pharaons, obey, consume, pay, and eventually fight and die.

"Operation Iraqi freedom" (sic)

We do not perform 'bombardments': we organize 'strikes', "chirurgical strikes", "selective strikes", we may be "striking selected targets of military importance".

We do not 'kill civilians': alas, there may be some, inevitable, 'collateral damages', though, especially when stupid civilians get in the way.

We will not 'invade' Iraq: our 'peacekeeping force' will 'enter' Iraq, to 'implement our peace plan' and bring freedom to a suffering population. Our military invasion is just a "broad and coercive campaign". There are some "military operations", of course, but the aim is "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger".

We do not "blast a target to destruction", god forbid, we just "take out" a target.

"Regime target": every target we are destroying: army, security services, television stations, firemen.

There may be, eentually, some oddball "pockets" of resistance, of course we have them in the pocket.

"deferred compensation" euphemism for bribes (one million dollars every year to Dick Cheney from Halliburton, a firm that during recent months received various multibillion-dollar, open-ended, no-bid contracts from Cheney himself)

"Kinetic targeting" means "dropping bombs": when a cruise missile destroys a target, that is called "Kinetic targeting".

An apparently unsuccessful attempt to kill the Iraqi President and his sons, at the beginning of the invasion has been defined a "target of opportunity"

The USA will not 'occupy' Iraq, instead our 'international force' will "for some period of time" have --of course-- to 'protect the security' of the civil population and of the 'exiled minorities', that have 'a right to return home' and live in freedom and drink coca cola light and eat genetically modified gourmet plates.

Of course there is no discussion about building 'enclaves' in Iraq. What we may have to do, if ever, is to establish some 'international protectorates' of course for the good and wellbeing of the populace.

Our soldiers will not suffer 'shell shock', god forbid, and not even 'combat fatigue', coz the word 'combat' is still there and is too harsh. So they may be allowed to have, at most, some post traumatic stress disorder'. But they wont, mostly.

Enemies' attacks and surrounding maneuvers are mostly "local positionings" or even, at times, "survival positionings".

When our side is in deep trouble, we are performing a "operational pause"

Note also how the stiff resistence encountered in Iraq has gradually shifted the rhetorical "targeting" from the "evil dictator Saddam" to the "Regime hawks" and their "death squads" or "terror squads". These "death squads" are a funny Pentagon's lingo for "patriot fighters" and/or "partisans" and/or "Fedayeen".
Fedayeen means in turn, literally, "someone willing to sacrifice himself" (not exactly "martyrs"). "Fedayeen" has been used for years to refer to the PLO fighters of the 1960s and '70s. By appropriating this term, Iraqi are --of course-- just attempting to blur the lines between the Palestinian cause and their own.
Also used: Saddam's "henchmen" (like calling US marines "George's henchmen")

"Peacekeepers" (also, often: "international peacekeepers"): Occupation troops.

"International Security Assistance Force": Occupation troops.

"renegade rebel": enemy commander

"beleaguered defenders": The enemy.

Our troops "dash" and "sweep" around.

Our soldiers are "murdered" or "massacrated", our enemies are instead "softened up". This is only for the Bush side, the Iraqi side is less euphemistical: "We were able to chop off their rotten heads"

Enemies utilise evil, "unauthorized" weapons! 

The SEVENTH common denominator is that we are knights, elegant, nobles, and we respect all codes, and try to spare human life, whenever, while the snake, venom-spitting enemy uses all ruses to betray. Unfortunately this has historically never been true.

"daisy cutter" bomb

"land mines" ban treaty USA

"depleted uranium bullet"

Agent Orange contains one of the most virulent poisons known to man, a strain of dioxin called TCCD, 80 cc of it, if dropped into the water supply of a city the size of New York, would kill the entire population. The USA sprayed 170 kg of it over Vietnam during "Operation Ranch Hand".

"We" do not have (almost) any missing soldiers while "the enemy" suffers incredible (sic) losses 

The EIGHT common denominator is based on the fact that most humans want to be on the winning side. Our losses are hidden, enemys' losses are exagerated.

During the Kossovo campaign NATO affirmed having destroyed 120 serbian tanks. Later it became clear that they destroyed 14 serbian tanks and a score of tractors, civil lorries and busses. According to General Clarck, 60% of the bombs did miss their targets.

"Basra does not represent a military objective because of the disappearance of Iraq's 51st Infantry Division, which melted away", [British Col. Chris Vernon, 23 March]

"We are now considering Basra as a military objective because of the humanitarian situation there, and we need to go in as soon as possible and relieve that" [Darling, British spokesman in Qatar, 25 March]

[surgical precision]
"The campaign will be unlike any we have ever seen in the history of warfare, with breathtaking precision, almost eye-watering speed, persistence, agility and lethality," [Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, the first day of the invasion]

"A short, extremely intense period of combat operations using a full range of U.S. and coalition forces. This phase will eliminate any significant organized resistance to U.S. coalition forces and will end the current regime." [Defense Department document: "Overview of Requirements", used to convince the Congress to give green light to the invasion]

Everybody agrees with "us", duh! 

The NINTH common denominator is based on the fact that anchormen, celebrities, opinion movers, journalists and 'think tanks' all agree with 'our side'. There is no objection worth considering. Even the enemies themselves will agree with us!

Basically Iraqis are supposed to roll and play dead and make way for the Great Liberators, any attempt they make to fight back, or at least to delay the inevitable is subject to orchestrated criticism and harsh condemnation.

[Iraqis will love us]
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, on 6 February (Jeremy Paxman's Newsnight): "If we do have to come to military action in Iraq and remove Saddam, then I honestly believe the people who will rejoice first will be the Iraqis because they have been the victims of Saddam."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, talking to reporters in London on 25 March, denied that U.S. and British troops were overextended because fewer Iraqi troops were surrendering than had been expected. "These people are going to fight, and that is what we have always expected"

"I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators." [Cheney, 16 March]

"I believe Saddam Hussein is very weak. I don't believe there is an Iraqi soldier that is ready to die for Saddam Hussein." [republican senator John McCain, Autumn 2002]

"If I were a betting man, which I'm not, we will be in Baghdad hopefully in the next three or four days" [Group Captain Al Lockwood, spokesman for British forces, first day of the invasion]

Anyone doubting "our" propaganda is just a backstabbing traitor 

The TENTH common denominator is based on the fact that you need to neutralize anyone who would not agree with your propaganda.

This is in fieri, and still uncompleted, yet I feel like publishing it while in progress, since the warmongerish plans are collapsing and concretising right now

The main part of this essay has been written two days before the angloamerican invasion, while the following 'previsions' and rules have been written afterwards.

Some semanthic previsions 

Of course it is not easy to imagine what will be the "semanthic" and rethoric future of the iraqi colonisation, but some developments can be inagined using either israeli/palestinian or afhhanistan news.

"Continued terrorist attacks are a result of the failure of security forces to create a deterrent fear amongst the Arabs"

"We call on ministers in the government not to sit idly by while our soldiers are attacked. A chair in the cabinet is not a luxury - rather it is an obligation to the people to provide, first and foremost, security."

"The horrific, mounting toll of regular demcratic Iraqi volunteers and protecting coalition troops murdered in cowardly terrorist attacks must be stopped once and for all.  The recent tragedy which has taken the lives of so many young soldiers and destroyed the futures of so many others, is an outrage that must be condemned unconditionally and forcefully."

"The latest fighting follows a spate of vicious attacks in the northern provinces. Both democratic iraqi volunteers and coalition soldiers came under vicious attack, resulting in the deaths of about a dozen volunteers, authorities say. Those attacks helped prompt the massive operation code named 'Valiant Dash' in Kirkuk."

"The suicide bombings in Al-Hillah on Sunday were appalling, vicious and unforgivable."

"Continued terror and instability is having a terrible effect on the Iraqi economy. Tourism and investment are almost non-existent. The hard reconstruction work is rendered even more difficult. Jobs are lost. Young people are increasingly worried about their economic futures. The people of Democratic Iraq are coping. But Iraqis, freed from the evil dictator, should not just cope, not just survive; they should thrive. And with our help, they will."

Some general war-reversing rules 

There are some common, easy ways to 'reverse' war propaganda. I'll try to syntethize them here, please excuse the shortcomings of this quick, synthetical debunking. Your own observations, critics and suggestions would be welcome.

  1. The "reinforcement" rule:
    Every time renforcements are called for, used, proposed, sent, the situation for the part using/needing reinforcement is "in the reality" deteriorating. Note that this is always true for both parts.

  2. The "internecine fighting" rule:
    Everytime, shortly before an assault, our side spreads news of 'civil war', "army commanders' dissence" and/or 'internecine fighting' or "popular unrest" among the forces of the enemy camp, it means that a very bloody battle has already been envisaged by our side, and that we want to be able to showel part of the responsability of the future civilian casualties on "our" enemy.

  3. The "kids have been taken as hostage" rule:
    Everytime you want to explain that annoying 'stubborn' and 'suicidal' resistance to our advances, the reason must be found in some kind of evil enemy's blackmail, "they menaced to kill their families if they do not fight against us".
    It is simply not possible that somebody would fight for his country against "our" holy mission without being "immorally blackmailed" or "brain washed". Note that this is always true for both parts.

  4. The "technical glitches" rule:
    Everytime the number of "technical glitches", "silly incidents" or "friendly fire casualties" among "our" forces increases abnormally during a given time slice, "we" have in the reality encountered serious resistance (which would be impossible to account for according to our own propaganda).

  5. The "Geneva conventions violation" rule:
    Everytime the enemy "violates the Geneva conventions", (of course such as "we do interprete them", being the Geneva conventions masterpieces of duplicity and vagueness) our holy side is "almost" justified (if not actually allowed) to do the same or worse. Note that this is always true for both parts.

  6. The "if they move they still exist" rule:
    The fact that the enemy performs "maneuvers" (or even attacks) and causes "limited damage" or "momentary bogging" to our ever advancing (or courageously defending) forces means that the enemy is still able to go on the offensive despite our announced successes. Note that this is always true for both parts.

  7. The "stale news" rule:
    If a whole day passes without any "news" of our "victories", and if the most recent "victorious" news are just repeated (with slight variations) "we" can be sure that "our" forces have encountered some reverses. Note that this is always true for both parts.


(1)    2001: One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos (1989: one out of 20), UN-data.

(2)    Note that the 'we defend democracy' trick is at times hard to sell: in the case of the previous war for the control of the oilfields of Kuwait, a country notoriously as repressive, feudal, anti-democratic and olygarchical as Saudi Arabia, it would have been impossible to profile the war as a defence of "democracy", not even in comparison with Iraq. Hence the propaganda "refrain" was, instead, the holy need to defend "a small country" against a "big bully", and "peace in the region" against an "evil aggressor".

You are deep inside fravia's searchlores.org
Petit image

(c) 1952-2032: [fravia+], all rights reserved