The War of Misinformation Has Begun

[Guest guest]

The War of Misinformation Has Begun

by Robert Fisk

 

All across the Middle East, they are deploying by the thousand. In the

deserts of Kuwait, in Amman, in northern Iraq, in Turkey, in Israel and in

Baghdad itself. There must be 7,000 journalists and crews "in theatre", as the

more jingoistic of them like to say. In Qatar, a massive press center has been

erected for journalists who will not see the war. How many times General Tommy

Franks will spin his story to the press at the nine o'clock follies, no one

knows. He doesn't even like talking to journalists.

 

But the journalistic resources being laid down in the region are enormous.

The BBC alone has 35 reporters in the Middle East, 17 of them "embedded" - along

with hundreds of reporters from the American networks and other channels - in

military units. Once the invasion starts, they will lose their freedom to write

what they want. There will be censorship. And, I'll hazard a guess right now, we

shall see many of the British and American journalists back to their old trick

of playing toy soldiers, dressing themselves up in military costumes for their

nightly theatrical performances on television. Incredibly, several of the

American networks have set up shop in the Kurdish north of Iraq with orders not

to file a single story until war begins - in case this provokes the Iraqis to

expel their network reporters from Baghdad.

 

The orchestration will be everything, the pictures often posed, the angles

chosen by "minders", much as the Iraqis will try to do the same thing in

Baghdad. Take yesterday's front-page pictures of massed British troops in

Kuwait, complete with arranged tanks and perfectly formatted helicopters. This

was the perfectly planned photo-op. Of course, it won't last.

 

Here's a few guesses about our coverage of the war to come. American and

British forces use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells - widely regarded

by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child

cancers in present day Iraq - to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi

frontier. Within hours, they will enter the city of Basra, to be greeted by its

Shia Muslim inhabitants as liberators. US and British troops will be given roses

and pelted with rice - a traditional Arab greeting - as they drive

"victoriously" through the streets. The first news pictures of the war will warm

the hearts of Messrs Bush and Blair. There will be virtually no mention by

reporters of the use of DU munitions.

 

But in Baghdad, reporters will be covering the bombing raids that are

killing civilians by the score and then by the hundred. These journalists, as

usual, will be accused of giving "comfort to the enemy while British troops are

fighting for their lives". By now, in Basra and other "liberated" cities south

of the capital, Iraqis are taking their fearful revenge on Saddam Hussein's

Baath party officials. Men are hanged from lamp-posts. Much television footage

of these scenes will have to be cut to sanitize the extent of the violence.

 

Far better for the US and British governments will be the macabre

discovery of torture chambers and "rape-rooms" and prisoners with personal

accounts of the most terrible suffering at the hands of Saddam's secret police.

This will "prove" how right "we" are to liberate these poor people. Then the US

will have to find the "weapons of mass destruction" that supposedly provoked

this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will

do for the moment.

 

Bunkers allegedly containing chemical weapons will be cordoned off - too

dangerous for any journalist to approach, of course. Perhaps they actually do

contain VX or anthrax. But for the moment, the all-important thing for

Washington and London is to convince the world that the causus belli was true -

and reporters, in or out of military costume, will be on hand to say just that.

 

Baghdad is surrounded and its defenders ordered to surrender. There will

be fighting between Shias and Sunnis around the slums of the city, the beginning

of a ferocious civil conflict for which the invading armies are totally

unprepared. US forces will sweep past Baghdad to his home city of Tikrit in

their hunt for Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair will appear on television to speak

of their great "victories". But as they are boasting, the real story will begin

to be told: the break-up of Iraqi society, the return of thousands of Basra

refugees from Iran, many of them with guns, all refusing to live under western

occupation.

 

In the north, Kurdish guerrillas will try to enter Kirkuk, where they will

kill or "ethnically cleanse" many of the city's Arab inhabitants. Across Iraq,

the invading armies will witness terrible scenes of revenge which can no longer

be kept off television screens. The collapse of the Iraqi nation is now under

way ...

 

Of course, the Americans and British just might get into Baghdad in three

days for their roses and rice water. That's what the British did in 1917. And

from there, it was all downhill.

 

Weasel words to watch for

 

'Inevitable revenge' - for the executions of Saddam's Baath party

officials which no one actually said were inevitable.

 

'Stubborn' or 'suicidal' - to be used when Iraqi forces fight rather than

retreat.

 

'Allegedly' - for all carnage caused by Western forces.

 

'At last, the damning evidence' - used when reporters enter old torture

chambers.

 

'Officials here are not giving us much access' - a clear sign that

reporters in Baghdad are confined to their hotels.

 

'Life goes on' - for any pictures of Iraq's poor making tea.

 

'Remnants' - allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still shooting at the

Americans but actually the first signs of a resistance movement dedicated to the

'liberation' of Iraq from its new western occupiers.

 

'Newly liberated' - for territory and cities newly occupied by the

Americans or British.

 

'What went wrong?' - to accompany pictures illustrating the growing

anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> The War of Misinformation Has Begun

 

Actually, this began years ago. Ever since September

12, 2001, Mr. Bush has been tring to find some way to

blame Saddam Hussein for these attacks. At that time,

world public opinion was very strongly in favor of the

United States. But Mr. Bush has squandered that in his

personal obsession with the man whom his father fought

many years ago. He has been lying for years. He did

not decide yesterday that he would invade Iraq; he

decided the day he was declared the winner of the

presidential election.

Fortunately, this is not the 1940s, when a nation

could successfully prevent its people from hearing

news from other countries. True, the American news

media will present pro-American viewpoints, but Al

Jazeera will do the opposite while European news media

take a more middle ground. All this information is

available on the Internet and much of it on cable tv.

So the information will be available for anyone

willing to pay attention to it.

 

Sister Usha Devi

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

http://platinum.

[Guest guest]

"Actually, this began years ago. Ever since September 12,

2001"

 

No I don't think so. The War of Misinformation has begun long

long

long time ago, long before the September 12th.

 

In every Department in almost all country there is an existence of

what I called the Department of Misinformation/disinformation. What

this department does, basically what the words mean that is to spread

disinformation or misinformation, and distort the truth that people

are not suppose to know so that nobody knows what the truth is

anymore.

 

Now some religious groups have this "department" too.

[Guest guest]

and what does THIS have to do with Shakti Sadhana either ?

 

, "Sandeep Chatterjee"

<sandeepc@b...> wrote:

>

>

>

> The War of Misinformation Has Begun

> by Robert Fisk

>

> All across the Middle East, they are deploying by the

thousand. In the deserts of Kuwait, in Amman, in northern Iraq, in

Turkey, in Israel and in Baghdad itself. There must be 7,000

journalists and crews "in theatre", as the more jingoistic of them

like to say. In Qatar, a massive press center has been erected for

journalists who will not see the war. How many times General Tommy

Franks will spin his story to the press at the nine o'clock follies,

no one knows. He doesn't even like talking to journalists.

>

> But the journalistic resources being laid down in the region

are enormous. The BBC alone has 35 reporters in the Middle East, 17

of them "embedded" - along with hundreds of reporters from the

American networks and other channels - in military units. Once the

invasion starts, they will lose their freedom to write what they

want. There will be censorship. And, I'll hazard a guess right now,

we shall see many of the British and American journalists back to

their old trick of playing toy soldiers, dressing themselves up in

military costumes for their nightly theatrical performances on

television. Incredibly, several of the American networks have set up

shop in the Kurdish north of Iraq with orders not to file a single

story until war begins - in case this provokes the Iraqis to expel

their network reporters from Baghdad.

>

> The orchestration will be everything, the pictures often

posed, the angles chosen by "minders", much as the Iraqis will try to

do the same thing in Baghdad. Take yesterday's front-page pictures of

massed British troops in Kuwait, complete with arranged tanks and

perfectly formatted helicopters. This was the perfectly planned photo-

op. Of course, it won't last.

>

> Here's a few guesses about our coverage of the war to come.

American and British forces use thousands of depleted uranium (DU)

shells - widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War

syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present day Iraq -

to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. Within hours,

they will enter the city of Basra, to be greeted by its Shia Muslim

inhabitants as liberators. US and British troops will be given roses

and pelted with rice - a traditional Arab greeting - as they

drive "victoriously" through the streets. The first news pictures of

the war will warm the hearts of Messrs Bush and Blair. There will be

virtually no mention by reporters of the use of DU munitions.

>

> But in Baghdad, reporters will be covering the bombing raids

that are killing civilians by the score and then by the hundred.

These journalists, as usual, will be accused of giving "comfort to

the enemy while British troops are fighting for their lives". By now,

in Basra and other "liberated" cities south of the capital, Iraqis

are taking their fearful revenge on Saddam Hussein's Baath party

officials. Men are hanged from lamp-posts. Much television footage of

these scenes will have to be cut to sanitize the extent of the

violence.

>

> Far better for the US and British governments will be the

macabre discovery of torture chambers and "rape-rooms" and prisoners

with personal accounts of the most terrible suffering at the hands of

Saddam's secret police. This will "prove" how right "we" are to

liberate these poor people. Then the US will have to find

the "weapons of mass destruction" that supposedly provoked this

bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old

rocket will do for the moment.

>

> Bunkers allegedly containing chemical weapons will be

cordoned off - too dangerous for any journalist to approach, of

course. Perhaps they actually do contain VX or anthrax. But for the

moment, the all-important thing for Washington and London is to

convince the world that the causus belli was true - and reporters, in

or out of military costume, will be on hand to say just that.

>

> Baghdad is surrounded and its defenders ordered to surrender.

There will be fighting between Shias and Sunnis around the slums of

the city, the beginning of a ferocious civil conflict for which the

invading armies are totally unprepared. US forces will sweep past

Baghdad to his home city of Tikrit in their hunt for Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Blair will appear on television to speak of their

great "victories". But as they are boasting, the real story will

begin to be told: the break-up of Iraqi society, the return of

thousands of Basra refugees from Iran, many of them with guns, all

refusing to live under western occupation.

>

> In the north, Kurdish guerrillas will try to enter Kirkuk,

where they will kill or "ethnically cleanse" many of the city's Arab

inhabitants. Across Iraq, the invading armies will witness terrible

scenes of revenge which can no longer be kept off television screens.

The collapse of the Iraqi nation is now under way ...

>

> Of course, the Americans and British just might get into

Baghdad in three days for their roses and rice water. That's what the

British did in 1917. And from there, it was all downhill.

>

> Weasel words to watch for

>

> 'Inevitable revenge' - for the executions of Saddam's Baath

party officials which no one actually said were inevitable.

>

> 'Stubborn' or 'suicidal' - to be used when Iraqi forces fight

rather than retreat.

>

> 'Allegedly' - for all carnage caused by Western forces.

>

> 'At last, the damning evidence' - used when reporters enter

old torture chambers.

>

> 'Officials here are not giving us much access' - a clear sign

that reporters in Baghdad are confined to their hotels.

>

> 'Life goes on' - for any pictures of Iraq's poor making tea.

>

> 'Remnants' - allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still shooting

at the Americans but actually the first signs of a resistance

movement dedicated to the 'liberation' of Iraq from its new western

occupiers.

>

> 'Newly liberated' - for territory and cities newly occupied

by the Americans or British.

>

> 'What went wrong?' - to accompany pictures illustrating the

growing anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

OM Shivaks51

 

"and what does THIS have to do with Shakti Sadhana either ?"

 

It has to do with an absence of Shakti Sadhana. Such a clear

example of not having a spiritual pracitice is instructive for all of

us. We may even be encouraged to increase our Shakti

Sadhana so that we don't fall victim to such misinformation.

 

It is useful for us to recognize Maya in all disguises.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem