7 ms·

Some obvious false things only need to be true for a limited time : Iraqi forces throwing Kuwaiti babies from their incubators, Iraqi WMDs, the 'missile gap'.

Some obvious false things only need to be true for a limited time : Iraqi forces throwing Kuwaiti babies from their incubators, Iraqi WMDs, the 'missile gap'. These were universally believed by "the West".

raccoonDivider 3y ago
The Iraq WMD thing is the one everybody has been falling back on whenever they need to prove their claims that "all western media are propaganda" for a decade or more. It's been 20 years, the NYT recognized the lie and apologized, and these guys still haven't found a better example. Doesn't the lack of newer, more convincing examples tell you a lot about the veracity of the claim? Edit: didn't see the missile gap thing, did you add it later? AFAIK, that was more of a lie by the US Air Force to increase their funding and actual government officials believed it.
- the-dude 3y ago
  I am not sure how to respond to your comment : one gets the impression it is a criticism, but actually you are only acknowledging my claim 'things only need to be true for a limited time'. Who cares about the NYT? I did add the missile gap later, I am sorry. What does it matter who's lie it was? Kennedy ran with it.
- symple 3y ago
  Iraqi WMD was believed enough by the public to make it politically infeasible for most Congressmen to vote against authorizing war against Iraq. That the NYT later issued an apology is irrelevant. Iraqi WMD is a great example of manufacturing consent long enough to push through a major policy blunder. In retrospect the effort was comical enough, in light of the fact that none were found, that the one responsible for it (President Bush) famously joked about looking for WMD under a desk. He received no real political backlash for his joke or for being vile enough to start an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands. The propaganda surrounding the global war on terror was effective enough that when the U.S. performed terrorist acts on weddings that killed innocents it was labeled “drone strikes” and when the enemy performed acts that killed innocents they were labeled “terrorist attacks”. People initially believed the b.s. the Pentagon said about Tillman’s death. People largely believed that Chalabi would be the political savior of a new Iraq until our government no longer liked him. There are people who still think we shouldn’t trade with Cuba because they are communist but see no problem trading with China. Criticism of Israel is often times labeled anti-semitism. Do more than a small minority of people understand that Jews aren’t the only semites in the world? I can’t point to too many specific instances of U.S. media engaged in outright propaganda but there are some clear trends where the collective attitudes on certain topics/beliefs are engineered to be a certain way. The fact that people even ever seriously uttered the phrase “war on christmas” is enough know that opinions are deliberately being manipulated by media.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    Although I agree with your post, the invasion of Iraq can not be seen without taking the US PTSD about 9/11 into account. The WMDs were just a parallel construction.
    - symple 3y ago
      My memory of the events is that pretty much everyone supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Manufactured support was needed for Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was 1.5 years after 9/11 and Iraq wasn’t tied to 9/11. I think our overreaction to 9/11 is itself an example of manipulation by media. We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades and those nations didn’t get PTSD from our actions. This leads me to think that our over the top outrage was partially fueled by media narratives.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        > We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades Please name a few examples of US peacetime attacks on civilian populations
        symple 3y ago
        It’s an easy way to absolve a nation of guilt if you negate any examples done during war. Our bombings in North Vietnam were entirely immoral and are not less so because we were at war. Though no actual declaration of war was made. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was made up to justify enlarging the war. Does McNamara’s Morons count in your mind as an example? Maybe not since that was done to our own people. Nevertheless, you should read up on the history of our shenanigans in Latin America. One example: while Americans didn’t do the actual killing and torture of Catholic priests and nuns our proxies did. You should also read up on things we funded the Iraqis to do in their war against Iran. Paying someone to do your dirty deeds is just as bad as doing them yourself. We did shoot down an Iranian airliner and later promoted the captain of the ship. We weren’t at war with Cambodia but did terrible things to that country during the Vietnam war. Bay of Pigs. Look at who we funded and ended up enabling to gain control of Afghanistan during Soviet Union’s involvement there.
- mrangle 3y ago
  There's no lack of newer examples. There's only a lack of apology and scale of consequence. That scale being the only reason why the NYT was compelled to apologize. The WMD lie shouldn't be the "well, it was twenty years ago" example. It should be the "look what they were willing to do, they can never be trusted" example. Apologizing after the fact of a willful action of that type isn't an apology. It's a vain attempt to reduce consequence for themselves. If only reduced trust, which people like yourself try to still stem citing that lame "apology".
ethanbond 3y ago
How was it “obvious” exactly? Iraq had already used chemical weapons against Kurds and in early/mid-90s the UN found large scale bio weapons programs. It dismantled these programs but then left the country in 1998.
- the-dude 3y ago
  Saddam denied it, Blix and Ritter were sent in and acknowledged there were no traces of any program whatsoever and what had been sealed earlier, was still sealed.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Saddam is a lying autocrat who was making extremely cryptic remarks about WMDs Ritter was last in Iraq in 1998 when he was denied access to several inspection sites. The question was always what happened between 98 and 03. Blix gave his report of no WMDs in June 2003… several months after the invasion which he was deployed into to find WMDs. Again, question was what happened between 98 and 03. So none of this was “obvious” at the time. There were bad decisions, bad information, and straight up liars, but it’s really counterproductive not to assess these decisions honestly in light of the available information of the time.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      I had to look up the Blix timeline, and the article I read ( don't have the link on this machine ) says Blix was in months before the invasion and had conclusions about a month before the invasion.
      - wharvle 3y ago
        Yep, he was there and issuing statements & reports before the invasion. His team had to leave because we were about to invade and it wasn’t safe to stay. I truly can’t believe there are still people who buy the lies. They were lying about Afghanistan[1], needlessly because that war had plenty of support, so why would anyone suppose they weren’t lying about Iraq? FFS, half the important people in the admin signed and/or penned published documents advocating that the US look for any excuse to invade Iraq, in the late 90s. It was beyond plain they were bullshitting about the justification. [1] example: the insane GI Joe playset diagrams of massive, secret, advanced underground bunkers they claimed that Al Qaeda had a bunch of, despite it being impossible to carry out that much earthmoving and concrete pouring (let alone buying all that equipment) without giving away the location to everyone with satellites. Tenfold as true if you tried to do that somewhere not right next to a city (because your supply lines for the huge hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars construction project would be even more plain, and the work itself would stick out like a sore thumb). It was clearly a lie.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Iraqi WMDs were most certainly not universally believed by "the West".
JW_00000 3y ago
The Iraqi WMDs were never universally believed, neither in the US nor in Europe. There were widespread protests against the Iraq War (before it started!) in the US and the rest of the world. France, Germany, and the Benelux vehemently opposed the war, to such an extent that (some) Americans even renamed "french fries" to "freedom fries"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_March_2003_anti-war_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_March_2003_anti-war_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries
- the-dude 3y ago
  I am aware of the opposition at the time : I joined the protest in Amsterdam. Still it was universal enough to invade a country for no proper reason whatsoever. Hell, much of the non-believers joined the conflict later on ( even the French ). The fact Earth is a sphere isn't universally believed either.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

raccoonDivider 3y ago

The Iraq WMD thing is the one everybody has been falling back on whenever they need to prove their claims that "all western media are propaganda" for a decade or more. It's been 20 years, the NYT recognized the lie and apologized, and these guys still haven't found a better example. Doesn't the lack of newer, more convincing examples tell you a lot about the veracity of the claim? Edit: didn't see the missile gap thing, did you add it later? AFAIK, that was more of a lie by the US Air Force to increase their funding and actual government officials believed it.

the-dude 3y ago
I am not sure how to respond to your comment : one gets the impression it is a criticism, but actually you are only acknowledging my claim 'things only need to be true for a limited time'. Who cares about the NYT? I did add the missile gap later, I am sorry. What does it matter who's lie it was? Kennedy ran with it.
symple 3y ago
Iraqi WMD was believed enough by the public to make it politically infeasible for most Congressmen to vote against authorizing war against Iraq. That the NYT later issued an apology is irrelevant. Iraqi WMD is a great example of manufacturing consent long enough to push through a major policy blunder. In retrospect the effort was comical enough, in light of the fact that none were found, that the one responsible for it (President Bush) famously joked about looking for WMD under a desk. He received no real political backlash for his joke or for being vile enough to start an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands. The propaganda surrounding the global war on terror was effective enough that when the U.S. performed terrorist acts on weddings that killed innocents it was labeled “drone strikes” and when the enemy performed acts that killed innocents they were labeled “terrorist attacks”. People initially believed the b.s. the Pentagon said about Tillman’s death. People largely believed that Chalabi would be the political savior of a new Iraq until our government no longer liked him. There are people who still think we shouldn’t trade with Cuba because they are communist but see no problem trading with China. Criticism of Israel is often times labeled anti-semitism. Do more than a small minority of people understand that Jews aren’t the only semites in the world? I can’t point to too many specific instances of U.S. media engaged in outright propaganda but there are some clear trends where the collective attitudes on certain topics/beliefs are engineered to be a certain way. The fact that people even ever seriously uttered the phrase “war on christmas” is enough know that opinions are deliberately being manipulated by media.
- the-dude 3y ago
  Although I agree with your post, the invasion of Iraq can not be seen without taking the US PTSD about 9/11 into account. The WMDs were just a parallel construction.
  - symple 3y ago
    My memory of the events is that pretty much everyone supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Manufactured support was needed for Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was 1.5 years after 9/11 and Iraq wasn’t tied to 9/11. I think our overreaction to 9/11 is itself an example of manipulation by media. We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades and those nations didn’t get PTSD from our actions. This leads me to think that our over the top outrage was partially fueled by media narratives.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades Please name a few examples of US peacetime attacks on civilian populations
      - symple 3y ago
        It’s an easy way to absolve a nation of guilt if you negate any examples done during war. Our bombings in North Vietnam were entirely immoral and are not less so because we were at war. Though no actual declaration of war was made. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was made up to justify enlarging the war. Does McNamara’s Morons count in your mind as an example? Maybe not since that was done to our own people. Nevertheless, you should read up on the history of our shenanigans in Latin America. One example: while Americans didn’t do the actual killing and torture of Catholic priests and nuns our proxies did. You should also read up on things we funded the Iraqis to do in their war against Iran. Paying someone to do your dirty deeds is just as bad as doing them yourself. We did shoot down an Iranian airliner and later promoted the captain of the ship. We weren’t at war with Cambodia but did terrible things to that country during the Vietnam war. Bay of Pigs. Look at who we funded and ended up enabling to gain control of Afghanistan during Soviet Union’s involvement there.
mrangle 3y ago
There's no lack of newer examples. There's only a lack of apology and scale of consequence. That scale being the only reason why the NYT was compelled to apologize. The WMD lie shouldn't be the "well, it was twenty years ago" example. It should be the "look what they were willing to do, they can never be trusted" example. Apologizing after the fact of a willful action of that type isn't an apology. It's a vain attempt to reduce consequence for themselves. If only reduced trust, which people like yourself try to still stem citing that lame "apology".

ethanbond 3y ago

How was it “obvious” exactly? Iraq had already used chemical weapons against Kurds and in early/mid-90s the UN found large scale bio weapons programs. It dismantled these programs but then left the country in 1998.

the-dude 3y ago
Saddam denied it, Blix and Ritter were sent in and acknowledged there were no traces of any program whatsoever and what had been sealed earlier, was still sealed.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Saddam is a lying autocrat who was making extremely cryptic remarks about WMDs Ritter was last in Iraq in 1998 when he was denied access to several inspection sites. The question was always what happened between 98 and 03. Blix gave his report of no WMDs in June 2003… several months after the invasion which he was deployed into to find WMDs. Again, question was what happened between 98 and 03. So none of this was “obvious” at the time. There were bad decisions, bad information, and straight up liars, but it’s really counterproductive not to assess these decisions honestly in light of the available information of the time.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    I had to look up the Blix timeline, and the article I read ( don't have the link on this machine ) says Blix was in months before the invasion and had conclusions about a month before the invasion.
    - wharvle 3y ago
      Yep, he was there and issuing statements & reports before the invasion. His team had to leave because we were about to invade and it wasn’t safe to stay. I truly can’t believe there are still people who buy the lies. They were lying about Afghanistan[1], needlessly because that war had plenty of support, so why would anyone suppose they weren’t lying about Iraq? FFS, half the important people in the admin signed and/or penned published documents advocating that the US look for any excuse to invade Iraq, in the late 90s. It was beyond plain they were bullshitting about the justification. [1] example: the insane GI Joe playset diagrams of massive, secret, advanced underground bunkers they claimed that Al Qaeda had a bunch of, despite it being impossible to carry out that much earthmoving and concrete pouring (let alone buying all that equipment) without giving away the location to everyone with satellites. Tenfold as true if you tried to do that somewhere not right next to a city (because your supply lines for the huge hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars construction project would be even more plain, and the work itself would stick out like a sore thumb). It was clearly a lie.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Iraqi WMDs were most certainly not universally believed by "the West".

JW_00000 3y ago

The Iraqi WMDs were never universally believed, neither in the US nor in Europe. There were widespread protests against the Iraq War (before it started!) in the US and the rest of the world. France, Germany, and the Benelux vehemently opposed the war, to such an extent that (some) Americans even renamed "french fries" to "freedom fries"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_March_2003_anti-war_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_March_2003_anti-war_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

the-dude 3y ago
I am aware of the opposition at the time : I joined the protest in Amsterdam. Still it was universal enough to invade a country for no proper reason whatsoever. Hell, much of the non-believers joined the conflict later on ( even the French ). The fact Earth is a sphere isn't universally believed either.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]