Why are we at war with Libya

[GostHacked]

William Ashley on just about anything for one but there are several folks who regularly post links to tin foil hat blogs or websites citing them as "proof" of this or that.

What really qualifies as proof? If we have entities like CBC and CNN and the rest of the MSM, known to partake in propaganda based on what the corporations and or governments want you to know, but yet if you believe and buy into the propaganda they are selling, then sure everything else will seem like tinfoil sites to you.

So the average Soviet citizen was more savy because he was kept ignorant. Gotcha.

In the USSR, the propaganda was to combat the expanding imperialistic capitalism, while the USA was getting the propaganda of combating the expanding communism. Not sure who was right, but we know who one.

If you say it was the most debated war in history there obviously must have been a strong anti war position otherwise there could be no debate.

But time after time, no matter how strong the anti-war movement is or was or will be, war still happens in spite of the protests. Maybe this is why there are now designated free speech zones, which does not promote free speech at all.

You are talking about media manipulation and of course different interests will try to manipulate the media. Not just governments but every other kind of interest.

And because of that, we have the propaganda only those in power want you to hear. The MSM does not give you what you want to know, only what they want you to know. The fact that media can be and IS manipulated prove that. It's also the reason more and more are going to the 'tin foil hat' sites for a dose of real news without the fluff.

Edited March 23, 2011 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

....Heck, you don't actually think this way...or else you'd be arguing that my summoning of the Propaganda Theory was just as valid as your refutation of it. And yet you think I'm wrong.

Well, I know you are wrong....choosing the very poor example of Iraq War #2 to bolster your position just proves it.

[Bonam]

No, but he was arguably more savvy that he was kept ignorant.

Are you so sure of this? Got any information to back up this statement? When Gorbachev started implementing Perestroika and Glasnost, Russians started to become more aware of what had been kept from them. When Khrushchev was doing de-Stalinization, people found out about some of the evils of Stalin. But before the state itself disclosed such information, in either case, people were largely ignorant of it and did not know what they were missing. When Stalin died, people turned out by the millions to weep for him as a dead father or even a dead God. Soviet people were convinced probably up into the early 80s that Americans suffered worse than they themselves did under the cruel oppression of capitalism.

Remember, most anyone that really was savvy enough to suspect that everything around him was a lie was six feet under a frozen grave in Siberia. The first thing Lenin and Stalin did was purge the intellectuals. And under later Soviet leaders when things were a bit less physically oppressive, any intellectual worth his salt applied his intellect first and foremost to getting the hell out of the Soviet Union.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only two fundamental angles--within the major mainstream media (the only argument I made on this point...you missed it, relying on other posters' responses rather than my intiial remarks): the war is good...or the war is a bad idea (for the US). That's it.

Show me five deviations out of the (literally) hundreds of debates.

I missed nothing....just because you try to bound the domain of a weak argument does not make it so.

[Wilber]

Oh, sure, but this has nothing to do with ideological or political position.

Of course it does, why else do it.

No, but he was arguably more savvy that he was kept ignorant.

Maybe but in our society, people are generally ignorant because they choose to be.

First of all, this retort is proof positive that you either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it.

At any rate, there was strong anti-war position. The majority of people, at least as far as anyone can tell, were opposed to the war.

But in the mediasphere of Public Debate, the paramaters were narrow, and (predictably) in favour of Establishment interests and calcified opinion. The war was hotly opposed in this sphere, yes...because the opposers thought it might be bad for the United States (and perhaps for other enlightened Western arenas).

Not because it might be fundamentally wrong to attack the Iraqis. Scarcely a consideration among "serious" commentators.

Again, prove me wrong, if you believe I'm wrong.

I read it and understand it but there are no "proofs" in this discussion, only opinions.

Yes....but the subject of this very discussion was government propaganda.

You were the one who brought up Axe Body Wash.

[bloodyminded]

Well, I know you are wrong....choosing the very poor example of Iraq War #2 to bolster your position just proves it.

Then you don't believe your other argument, about equal and opposite forms of propanda... Which is fine with me; I don't buy it either. I doubt anybody does.

But of course you agree with me about deceitful government propaganda in Iraq war 2.

You already conceded that. You were fine with it; you don't mind it; but you conceded it.

[bloodyminded]

Are you so sure of this? Got any information to back up this statement?

Am I "sure" of my statement containing the word "arguably"?

Is that a serious question?

When Gorbachev started implementing Perestroika and Glasnost, Russians started to become more aware of what had been kept from them. When Khrushchev was doing de-Stalinization, people found out about some of the evils of Stalin. But before the state itself disclosed such information, in either case, people were largely ignorant of it and did not know what they were missing. When Stalin died, people turned out by the millions to weep for him as a dead father or even a dead God. Soviet people were convinced probably up into the early 80s that Americans suffered worse than they themselves did under the cruel oppression of capitalism.

no doubt they believed in tons of propaganda. bonam, people here--who have every access to the available information--still generally wouldn't believe that Reagan was explicitly supportive of murderous terrorists. But it's not a debatable matter. In fact, many people know it and don't know it, simultaneously...which takes real ideological discipline, I imagine.

But i have no doubt that plenty of soviet citizens knew they were being propagandized to; they might not have known what was true and what wasn't; and they undoubtedly believed all sorts of nonsense; that doesn't mean they were unaware that there was nonsense.

And that was exactly my point, so stated: they undoubtedly believed that they were subject to nonsense...without necessarily knowing what was and what wasn't.

The first thing Lenin and Stalin did was purge the intellectuals.

Intellectuals tend largely to be every bit as indoctrinated and propagandized as everyone else, Bonam.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Then you don't believe your other argument, about equal and opposite forms of propanda... Which is fine with me; I don't buy it either. I doubt anybody does.

I never made such an argument....equal and opposite was your construct.

But of course you agree with me about deceitful government propaganda in Iraq war 2.

You already conceded that. You were fine with it; you don't mind it; but you conceded it.

No, I only "conceded" that there was much debate, from many angles (not just two), and that one side prevailed. Your "side" lost....better luck next time.

[bloodyminded]

Of course it does, why else do it.

i'm saying there is no one ideological or political position that is prone to wild and fantastical political theories; the laughable fairy tales are a gift to us all, perhaps from a malevolent god.

Maybe but in our society, people are generally ignorant because they choose to be.

Well, at least people who are educated to the point where they understand how to do basic research...absolutely true.

Like I've said, Western propaganda depends absolutely on people's freely choosing to be ignorant.

I read it and understand it but there are no "proofs" in this discussion, only opinions.

Well, at least I'm trying! you're making zero effort...up to and including misrepresneting what I've said. (Ie there's been no anti-war movement...that's the literal opposite of what I was saying.)

You were the one who brought up Axe Body Wash.

Yes, because Western propaganda is irredemably entwined with the Public Relations industry (who are not paid billions of dolalrs to inform the public of the plain, unvarnished truth, obviously); and this in turn is inextricably entwined with the advertising industry.

[bloodyminded]

I never made such an argument....equal and opposite was your construct.

No, you made it. I didn't construct it, just reported on it.

No, I only "conceded" that there was much debate, from many angles (not just two), and that one side prevailed. Your "side" lost....better luck next time.

It's not "my" side. It was most poeple's side. It might have been yours too, were you not deceived.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, because Western propaganda is irredemably entwined with the Public Relations industry (who are not paid billions of dolalrs to inform the public of the plain, unvarnished truth, obviously); and this in turn is inextricably entwined with the advertising industry.

If the "truth" got higher ratings, it would garner more support in the marketplace of ideas. The problem has always been "who's truth", which leads right back to the beginning.

Axe (or Lynx in the UK, The Republic of Ireland, New Zealand & Australia) is a brand of male grooming products, owned by the British/Dutch company Unilever and marketed towards young males. The scents range from popular scents to the least common scent called lemon-lime.

[bloodyminded]

If the "truth" got higher ratings, it would garner more support in the marketplace of ideas. The problem has always been "who's truth", which leads right back to the beginning.

Yes...back to your two competing notions, either of which you'll pluck at contradictorily whenever it suits you in debate.

It's ok...we've already established you're dishonest, and not interested in honest debate. It's cool, brother.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you made it. I didn't construct it, just reported on it.

It matters not, I have no dog in this fight. Competing ideas squared off and one prevailed. That is what counts.

It's not "my" side. It was most poeple's side. It might have been yours too, were you not deceived.

Now you are making judgements and decisions for "most people" and "others"....how is that working for ya'. Maybe you should be in the propaganda business too.

[bloodyminded]

It matters not, I have no dog in this fight. Competing ideas squared off and one prevailed. That is what counts.

It's not the only thing that matters. Unless you defend issues like the Holocaust. And I feel pretty confident you don't think the Holocaust was fine until it became clear that the Survivors would be liberated. It was bad before that, too. It would have been bad had the Nazis fully succeeded in that particular endeavour.

Wouldn't it?

Now you are making judgements and decisions for "most people" and "others"....how is that working for ya'. Maybe you should be in the propaganda business too.

It's not my judgment, but based on the only information we have. While the matter can never be 100% clear (something you certainly don't demand, to your credit) all the information we do have tells us that the overwhelming majority of people polled--in many, many countries--were opposed to the war. The Eastern European "Coalition allies" had a less supportive populace than did "Old, irrelevant" Western Europe, incidentally, where in some cases nearly a whole quarter of the population supported the war!

Elsewhere the supportive numbers were far lower. The US and UK remain the exceptions--they were the most heavily propagandized, of course, returning us back to the thread. And in Canada, support was present, but a distinct minority.

But throughout most of the world? Very low. Very.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Like I've said, Western propaganda depends absolutely on people's freely choosing to be ignorant.

Any specific example?

[Saipan]

It would have been bad had the Nazis fully succeeded in that particular endeavour.

Wouldn't it?

Nazis or Communists. But of course they can't. Karma doesn't allow that. Evil is destined to lose.

[bloodyminded]

Any specific example?

How about intentional Western culpability in Indonesia's mass murders of the East Timorese?

Massive terrorism, of the state variety.

Materially aided by the West.

That's explicit support for terrorism and mass murder...worse than anything Hamas or Hezbollah has managed, by a long shot.

Lots of people are intentionally ignorant about this awful chapter in their histories. Even after they're informed of it, they mutter "Cold War" and slink away.

Is that example "specific" enough to fit the expectations of your special font?

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not the only thing that matters. Unless you defend issues like the Holocaust. And I feel pretty confident you don't think the Holocaust was fine until it became clear that the Survivors would be liberated. It was bad before that, too. It would have been bad had the Nazis fully succeeded in that particular endeavour.

Mike Godwin's Law proven yet again. But if I must...the "Holocaust" happened...many times...and in many different places.

It's not my judgment, but based on the only information we have. While the matter can never be 100% clear (something you certainly don't demand, to your credit) all the information we do have tells us that the overwhelming majority of people polled--in many, many countries--were opposed to the war.

So what...it wasn't their war in many many countries, and the one's that did participate, did so at the direction of "mostly" elected leadership.

The Eastern European "Coalition allies" had a less supportive populace than did "Old, irrelevant" Western Europe, incidentally, where in some cases nearly a whole quarter of the population supported the war!

I'll bet they didn't "support" WW2 either, but they didn't have much choice. Hey, I like this Godwin thing!

Elsewhere the supportive numbers were far lower. The US and UK remain the exceptions--they were the most heavily propagandized, of course, returning us back to the thread. And in Canada, support was present, but a distinct minority.

Support in Canada was irrelevant at any level, as it had very little to contribute.

But throughout most of the world? Very low. Very.

It wasn't the "world's" choice or decision...that's what "unilateral" means. Let them protest their asses off if it makes them feel better.

[Saipan]

How about intentional Western culpability in Indonesia's mass murders of the East Timorese?

ISLAMIC, not Western. You need to find better SPECIFIC example.

[bloodyminded]

Mike Godwin's Law proven yet again.

That's not an example of Godwin's law.

But if I must...the "Holocaust" happened...many times...and in many different places.

I agree, but that doesn't even attempt to answer the question, much less begin to answer it.

So what...it wasn't their war in many many countries, and the one's that did participate, did so at the direction of "mostly" elected leadership.

I said "most people"; you wondered how I came to that; I answered.

Nice sidestep, however!

I'll bet they didn't "support" WW2 either, but they didn't have much choice.

Again, beside the point of why I remarked on it.

Hey, I like this Godwin thing!

Again, you don't get it. Godwin himself said it does not apply to every reference or analogy of the Nazis.

Godwin's law is to be invoked at inappropriate analogies, comparing opponents of opponents ideas unfavourably.

Mine was clearly favourable; I stated outright that I don't believe you'd support the Holocaust.

I didn't liken you to the Nazis; i presumed your opposition to the Nazis. Not teribly unreasonable, nor an unfair debating practice.

Support in Canada was irrelevant at any level, as it had very little to contribute.

It's this point you make that is irrelevant; revisit how this particular back-and-forth (regarding global opposition) began.

It wasn't the "world's" choice or decision...that's what "unilateral" means. Let them protest their asses off if it makes them feel better.

At least you concede my point, which you intially passed off as my making "judgements...for most people."

I explained that I was not, and now you see.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

ISLAMIC, not Western. You need to find better SPECIFIC example.

No...Western. The United States, the UK, Australia, Canada...and (I believe, but might be mistaken) France.

Supporting the Indonesian massacres of the East Timorese. And oh boy, there were a lot of murders.

Thank you for proving my point for me, Saipan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, you don't get it. Godwin himself said it does not apply to every reference or analogy of the Nazis.

Godwin's law is to be invoked at inappropriate analogies, comparing opponents of opponents ideas unfavourably.

It does in this case...you went straight for the Nazi gold ring to bolster your "propaganda" argument despite insisting that the Americans and British had perfected it long before. We know why you did this, and it smacks of Godwin's original intent.

Mine was clearly favourable; I stated outright that I don't believe you'd support the Holocaust.

It doesn't matter whether I "support the Holocaust" or not. Yours was an obvious and lazy attempt to invoke some kind of correlation vis-a-vis the war(s) in Iraq. Germans and other European powers are/were perfectly capable of starting wars irrespective of the "Holocaust".

I didn't liken you to the Nazis; i presumed your opposition to the Nazis. Not teribly unreasonable, nor an unfair debating practice.

I wasn't alive to oppose Nazis, and neither were you.

It's this point you make that is irrelevant; revisit how this particular back-and-forth (regarding global opposition) began.

No...I already lived through it the first time, and I had a much better seat than you.

At least you concede my point, which you intially passed off as my making "judgements...for most people."

I concede nothing....you do not speak for most people and you never will. I would not make such a claim.

Anyone who insists that his "point" has been conceded obviously has more work to do.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

It does in this case...you went straight for the Nazi gold ring to bolster your "propaganda" argument despite insisting that the Americans and British had perfected it long before.

No, I didn't. I did it specifically and only to refute your statement that power and winning is all that matters.

It wasn't related to my propaganda point at all.

You should go back and look, as it's perfectly clear.

We know why you did this, and it smacks of Godwin's original intent.

Clearly you don't know. You're mistaken, is all. Happens to everyone at times.

It doesn't matter whether I "support the Holocaust" or not. Yours was an obvious and lazy attempt to invoke some kind of correlation vis-a-vis the war(s) in Iraq.

No, no coorelation with Iraq; I don't compare the two, and find such comparisons unconvincing.

No, the one and only reason I summoned the Holocaust was because I considered it an obvious catastrophe in which we'd both be safely on the same side; in other words, I assumed (incorrectly it turns out ) that using the obvious and infamous horror would keep the matter simple, so as not to produce any secondary arguments to confuse the issue.

Germans and other European powers are/were perfectly capable of starting wars irrespective of the "Holocaust".

No doubt, but I don't see how this refutes anything I've ever claimed about any subject.

I wasn't alive to oppose Nazis, and neither were you.

All right then: I assumed you considered some infamous Nazi behaviour to have been bad.

This really doesn't seem too controversial to me, but you appear to be in an argumentative mood.

No...I already lived through it the first time, and I had a much better seat than you.

If you say so.

I concede nothing....you do not speak for most people and you never will. I would not make such a claim.

Exactly as I said, I am not speaking for them. I am discussing the available information we have on this topic.

And you did concede it, which is no terrible flaw, BC; your arguments against global opinion as I attempted to roughly outline it (again, based on what is known, not my opinion of it) clearly implied a concession of those global opinions...a concession that they were what I claimed they were. Otherwise, your remarks make no sense whatsoever; and I don't accuse you of being senseless here at all.

Anyone who insists that his "point" has been conceded obviously has more work to do.

If you don't agree with me, you probably shouldn't respond as if you do.

[Saipan]

No...Western. The United States, the UK, Australia, Canada...and (I believe, but might be mistaken) France.

No, ISLAMIC. And only Islamic.

"Christians in Iraq have been, and not for the first time, deliberately targeted in a major terrorist attack. Indeed, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Iraq, from the Gaza Strip to Egypt to Sudan to Nigeria, Christians are being assaulted, intimidated, and murdered by militant Muslims."

http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2010/11/post_187.php

[bloodyminded]

No, ISLAMIC. And only Islamic.

"Christians in Iraq have been, and not for the first time, deliberately targeted in a major terrorist attack. Indeed, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Iraq, from the Gaza Strip to Egypt to Sudan to Nigeria, Christians are being assaulted, intimidated, and murdered by militant Muslims."

http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2010/11/post_187.php

Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975 (with the explicit go-ahead of Ford and Kissinger, long suspected, now proven once and for all thanks to declassified documents).

The West's (especially US) continued support of the ongoing invasion and the many massacres...including supporting arms and weaponry without which the slaughters would have been impossible.

Moynihan's stated, admitted interference with the UN, to ensure the UN remained ineffective in curbing Indonesia's atrocities in East Timor.

Wolfowitz's deception about Suharto "moderating" his behaviour, even as the slaughters peaked.

Murders ongoing from December 1975 until September 1999.

Estimates of killings range from 100 000 to 300 000. Most cite 200 000 as probably accurate.

You're talking about something else...something far, far less devstating and horrible, if numbers of murdered and tortured are to be the metrics for such terror.

You can't blame Islam for this one, Saipan. Nor communists, in case that occurs to you for some reason.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded