Marketing the attack on Iran through the media

[bush_cheney2004]

It's debatable if you have both. By the look of Iraq someone had a big brain fart and the majority of the country quit thinking right along with them. That wasn't too smart. Hopefully someone's brains will kick in before bush does Iran.

Not only both, but enough excess to make similar decisions in the future. Those with little of either don't even have such options.

[Fortunata]

Not only both, but enough excess to make similar decisions in the future. Those with little of either don't even have such options.

Ya, you go bush_cheney. Maybe next time you'll get something right.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya, you go bush_cheney. Maybe next time you'll get something right.

Aww....you broke form. Always being right is easy for those who risk nothing.

[August1991]

Weekly standard, William Kristol opined on Iran.

purveyor of propaganda wrt iraq!

seller of the surge, associate of the 'think tank" AEI

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=154990

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol walked into the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) yesterday with a big grin on his face, as if to say "they're listening to me again!"

The real story here is that North American Leftists have a fixation on conspiracy theories. Kuzadd seems to believe that the Bush White House is manipulating the media to change public opinion.

I remember a time when Leftists took a different stance. Heck, I know Leftists now who don`t use conspiracy theories to support their ideas.

Note to Kuzadd: Bush is at about 30% in the polls. He doesn`t have alot of manipulating to do.

-----

As to the Iraq War and Iran, too many posters seem to have never seen the large space in lower Manhattan. They seem never to have heard about hundreds of children killed in southern Russia, commuters killed in Madrid and London, US embassies bombed in Africa or ordinary Australian kids killed in Indonesia.

To some Leftists, it's as if George W. Bush Jnr. woke up one morning in 2001 and decided that a Middle East war would be good for Halliburton's share price.

Note to Leftists: In a democracy, to paraphrase Lincoln, you'll never get a majority with your conspiracy theories.

Edited September 7, 2007 by August1991

[kuzadd]

The real story here is that North American Leftists have a fixation on conspiracy theories. Kuzadd seems to believe that the Bush White House is manipulating the media to change public opinion.

As to the Iraq War and Iran, too many posters seem to have never seen the large space in lower Manhattan. They seem never to have heard about hundreds of children killed in southern Russia, commuters killed in Madrid and London, US embassies bombed in Africa or ordinary Australian kids killed in Indonesia.

To some Leftists, it's as if George W. Bush Jnr. woke up one morning in 2001 and decided that a Middle East war would be good for Halliburton's share price.

Note to Leftists: In a democracy, to paraphrase Lincoln, you'll never get a majority with your conspiracy theories.

lol!

gosh August how is it you think people came to believe iraq actually had wmd's???

or was actually a threat? or was actually connected to 9/11??

Clearly you do. Cause what exactly does the "hole in Manhattan" have to do with Iraq or Iran??

Oh right Nothing, NADDA, ZERO , ZIP!

Did you really think the Bush whitehouse didn't manipulate the press, to shape the opinions of the masses.

Now that would be naivete to the max!

Manipulation of the press, wether the specific media outlet/reporter, knows about it or not, is admitted, (see originating article, then follow up) and I thought, was fairly common knowledge.

Apparently not.

Press releases through the 'right' think tanks, provide free and easy fillers for the newspapers, idealogues in the press willing to promote points of view that coincide with the regime, all just facts.

Interviews with 'favoured' journalists,the lack of willingness to spend $$ and pay journalists to do any real investigation, makes it easy for this manipulation to occur.

How about all those VNR's???

Note to the naive: inform oneself! LOL!!!!

How much did the Bush regime spend manipulating the news??

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html

First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration using a TV news format. Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from federal agencies.

"The public has a reason to be concerned about the ways in which political manipulation is influencing journalism," says Larry Gross at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California"

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan27/0,4...derFire,00.html

The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun _ a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago.

So how was it again that the populace believed Iraq was connected to 9/11??

You were one of them weren't you?

You actually believed it??

You believed Saddam had wmd's??

Now talk about believing in CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

:lol:

Edited September 7, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

BTW: what is a VNR, a term I used in previous post, well in case anyone doesn't know?

Video New Release : made by PR firms to look like a news story

The Bush regime has made extensive use of these:

http://archive.coanews.org/tiki-read_artic...hp?articleId=89

The real journalists at the TV networks and stations are engaging in news fraud and plagiarism on a massive scale when they pawn off these VNR fake news stories as real news. If you were a journalism student who handed in an assignment which was to produce a TV news story, and your professor discovered that someone else had done all your work for you and given it to you to pass off as your own, you should be expelled. But in the real world of TV journalism you would just collect your paycheck and go home because this would be your job.

There is also payola involved. Money flows from the fake news PR firms to the TV networks for "distribution costs," and the networks send the VNRs out to their affiliates for use on the air.

a win win for the mass media, as it doesn't cost them a penny to use these VNR's

The T.V viewer?

None the wiser.

[GostHacked]

Iran has violated the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which they are a signatory. We have an obligation to the UN to force Iran to abide by it's international agreements. If that means destroying their capacity to violate the agreement, then by all means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...ving_the_treaty

Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

Iran left the NPT in February 2006.

Although the vast majority of sovereign states (187) are party to the NPT, Iran would join the small minority of states that are not party to the NPT. North Korea withdrew from the NPT on January 10, 2003. India, Pakistan, and Israel are not parties to the NPT.

This is my favourite bit here.

He further warned, in reference to Article IV of the NPT which allows for civilian development of nuclear energy, in exchange for nuclear weapons states disarming (Article VI), that "On the other hand, if we are seeing that in total disregard for our following these rules and regulations that you still push to impose on Iranian rights- understand that it will not be tolerated and that the nation of Iran will reconsider its policies".

They violated nothing in regards to the NPT. They were not even a party to it. They did not see staying with the NPT as benefiting Iran overall. So they withdrew, which is allowed, and again, tells us, that Iran, violated nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...ion_Treaty#Iran

After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.

The US and the UN Security Council wants Iran to stop the enrichment. Which they claim is for civilian use. And they have not violated the NPT here at all. From the SAME paragraph.

The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.[27]

So maybe they just need some help to make their civilian nuclear programme work better and to comply with the safeguards and restrictions the IAEA put on Iran in regards to the civilian nuclear programme. The IAEA is there to help with making nuclear power as safe as it can be. We really do not need another Chernobyl.

[M.Dancer]

Iran violated the NPT a few years ago. It was discovered that the Iranians had two "undeclared enrichment facility". When they were caught, iran said sorry and shut down the facility and siigned addtional protocols to the NPT.

They have since resumed the enrichment process.

[GostHacked]

Iran violated the NPT a few years ago. It was discovered that the Iranians had two "undeclared enrichment facility". When they were caught, iran said sorry and shut down the facility and siigned addtional protocols to the NPT.

They have since resumed the enrichment process.

Show me the links .... back that stuff up.

[moderateamericain]

Why are you not in the Middle East then? Why are you still on this safe continent? You (tough as you are) could be over there taking out Iran all by yourself!

You go son!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry247149

damn i bet you feel dumb right now.

[buffycat]

go for it, ill be at your door within a week.

I think you miss the point. I don't want to see Iran bombed - nor do I wish to see the US bombed. I also would love to see the bombing and killing in both Iraq (illegal) and Afghanistan (questionable) stopped.

You on the other hand don't seem to have a problem with invading a soveriegn country illegally and blowing it up. Just as what has been done to Iraq - almost a million now dead and four million displaced!! Wow what a great turnover!!!

Is that any clearer for you?

And furthermore - why in the world would you want to come to my door? What the heck is that - some kind of threat? :angry:

[jdobbin]

Here are the comparisons between the media reports on Iraq versus and Iran.

[buffycat]

Here are the comparisons between the media reports on Iraq versus and Iran.

Thanks for that jdobbin! Very well edited - almost comical if it weren't so true.

Every time I witness this blatent media spin I cannot help but think of Orwell.

BTW - did you sign the petition?

[moderateamericain]

I think you miss the point. I don't want to see Iran bombed - nor do I wish to see the US bombed. I also would love to see the bombing and killing in both Iraq (illegal) and Afghanistan (questionable) stopped.

You on the other hand don't seem to have a problem with invading a soveriegn country illegally and blowing it up. Just as what has been done to Iraq - almost a million now dead and four million displaced!! Wow what a great turnover!!!

Is that any clearer for you?

And furthermore - why in the world would you want to come to my door? What the heck is that - some kind of threat? :angry:

The United states military has not killed a million people. That number most likely goes back to the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. Which many liberal or even some conservative websites don't tell you. They like those big numbers that if you actually analyze probably would end up around 20,000 KIA. Thats unsubstantiated but the last time i checked like 6 months ago, it was around 12,000 directly killed by US troops. Now we can argue all day about what sanctions from the 80's did but thats just a load of bullshit. Sadam could have easily fed his country, he just choose not to.

[Drea]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry247149

damn i bet you feel dumb right now.

Not at all son, because this is the conversation in it's context... you being a soldier makes no difference. Unless you believe being a soldier is an excuse for inhumanity. (It isn't)

Buffycat said:

So, you think it's just fine to invade a soveriegn nation which has NOT done a bloody thing to compromise your own state's security??? So, then I take it that you would think it's fine to perhaps blow up some of the US' nuclear sites? How about one of the hundreds of bases they have worldwide?

Sickening.

then you said:

go for it, ill be at your door within a week

You believe its a-ok for the USA to attack a country for no reason... yet you are utterly dismayed when the taking out the US's nuclear sites is mentioned. Even though the USA is the world's biggest threat and it has nukes. Good god, think about it -- GW has control of nukes.. jeeeesssuz

[jdobbin]

Thanks for that jdobbin! Very well edited - almost comical if it weren't so true.

Every time I witness this blatent media spin I cannot help but think of Orwell.

BTW - did you sign the petition?

I must have missed it.

For the last several months, there has been a gearing up of the rhetoric on the threat from Iran.

[bush_cheney2004]

You believe its a-ok for the USA to attack a country for no reason... yet you are utterly dismayed when the taking out the US's nuclear sites is mentioned. Even though the USA is the world's biggest threat and it has nukes. Good god, think about it -- GW has control of nukes.. jeeeesssuz

Yes it is OK...the USA and Canada have done it several times. Why do you draw the line at George W. Bush? His "reasons" are as good as anybody elses.

"Taking out" US nuclear sites would be problematic, since the horse has long been out of the barn (deployed).

[kuzadd]

I must have missed it.

For the last several months, there has been a gearing up of the rhetoric on the threat from Iran.

not only has there been a "ramping up". it's the same spin job that lead up to Iraq.

Demonization, as always!!!

"Demonization:3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.

We even have the same scenario, even ElBaradei is recognizing that crap!

IAEA Chief ElBaradei Seeks Stop to Iran `War Drums'

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...p;refer=germany

Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations atomic agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei called on Iran and the U.S. to give inspectors a chance to reduce tensions over the Islamic Republic's nuclear work.

``I see war drums that are basically saying that the solution is to bomb Iran,'' ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said today in an interview in Vienna. ``It makes me shudder because some of the rhetoric is a reminder'' of the period before the Iraq war.

ElBaradei reiterated expectations that Iran's atomic program, subject to IAEA inspectors' scrutiny since 2003, may be cleared by the end of this year of suspicion that the project was used as cover for nuclear weapons development.

but then the US says:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296195,00.html

U.S., Allies Accuse IAEA Chief Nuclear Inspector of Mishandling Iran File

VIENNA, Austria — Chief nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei is coming under intense pressure for his handling of the Iran file, with the United States and key allies accusing him of overstepping his authority, diplomats said Sunday.

same old, same old. It's Iraq, "redux", and some are eating it up.

[M.Dancer]

Show me the links .... back that stuff up.

Like I said, this is old news which is conveinently forgotten by those who don' want to face the truth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3502717.stm

UN nuclear inspectors in Iran have found undeclared components of an advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuge at an air force base, diplomats say

Investigation Stalled

Meanwhile, ElBaradei told reporters Nov. 23 that the agency is “going through a period of standstill” in its investigation of a number of issues related to Iran’s past undeclared enrichment-related activities.

His report says that the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has diverted any of its declared nuclear facilities or materials. However, it also says that the agency will “remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify” that Tehran has not engaged in clandestine nuclear activities “unless Iran addresses…long outstanding verification issues.”

Since its investigation began in 2002, the IAEA has discovered that Iran engaged in secret nuclear activities, some of which violated its safeguards agreement. Iran has provided explanations for some of these issues, but the agency says that several others remain unresolved. (See ACT, March 2006.)

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_12/IranEnrichment.asp

The Security Council, seriously concerned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was still unable to provide assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years, today demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, and gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions to give effect to its decision.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

[Higgly]

One thing I have suggested for these fora, with no success, is that we have a forum for discussing the media. So much of what we discuss here comes to us through the media, and a lot of what is being said here, including statements about what Iraq was like under Saddam, came through the American media. The big story here is the complete breakdown of the American media as a reliable and unbiased source of information.

[kuzadd]

MDancer:

Iran has violated the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which they are a signatory.

ghosthacked:

Show me the links .... back that stuff up.

MDancer provide this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3502717.stm

"Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries are allowed to enrich uranium, but must notify the authority they are doing so."

Even when a signatory, it seems from the articles , MDancer provided, to support the violation arguement, it doesn't appear that, enriching uranium is a violation.

I dunno? Anyone?

I haven't read anything solid, suggesting Iran has nuclear weapons, or is even close to having them.

What I see is verbatim the same nonsense in the lead up to Iraq.

recall:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

"The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

" Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"

and what evidence was that????

The evidence called BS! SPIN, SCARE MONGERING, PROPAGANDA, actually that entire speech is galling.

Edited September 10, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

One thing I have suggested for these fora, with no success, is that we have a forum for discussing the media. So much of what we discuss here comes to us through the media, and a lot of what is being said here, including statements about what Iraq was like under Saddam, came through the American media. The big story here is the complete breakdown of the American media as a reliable and unbiased source of information.

excellent idea!

[M.Dancer]

I dunno? Anyone?

I haven't read anything solid, suggesting Iran has nuclear weapons, or is even close to having them.

What I see is verbatim the same nonsense in the lead up to Iraq.

No one has made that claim. The claim is they are in violation of the treaty, which they are. They conducted enrichment in secret.

No why would they do that? On an Air Force Base?

Now define close?

[sharkman]

Those are important issues, Dancer, and of course get overlooked what with all of the freaking out many are doing over this supposed Iran invasion. Kuzzad had started many threads which were thinly veiled attacks on the U.S., Israel, Christians and Jews if I'm not mistaken, so this is just more of the same.

Edited September 10, 2007 by sharkman

[kuzadd]

No one has made that claim. The claim is they are in violation of the treaty, which they are. They conducted enrichment in secret.

No why would they do that? On an Air Force Base?

Now define close?

They were enriching uranium on an air force base?

define close: from what I have read, years away.