From another board........



HOW THE D-DAY INVASION WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity.”Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long
weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up.


Great comedy often has truth inbedded in it!

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
From another board........
HOW THE D-DAY INVASION WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS


I don't think anything could better illustrate the absurdity of the screed above better than the fact that **TODAY'S PRESS** --as it regards ANYTHING to do with reporting on America's foreign wars and entanglements-- is handcuffed and gagged by the powers-that-be.

The so-called "free" Press is not "free" in any way.....at least not in reporting on America's waging of war on other countries.

The reports they are allowed --grudgingly-- to send back from Iraq are censored and controlled by the extreme rightwing government in America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read what reporters themselves have to say about their "freedom" to present the truth about war.


http://www.cryingvoice.com/media1.html


Paul de Rooij: Arrogant Propaganda—US Propaganda During the First 10 Days of the Iraq War (Counterpunch, 31 March 2003)

“In the good old days, the US used to tell a lie — crass propaganda — and it would stick for a long time. Journalists would have to scurry for months before they could expose the lies, but by then it would be almost irrelevant, e.g., the Tonkin incident lie provided to justify escalation in the Vietnam War, or the infamous throwing-babies-out-of-incubators story concocted to swing American opinion in favor of the Gulf War in 1991. In the run up to the US-Iraq war, it became increasingly evident that propaganda has a diminished half-life [1]. Whereas years ago the reigning technique was to repeat a lie often enough, now it seems to have given way to a constant barrage of lies or semi-lies with a very short half-life. As soon as a propaganda ploy has been exposed, the current media spinners will move to the next tall story. They seem to count on either the poor memory of the population, their general disinterest or their credulity. There are also good reasons to believe that the current barrage-propaganda approach is losing its effectiveness...

Jacques Ellul, in his book, Propaganda, states that for propaganda to be effective, it must have monopoly and drown out everything else. One of the reasons that propaganda doesn't stick at present is that there are so many alternative information channels...

Propaganda also entails censoring things. Most Americans remember the TV scenes where dead US soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Within a week the US's appetite for that intervention collapsed. Americans only accept clean wars, only the ones that appear like a video game. All the blood and gore must be excised, especially if there is blood of American soldiers, and Americans will not see this on TV. When Al Jazeera showed dead Americans it elicited a vicious reply from the censors shutting down websites and hindering Al Jazeera from broadcasting in the US. If the US finds out the coordinates of the Al Jazeera journalist in Basra, then this could be bombed. During the attack on Afghanistan, the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul were bombed when their reporting proved awkward to the media spinners...

Propaganda is about selling a war in such a way that the core populations don't realize the realities of what such a war entails. The American population wants to see 'enemy' defeats, no losses of their own troops, and they want the effects to be antiseptic—video game style. Propaganda will attempt to direct your focus to the glamorous aspects of battle. Above all, propaganda papers over the fact that this is a war of aggression, that there are home team losses, and that the results are massively bloody. Propaganda hides the fact that there are virtually no painkillers left in Iraqi hospitals, and that the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi wounded will be operated on without anesthetics. The screams of the Iraqi victims as their limbs are amputated without anesthetics are what propaganda tries with all fervor to drown out The propagandists must be pleased, as they have made it possible to demolish a country and to exact on the Iraqi people a horrendous toll—without the American public even noticing.”

What a load of bilge.

Especially considering that not a single major network has talked about how we've poisoned the entire country with depleted uranium. Effective causing the same damage of a "dirty bomb" that Americans are so goddamn hysterical about.

Free and Guerilla, is that the best you can do?

Darth, did you write that?

The only thing left out would be something to the effect of:
"As we reported last week, the actual landing took place at Normandy and not Calais, as the Germans had suspected."

Originally posted by Brooks
Free and Guerilla, is that the best you can do?

TRANSLATION;

"I cannot refute what you say, so I will instead post a snide nonsequitur, facetiously querrying ... "is that your best?"..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below , I give you yet another example of just how the "MODERN Press" serves as little more than the propaganda arm of the far right government.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/media1.html


Saeed Haider: “Media Somersault” (Arab News, 11 April 2003)

“No doubt the biggest toll of the war in Iraq is human lives and human suffering, but the media has also suffered immensely in terms of credibility. Slanted news reports, biased analysis, and prejudiced coverage have created a kind of revulsion among the viewers and readers in this part of the world. One war was fought in Iraq, but at the same time another war was fought on our TV screens. People in Saudi Arabia — and for that matter around the world — were stunned to see how insensitively the Fourth Estate behaved.

The other day Fox News, a quasi-governmental American channel, was broadcasting a group discussion on the aftermath of the war while, in the other half of the frame, showing clips of injured civilians in an Iraqi hospital. It was a gruesome scene, but to Fox audiences it was made more repulsive by its juxtaposition with the panelists, who were cracking jokes and laughing, completely ignoring the human tragedy.

Throughout the war, the so-called embedded reporters unashamedly propagated the American and British point of view. Not a single journalist of Fox News, Sky TV, CNN and the BBC ever questioned the legitimacy of the war when the Anglo-American forces failed to recover weapons of mass destruction.”

Brooks,

No, that wasn't me, I'm not THAT good of a writer, I originally heard on the Rush Limbaugh show, traced it down and found it on a forum where I posted it here.


It's good comedy, with more than a hint of truth.

Excellent!

Originally posted by Freethinker
TRANSLATION;

"I cannot refute what you say, so I will instead post a snide nonsequitur, facetiously querrying ... "is that your best?"..."


Until you start answering every query directed towards you instead of occasionally breaking into your "I like ta blow stuff up 'cuz I'm 'murican" routine, I wouldn't go around making fun of others that do the same thing.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It's good comedy, with more than a hint of truth. It would have a hint of truth if "the modern press" referred to al Jazeera or www.bush-sucks-ass.com. But most of the mainstream media stories on Iraq have to do with US troop deaths or terrorist attacks, not deaths or damage caused by the US.

Originally posted by Jester
.... But most of the mainstream media stories on Iraq have to do with US troop deaths or terrorist attacks, not deaths or damage caused by the US.

Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, lack of WMD's, "better off under Saddam", etc.

The gist is that we often get the negative side with some spin. How many enemy combatants have we killed? That would be a positive story, and an important one. How many tales of courage have we gotten about our soldiers? Another positive story we don't get.

The gist is that we often get the negative side with some spin. How many enemy combatants have we killed? That would be a positive story, and an important one. How many tales of courage have we gotten about our soldiers? Another positive story we don't get.
First of all. It wasn't funny. That was horrendous "humour". Secondly, the kind of stuff that you want out of the news is something that I doubt most people would want. I'm pretty sure that after Vietnam, we don't want the government's bullshit trying to cover up what is really going on. The cold hard facts would be nice, not propaganda to try and make us like the war. You would never of seen a story like that during WW2, and unless you're getting your news from bullshit sites like Jester said, you'll never see that anywhere else either. Major news stations give you facts of what is actually going on, not stupidity like you claim they do, and they also don't spout out propaganda, which you want. And since you don't get that powder-covered baloney, you have to make out as though they're retarded?

Originally posted by Blibblob
Major news stations give you facts of what is actually going on, not stupidity like you claim they do, and they also don't spout out propaganda, which you want.

A serious case of cranial rectitis. Bilb, You can not be that ignorant.

A serious case of cranial rectitis. Bilb, You can not be that ignorant.
I see that if brainwashed extremists on one side are screaming bias, and brainwashed extremists on the other side are also screaming bias, it's really good information.

I thought Darth's post was pretty clever, but that's just me...
Originally posted by Freethinker
nonsequitur
I had never heard this word before, so thanks for using it. First it was "sine qua non", and now this. Damn, you have a good vocabulary, FT. It's really too bad you wax like a prick when you use it...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I had never heard this word before, so thanks for using it. First it was "sine qua non", and now this. Damn, you have a good vocabulary, FT. It's really too bad you wax like a prick when you use it...

Hey...."Wax like a Prick"....sounds like a cool name for a music CD.

But i digress.

Below , I give you yet another example of just how the "MODERN Press" serves as little more than the propaganda arm of the far right government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cryingvoice.com/media1.html

Carol Norris: Mourning Iraq (Dissident Voice, 15 April 2003)

"I am horrified and grief-stricken that the Bush administration and the media unconscionably parade a staged photo-op, where a meager couple of hundred people were corralled to fill a cameraperson's lens, as US marines — not Iraqis — pulled down a statue of Saddam, for all the world to see, using this a 'proof' that all Iraqis unite in joyful liberation. The Bush administration knows the people of the US we will cling to this image, desperately wanting to believe it is true, trying to push what many of us know in our hearts — that this war was brutal and wrong — out of our minds.

I am grief-stricken because this photo-op is the cruel addition of insult to injury to the Iraqi people. It unflinchingly demeans their pain, and obscures their reality. Where are the photos of the rest of the millions of Iraqis? Where are the photos of those who have been devastated by the loss of entire families, those who desperately fight one another for a looted chair, who are angry at the US for not protecting them, scrounging for food and filthy water amidst the unexploded cluster bombs and tons and tons of birth-defect causing depleted uranium, hiding in what is left of their homes, if they are lucky, terrified, shell-shocked, and worn?

I am horrified by the colossal hypocrisy of the Bush administration that uses the US-orchestrated voices of a couple of hundred people as ultimate proof of the goodness of this war, yet when millions upon millions of people around the world raised their voices in protest for months on end, Bush relegated them to an inconsequential 'focus group.'

I am horrified and saddened that the media at times prints grossly misleading polls, saying the majority of Americans are for the war, using sample sizes that wouldn't be considered representative in any credible scientific study. (One major paper, for example, stated 63% of the people of an area with over 6.7 million were for the war. They polled 204 people.) Polls are used to manipulate opinion, not quantify it.”

you forgot to mention how our troops went in with the wrong equipment and not enough ammo and how lousy the planning was

Originally posted by Travh20
you forgot to mention how our troops went in with the wrong equipment and not enough ammo and how lousy the planning was

Forget the *wrong equuipment* and the lack of *ammo*.............if we had a sane government, our troops would not even BE in Iraq.

The *lousy planning* was to go to war in the FIRST place........a war based purely on lies, a preemptive war based on the unproved supposition that Iraq posed a direct and immediate threat to the USA, an illegal war, a war that did not HAVE to be fought but which powerful men in power WANTED to instigate, a war being fought for the enrichment of huge corporations in the petrochemical and defense industries.