matt b
Indexing all opinion
read private eye for a month- nearly every issue has reports about police brutality. its on-going and silently condoned.
War In Iran
- Thread starter MATT MAson
- Start date
read private eye for a month- nearly every issue has reports about police brutality. its on-going and silently condoned.
vimothy
yurp
Surely there's some slippage here matt b: who exactly do you mean when you say "the Iranians"? Who actually in Iran wants the nuclear weapons and who will benefit from their development?
crackerjack
Well-known member
matt b
Indexing all opinion
my point was that the iranian gvt may be acting rationally given what's going on.
in terms of who would benefit/who wants it (beyond those in power in iran), there's so much noise about, its very difficult to know
matt b
Indexing all opinion
crackerjack
Well-known member
vimothy
yurp
Regardless, it's obviously nowt to do with the actual people of Iran.
Foreign policy statements are almost never taken at face value. Since when have diplomats and officials ever explictly stated issues of national interest vis a vis demands on others without hedging language in either expressive strength and threats? It's always gamesmanship and obfuscation.
Apply that same logic to your response to the VF article, where these poor "intellectual" pillars of neoconservatism were tricked by big bad Graydon Carter reporter and misrepresented.
Or alternatively, would you apply the same reasoning If I pointed to the Iranian overtures to the US via the Swiss to stop its enrichment program and its support of extra-state groups years ago?
Now there might not be a "hideous" or "nefarious" intention, but given the failure of neoconservatives to actually plan for the most obvious necessities for a post decapitated Iraq, people tend to take that sort of ignorance, when coupled with belligerance, as a sign of bad intentions and dishonesty. I'm putting that as nicely as possible.
I actually really hate having to stoop to this level of explanation.
By the way, Zawihiri tapes embolden terrorist more than C-Span archives. In case you didnt know.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
It Has Already Begun
Iran - Ready to Attack
American preparations for invading Iran are complete
By Dan Plesch
American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.
==================================================
Next Stop: Tehran
By Philip Giraldi
For the past two years, the U.S. has been conducting secret operations inside Iran, employing Special Forces units operating out of Afghanistan, while Pentagon-supported dissidents have been carrying out armed raids into Iran?s predominantly Arab provinces.
======================================================
StratCom and the Plan To Attack Iran
By Tim Rinne
Under "CONPLAN 8022? (Contingency Plan 8022), the Omaha-based command center is now commissioned to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target deemed a threat to the United States' national security. And the projected attack against Iran-which could well include nuclear as well as conventional weapons-will be planned, launched and coordinated by StratCom.
====================================================
Congress' Nuclear Liability
By Jorge Hirsch
Congress is on notice. The expanded role for nuclear weapons logically calls for a change in the decision-making process on when nuclear weapons should be used, at least in cases where no extreme urgency exists. Under current law, the President has sole full authority to order their use, Congress has no say.
====================================================
U.S. patrol ship on alert in gulf:
Soon the Firebolt will be joined in the region by one of the Navy's most heavily armed behemoths: the 1,092-foot-long carrier John C. Stennis, with a crew of 5,000 and more than 80 warplanes. The Stennis will head a strike force of destroyers, cruisers and submarines deployed to the region by the Bush administration amid heightened tensions with Iran
=======================================================
Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship :
A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.
======================================================
Don't Do It, Mr. President
Hon. Ron Paul Of Texas
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
=====================================================
Arabs Fear the U.S. and Israel, Not Iran
By Jim Lobe
Less than one in four Arabs believe Iran should be pressured to halt its nuclear programme, while 61 percent, including majorities in all six countries, said Tehran had the right to pursue it even if, as most believe, the programme is designed to develop nuclear weapons.
=======================================================
War with Iran?
Is war with Iran on the way? We hear from four former CIA officials.
By Ken Silverstein.
Yes, I think Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran.
==================================================
Iran - Ready to Attack
American preparations for invading Iran are complete
By Dan Plesch
American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.
==================================================
Next Stop: Tehran
By Philip Giraldi
For the past two years, the U.S. has been conducting secret operations inside Iran, employing Special Forces units operating out of Afghanistan, while Pentagon-supported dissidents have been carrying out armed raids into Iran?s predominantly Arab provinces.
======================================================
StratCom and the Plan To Attack Iran
By Tim Rinne
Under "CONPLAN 8022? (Contingency Plan 8022), the Omaha-based command center is now commissioned to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target deemed a threat to the United States' national security. And the projected attack against Iran-which could well include nuclear as well as conventional weapons-will be planned, launched and coordinated by StratCom.
====================================================
Congress' Nuclear Liability
By Jorge Hirsch
Congress is on notice. The expanded role for nuclear weapons logically calls for a change in the decision-making process on when nuclear weapons should be used, at least in cases where no extreme urgency exists. Under current law, the President has sole full authority to order their use, Congress has no say.
====================================================
U.S. patrol ship on alert in gulf:
Soon the Firebolt will be joined in the region by one of the Navy's most heavily armed behemoths: the 1,092-foot-long carrier John C. Stennis, with a crew of 5,000 and more than 80 warplanes. The Stennis will head a strike force of destroyers, cruisers and submarines deployed to the region by the Bush administration amid heightened tensions with Iran
=======================================================
Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship :
A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.
======================================================
Don't Do It, Mr. President
Hon. Ron Paul Of Texas
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
=====================================================
Arabs Fear the U.S. and Israel, Not Iran
By Jim Lobe
Less than one in four Arabs believe Iran should be pressured to halt its nuclear programme, while 61 percent, including majorities in all six countries, said Tehran had the right to pursue it even if, as most believe, the programme is designed to develop nuclear weapons.
=======================================================
War with Iran?
Is war with Iran on the way? We hear from four former CIA officials.
By Ken Silverstein.
Yes, I think Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran.
==================================================
"Bush's Headlong Rush Into Iran?"
The French have an expression fuite en avant, which the dictionaries translate as "headlong rush." But the translation loses the real meaning. A fuite en avant is something one does when one is in a losing situation, and one hopes to salvage it by doing more of the same or worse, thereby creating a situation in which one hopes people will feel they have to support you. Is this what Bush intends to do in Iran?
We know two things about the Bush regime. Its position in Iraq is impossible and is now very widely contested even in the United States. The call for withdrawal grows daily and coming from everywhere. And we know that, since 2001, the neo-cons and Cheney have been pushing for a military attack on Iran with the objective of regime change. So, this could be the moment.
The United States has sent its fleet into the region, and placed an admiral known for his competence in sea-air attacks in charge. The United States is issuing statements virtually daily about alleged Iranian misdeeds. In short, the United States is saber-rattling. Furthermore, a very large number of people seem to take this very seriously. Three of the highest-ranking retired United States military have publicly warned against the folly of attacking Iran. So has Zbigniew Brzezinski, who scarcely qualifies as a dove. So have countless politicians and diplomats from around the world. But Cheney has made it clear that the United States government will do what it pleases, no matter how many the opponents, or who they are.
Will anyone support the United States in such an adventure? Very few indeed. Not the United States Congress, although Bush and Cheney may be counting on the fact that it is harder for the Democrats to oppose them on Iran than on Iraq. They will have the support of the Israeli government. And they seem to be counting on the support of the Saudis. But this is to misunderstand the Saudi position. The Saudis are of course concerned to limit Iranian pretensions to hegemony in the region as well as to contain the possibilities of Shia militancy in Sunni-dominated states, and first of all in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis also have made it clear that a military attack on Iran will harm rather than help Saudi political objectives. Saudi active mediation of the Hamas-Fatah dispute in Palestine indicates they are seeking to distance themselves clearly from United States strategy in the Middle East. And in Europe even the British are voicing their distaste for the idea of an attack on Iran.
So, let us suppose that, despite all this, Bush and Cheney decide to make their headlong rush into war, their fuite en avant to try to salvage their disastrous situation. What would happen, and why would they do this? What would happen seems clear. An air attack on Iran will not achieve the objective of dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, although it may damage it. Sending in troops, if the United States could find any to send in, would lead to a very high United States death toll. The Iranian government would be strengthened politically - at home and throughout the Islamic world. The Russians and the Chinese would de facto support Iran.
And worst of all for the United States, those in Iraq it considers its closest allies would start calling quite vociferously for the United States' immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has already started down this road. Nobody in Iraq, nobody, wants the United States to attack Iran, and nobody emotionally sides with the United States on this question.
Now Cheney is an intelligent politician, and he can see all this, I think. If so, why would he be pushing nonetheless for war? Could we entertain the idea that creating an even greater disaster for the United States seems to him the best option available for achieving his real political objectives?
Cheney (and Bush) know that they will control the United States government only for two more years. After that, they don't know who will be in power, but they have every reason to doubt it will be their clones. The last thing they want is a peaceful transfer of power to anyone who might dismantle what they have constructed and try, even try, to move the United States back to where it was - domestically and internationally - in the Nixon to Clinton years.
They are looking forward to increasing, not decreasing, internal strife in the United States. They are looking forward to further dismantlement of the civil liberties framework, one that was never perfect but did afford some constraints on governmental power. They are looking forward to further regression in the arena of social rights. They are looking forward to a darker United States in a darker world.
Can anyone stop them? Possibly. There is the now widespread and quite vocal resistance within the armed forces. For the first time in my lifetime, I have seen speculation in the press about a military coup. I doubt it would occur, but the very speculation shows how extensive are the misgivings. And there is the resistance of the politicians who are essentially for the most part moderate centrists whose major concern is to keep their elected positions and who blow with their constituents' wind. Will this be enough? It is hard to tell, but we shall see more clearly in the next two to three months.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
The French have an expression fuite en avant, which the dictionaries translate as "headlong rush." But the translation loses the real meaning. A fuite en avant is something one does when one is in a losing situation, and one hopes to salvage it by doing more of the same or worse, thereby creating a situation in which one hopes people will feel they have to support you. Is this what Bush intends to do in Iran?
We know two things about the Bush regime. Its position in Iraq is impossible and is now very widely contested even in the United States. The call for withdrawal grows daily and coming from everywhere. And we know that, since 2001, the neo-cons and Cheney have been pushing for a military attack on Iran with the objective of regime change. So, this could be the moment.
The United States has sent its fleet into the region, and placed an admiral known for his competence in sea-air attacks in charge. The United States is issuing statements virtually daily about alleged Iranian misdeeds. In short, the United States is saber-rattling. Furthermore, a very large number of people seem to take this very seriously. Three of the highest-ranking retired United States military have publicly warned against the folly of attacking Iran. So has Zbigniew Brzezinski, who scarcely qualifies as a dove. So have countless politicians and diplomats from around the world. But Cheney has made it clear that the United States government will do what it pleases, no matter how many the opponents, or who they are.
Will anyone support the United States in such an adventure? Very few indeed. Not the United States Congress, although Bush and Cheney may be counting on the fact that it is harder for the Democrats to oppose them on Iran than on Iraq. They will have the support of the Israeli government. And they seem to be counting on the support of the Saudis. But this is to misunderstand the Saudi position. The Saudis are of course concerned to limit Iranian pretensions to hegemony in the region as well as to contain the possibilities of Shia militancy in Sunni-dominated states, and first of all in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis also have made it clear that a military attack on Iran will harm rather than help Saudi political objectives. Saudi active mediation of the Hamas-Fatah dispute in Palestine indicates they are seeking to distance themselves clearly from United States strategy in the Middle East. And in Europe even the British are voicing their distaste for the idea of an attack on Iran.
So, let us suppose that, despite all this, Bush and Cheney decide to make their headlong rush into war, their fuite en avant to try to salvage their disastrous situation. What would happen, and why would they do this? What would happen seems clear. An air attack on Iran will not achieve the objective of dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, although it may damage it. Sending in troops, if the United States could find any to send in, would lead to a very high United States death toll. The Iranian government would be strengthened politically - at home and throughout the Islamic world. The Russians and the Chinese would de facto support Iran.
And worst of all for the United States, those in Iraq it considers its closest allies would start calling quite vociferously for the United States' immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has already started down this road. Nobody in Iraq, nobody, wants the United States to attack Iran, and nobody emotionally sides with the United States on this question.
Now Cheney is an intelligent politician, and he can see all this, I think. If so, why would he be pushing nonetheless for war? Could we entertain the idea that creating an even greater disaster for the United States seems to him the best option available for achieving his real political objectives?
Cheney (and Bush) know that they will control the United States government only for two more years. After that, they don't know who will be in power, but they have every reason to doubt it will be their clones. The last thing they want is a peaceful transfer of power to anyone who might dismantle what they have constructed and try, even try, to move the United States back to where it was - domestically and internationally - in the Nixon to Clinton years.
They are looking forward to increasing, not decreasing, internal strife in the United States. They are looking forward to further dismantlement of the civil liberties framework, one that was never perfect but did afford some constraints on governmental power. They are looking forward to further regression in the arena of social rights. They are looking forward to a darker United States in a darker world.
Can anyone stop them? Possibly. There is the now widespread and quite vocal resistance within the armed forces. For the first time in my lifetime, I have seen speculation in the press about a military coup. I doubt it would occur, but the very speculation shows how extensive are the misgivings. And there is the resistance of the politicians who are essentially for the most part moderate centrists whose major concern is to keep their elected positions and who blow with their constituents' wind. Will this be enough? It is hard to tell, but we shall see more clearly in the next two to three months.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
vimothy
yurp
Well i'm sorry to put you out, adruu (you could always not bother if it's really doing your nut). It's not only this thread though, or even Dissensus generally. It's an honest question, which I mean literally: why "plot", "programme" or "project"? I work for an Educational Leadership research project and the same language is used by academics when talking about "the neo-liberal "project" in Education". I find that interesting; the same language is never (in my experence) used to describe the "socialist "programme" in Education" (with scare quotes), for instance. It's the whole Loose Change attitude mapped onto whoever's political prejudice.
[Incidentally I don't think I said that the writers were tricked by by anyone re the VF article. I don't even think that happened in fact. I think that they were misrepresented in the press release put out before the mid-terms and probably (can't remember) misrepresented in the thread.]
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Even The [pro-Iraq invasion] BBC ...
... presented the scenario as they would an indifferent weather forecast
Is this what's today called broadcast journalism in Britain?
Not Good News
By Sam Gardiner
For those concerned about a possible war with Iran should turn up their worry-dials two notches.
======================================================
Iran And The U.S. What Is At Stake
Video
Charlie Rose talks with David Sanger of The New York Times, Michael Hirsh of Newsweek, and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations on Iran and the United States. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.
======================================================
Inside Iran
Video
Rageh Omaar embarks on a unique journey inside what he describes as one of the most misunderstood countries in the world, looking at the country through the eyes of people rarely heard - ordinary Iranians.
======================================================
Two 'Gators' deploy from Norfolk in two different directions:
The 1,000 sailors of the Saipan had just six weeks to get ready. The Captain said they're needed in the Arabian Gulf, where they could remain for four to six months.
=====================================================
Two Pearl Destroyers Head for Persian Gulf:
Hundreds of Pearl Harbor Sailors are headed to Iraq. Two destroyers answered the call to duty today, and a unexpected call it was. The Navy is calling a surge deployment.
=====================================================
Tehran alarm over US tough talk:
What will alarm Tehran about the latest details of US military planning for a strike on Iran is the fact that there are now two possible triggers for an attack.
=====================================================
Durrani: Any US strike on Iran will mean attack on Muslim ummah:
Chief Minister of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province Akram Khan Durrani said here Tuesday that any US strike on Iran would be considered as attack on Muslim Ummah.
=====================================================
Iran - This, Mr President, is how wars start:
Andrew Stephen in Washington warns that war could easily be triggered by the Bush administration's sheer incompetence
=====================================================
... presented the scenario as they would an indifferent weather forecast
Is this what's today called broadcast journalism in Britain?
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
BBC News
02/20/07 "BBC" -- - US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Deadline
Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq.
Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this.
At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
=========================================================BBC News
02/20/07 "BBC" -- - US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Deadline
Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq.
Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this.
At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Not Good News
By Sam Gardiner
For those concerned about a possible war with Iran should turn up their worry-dials two notches.
======================================================
Iran And The U.S. What Is At Stake
Video
Charlie Rose talks with David Sanger of The New York Times, Michael Hirsh of Newsweek, and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations on Iran and the United States. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.
======================================================
Inside Iran
Video
Rageh Omaar embarks on a unique journey inside what he describes as one of the most misunderstood countries in the world, looking at the country through the eyes of people rarely heard - ordinary Iranians.
======================================================
Two 'Gators' deploy from Norfolk in two different directions:
The 1,000 sailors of the Saipan had just six weeks to get ready. The Captain said they're needed in the Arabian Gulf, where they could remain for four to six months.
=====================================================
Two Pearl Destroyers Head for Persian Gulf:
Hundreds of Pearl Harbor Sailors are headed to Iraq. Two destroyers answered the call to duty today, and a unexpected call it was. The Navy is calling a surge deployment.
=====================================================
Tehran alarm over US tough talk:
What will alarm Tehran about the latest details of US military planning for a strike on Iran is the fact that there are now two possible triggers for an attack.
=====================================================
Durrani: Any US strike on Iran will mean attack on Muslim ummah:
Chief Minister of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province Akram Khan Durrani said here Tuesday that any US strike on Iran would be considered as attack on Muslim Ummah.
=====================================================
Iran - This, Mr President, is how wars start:
Andrew Stephen in Washington warns that war could easily be triggered by the Bush administration's sheer incompetence
=====================================================
crackerjack
Well-known member
"Even The [pro-Iraq invasion] BBC ..., "
It's always funny watching the extremities doing their lone voice-in-the-wilderness, everyone-is-against-me shtick. Doesn't matter which side it comes from.
It's always funny watching the extremities doing their lone voice-in-the-wilderness, everyone-is-against-me shtick. Doesn't matter which side it comes from.
try this from the avowedly pro bbc tehguardian
their claims to impartiality are as disingenuous as your doesn't matter which side it comes from and, naturlich, can't resist a junior ministerish swipe at (err) 'extremities', those aetiolated ephemeral factions who still natter on about human rights, the rule of law etc
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
That's really quite dismal tht. I note you cite a report that's confined to the coverage of the war itself, when the number of embedded reporters and the general sense that war was both successful and popular with Iraqis was bound to produce more of a gloss to their reports. In the run up to the war and in the years since the BBC has been far from pro. If anythingg they've done a fairly good job of mirroring the British public: hostile at first, on board during, hugely sceptical since.
The BBC used the term 'liberators'? Can't say i remember it 9and they certainly shouldn't have done), though I do know they now describe car bombers in Iraq as insurgents or militants.
The BBC used the term 'liberators'? Can't say i remember it 9and they certainly shouldn't have done), though I do know they now describe car bombers in Iraq as insurgents or militants.
ha!
confined
that would be, when it was of consequence, you know? i'm sure the suddeutsche zeitung was anti war in 1946
(sighingly) and where does that 'sense' come from? maybe institutions like the bbc, commonly regarded as the most trustworthy such organ in the uk, and widely trusted elsewhere?
the subaltern speaks, and it's just gagging for it sir
how about the ones who were exploded/incinerated/mutilated? the bbc would have had someone there at their ecstatic demise, coughing out the names of the liberators in broken english as their worthless lives ebbed away? honestly, are we supposed to think these arabs can think for themselves or something?
and this happens without agency, you know, can't help it at all? the level of gloss is exactly the issue ffs
and the public gets what the public wants so this can't be interrogated at all
then it didn't happen, clearly
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
"In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to serve political and ideological interests is much more covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest triumph is that we generally don't notice it - or laugh at the notion it even exists. We watch the democratic process taking place - heated debates in which we feel we could have a voice - and think that, because we have 'free' media, it would be hard for the Government to get away with anything very devious without someone calling them on it."===>Brian Eno, Lessons in how to lie about Iraq
Yes indeed, tht. And I would have thought that the survey you refer to would have been common knowledge here, but obviously it wasn't reported by the Beeb so ...
And there's more [there's always more]:
BBC governor under fire for Iraq contracts - The BBC chief who played a pivotal role in how the corporation covered the Iraq war and the David Kelly affair, stands to profit out of a firm with lucrative military contracts in Iraq. - Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle said: 'The fact that she has such a financial interest in the armaments industry and firms involved in Iraq appears to be a real conflict of interest. She should have stepped aside when it came to discussing military issues.'
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a BBC governor, "chairs a company providing military equipment for US Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters, both of which are used in Iraq, leading to calls for her to reconsider her position as a governor. Documents from Companies House reveal that Neville-Jones earned £133,000 last year as chairman of Qinetiq, the privatised research arm of the MoD. "
"When I joined the BBC, my Organs of Opinion were formally removed." ('Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor', The Independent, January 13, 2000)
The BBC, of course, has a long history of using "primary colours" in its reporting. During the Falklands War, BBC executives directed that news coverage should be concerned "primarily with government statements of policy". Achieving an impartial style was deemed "an unnecessary irritation". (Quoted, John Pilger, New Statesman, August 2, 1996)
In 1997, the BBC's Newsnight editor, Peter Horrocks, told staff: "Our job should not be to quarrel with the purpose of policy, but to question its implementation." (Quoted, Robert Newman, 'Performers of the world unite', The Guardian, August 7, 2000)
And also in 2003, in a separate study from that of the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Professor Justin Lewis of the School of Journalism at Cardiff University found that during the latest attack on Iraq the BBC displayed the most pro-war agenda of any broadcaster: "Indeed, far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis.”
Yes indeed, tht. And I would have thought that the survey you refer to would have been common knowledge here, but obviously it wasn't reported by the Beeb so ...
And there's more [there's always more]:
BBC governor under fire for Iraq contracts - The BBC chief who played a pivotal role in how the corporation covered the Iraq war and the David Kelly affair, stands to profit out of a firm with lucrative military contracts in Iraq. - Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle said: 'The fact that she has such a financial interest in the armaments industry and firms involved in Iraq appears to be a real conflict of interest. She should have stepped aside when it came to discussing military issues.'
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a BBC governor, "chairs a company providing military equipment for US Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters, both of which are used in Iraq, leading to calls for her to reconsider her position as a governor. Documents from Companies House reveal that Neville-Jones earned £133,000 last year as chairman of Qinetiq, the privatised research arm of the MoD. "
"When I joined the BBC, my Organs of Opinion were formally removed." ('Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor', The Independent, January 13, 2000)
The BBC, of course, has a long history of using "primary colours" in its reporting. During the Falklands War, BBC executives directed that news coverage should be concerned "primarily with government statements of policy". Achieving an impartial style was deemed "an unnecessary irritation". (Quoted, John Pilger, New Statesman, August 2, 1996)
In 1997, the BBC's Newsnight editor, Peter Horrocks, told staff: "Our job should not be to quarrel with the purpose of policy, but to question its implementation." (Quoted, Robert Newman, 'Performers of the world unite', The Guardian, August 7, 2000)
And also in 2003, in a separate study from that of the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Professor Justin Lewis of the School of Journalism at Cardiff University found that during the latest attack on Iraq the BBC displayed the most pro-war agenda of any broadcaster: "Indeed, far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis.”