[lit-ideas] Re: Autopsy?!?!
- From: Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:48:49 -0700
>"There are already signs that in propaganda terms..."
ck: Andreas is well aware that Z's assassination is being played for
propaganda on both or rather all sides. It's been like that from the first
announcement. NPR correspondents insisted, very early on, that Z's death
will only fuel Islamists against the US--that the consequence to the US is
negative. The idea that killing Z was not a significant victory for the US,
if a "victory" at all, emerged early on as the one consistent voice within
the US--and of course, elsewhere--and has remained there, gathering force.
What I do not understand, frankly, is how the US's propaganda machine can be
so extremely self-destructive! Supposedly, the Bushies have a new and better
propaganda team, though headed by Bush's favorite Texas gal, Karen Hughes,
again. Doesn't Washington have any imagination--any better evidence for Z's
supposed importance, and therefore, the importance of the assassination to
the US, and Iraqis, to stretch the point? Didn't the US propagandists
foresee the inevitable disclaimer of Z's importance, and the accusation that
by killing a nebbish, the US only made things worse, etc.?
And now, by not responding to critics--the mainstream media, really--saying
just this, the Bush admin further erodes its position, scaring a lot of
Americans silly (Eric's "witch is dead" reaction notwithstanding).
Carol,
puzzled
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Autopsy?!?!
> The more we learn about this incident, the less there is.
>
> Along with an 8-year old girl and two women, US military also killed five
> men in a nearby village. The US also has to prove they didn't stomp
> Zarqawi to death after he survived the attack, which would be a violation
> of the Geneva Convention.
>
> And now, the press writes Zarqawi wasn't significant at all.
>
> Here's the (UK) Indepedent:
>
> "In the days before he was tracked down and killed by US laser-guided
> bombs, Iraq's most wanted man was living with almost no guards and only
> five companions, two of whom were women and one an eight-year-old girl, it
> emerged yesterday.
>
> "The ease with which Iraqi police and US special forces were able to reach
> the house after the bombing without encountering hostile fire showed that
> Zarqawi was never the powerful guerrilla chieftain and leader of the Iraqi
> resistance that Washington has claimed for more than three years.
>
> "There are already signs that in propaganda terms, the US military - as
> well as the media - is missing Zarqawi as a single demonic figure who
> could be presented as the leader of the resistance. The myth of Zarqawi
> was attractive to Washington because it showed that anti-occupation
> resistance was foreign-inspired and linked to al-Qa'ida.
>
> "In reality the insurgency was almost entirely home grown, reliant on
> near-total support from the five million-strong Sunni community. Its
> military effectiveness was far more dependent on former officers of the
> Iraqi army and security forces than on al-Qa'ida. They may also have
> helped to boost Zarqawi's fame, because it was convenient for them to
> blame their worst atrocities on him.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article756016.ece
>
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
