Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture

[heartsurgeon]

linky

"U.S. military officers say they are optimistic they are close to breaking the resistance. "We are winning this fight," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander of the 1st Armored Division, responsible for security in most of Baghdad."

 

[chess9]

More killed since his capture.

More spin control from the Pentagon. Tsk, Tsk and here in America, Land of the Free Idiots and Home of the Brave Numbskulls.

-Robert

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
linky

"U.S. military officers say they are optimistic they are close to breaking the resistance. "We are winning this fight," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander of the 1st Armored Division, responsible for security in most of Baghdad."

They might be winning this fight, but the real question is how can they win people's hearts!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chess9
More killed since his capture.

More spin control from the Pentagon. Tsk, Tsk and here in America, Land of the Free Idiots and Home of the Brave Numbskulls.

-Robert

They said attacks. Looks like you're the one spinning...or trying to.

 

[chess9]

Hero_of_Hyperbole:

Why would they emphazise a decline in attacks when we've had many more fatalities? Just a little accident of the Pentagon which this particular news organization found convenient to swallow?

Please...tell it to the pinheads.

-Robert

 

[Witling]

Hero, sounds a lot like Viet Nam. We were winning right up until we lost. Hero, do you live near a big city. If so, go see the re-release of the 1965 film The Battle of Algiers.

 

[GrGr]

Q

"The concept of ?information dominance? is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a central component of the US aim of ?total spectrum dominance?. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle. Information dominance is not about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those phrases ?winning hearts and minds?, about truth being ?the first casualty? about ?media manipulation? about ?opinion control? or about ?information war?. Or, to be more exact - it is about these things but none of them can quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the phrase information dominance.

Information dominance is a concept of elegant simplicity and at the same time complex interconnectedness. It plays a key role in US military strategy and foreign policy. The now quite well known statement of this is contained in the [/u]Pentagon?s Joint Vision 2020, where the key term is ?full spectrum dominance? which ?implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains ? space, sea, land, air and information?[/u]. [1]

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ?information is an element of combat power?. [2]

...

According to Lt Gen Keith B. Alexander, the US Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence the way forward for integrating intelligence and information across the military is the creation of ?Information Dominance Centers?. There are already 15 of these in the US and in Kuwait and Baghdad." UnQ

etc.

link

---------

The Pentagon is twisting reality to make it fit into it's agenda, nothing new there. But to take anything they say at face value is gullible indeed. Lynch etc.

 

[chess9]

GrGr:

Boy, you be on fire today!

Great post and who could disagree?

<ducking>

-Robert

 

[heartsurgeon]

Hero, sounds a lot like Viet Nam. We were winning right up until we lost. Hero, do you live near a big city. If so, go see the re-release of the 1965 film The Battle of Algiers.

you should read this article first:

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2093381/">Guerrillas in the Mist
Why the war in Iraq is nothing like The Battle of Algiers.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, Jan. 2, 2004, at 10:57 AM PT
</a>

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Q

"The concept of ?information dominance? is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a central component of the US aim of ?total spectrum dominance?. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle. Information dominance is not about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those phrases ?winning hearts and minds?, about truth being ?the first casualty? about ?media manipulation? about ?opinion control? or about ?information war?. Or, to be more exact - it is about these things but none of them can quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the phrase information dominance.

Information dominance is a concept of elegant simplicity and at the same time complex interconnectedness. It plays a key role in US military strategy and foreign policy. The now quite well known statement of this is contained in the [/u]Pentagon?s Joint Vision 2020, where the key term is ?full spectrum dominance? which ?implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains ? space, sea, land, air and information?[/u]. [1]

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ?information is an element of combat power?. [2]

...

According to Lt Gen Keith B. Alexander, the US Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence the way forward for integrating intelligence and information across the military is the creation of ?Information Dominance Centers?. There are already 15 of these in the US and in Kuwait and Baghdad." UnQ

etc.

link

---------

The Pentagon is twisting reality to make it fit into it's agenda, nothing new there. But to take anything they say at face value is gullible indeed. Lynch etc.

"It is evident that the US and its UK ally are intent on ruling the world and that information control has become central to that effort."

Yeah, thanks for that link. Chess seemed to like it though. If you seriously read stuff like that and believe it, then that explains a lot.

 

[Witling]

Heart, I read the Guerillas in the Mist article. Thanks. To much of it I'm tempted to say SFW, meaning So What? Eventually we'll see what we'll see. But the similarities are that we're trying to establish a dramatically different culture in a country that really doesn't want us there. The Battle of Algiers was a movie. More importantly, the French lost twice because they tried to stay where they weren't welcome. Does that ring any bells? We're doing OK with the Kurds now but that will go a whey. Eventually we'll have to choose between Turkey and the Kurds. Maybe we'll successfully thread the rapids? Maybe we won't.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: GrGr
Q

"The concept of ?information dominance? is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a central component of the US aim of ?total spectrum dominance?. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle. Information dominance is not about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those phrases ?winning hearts and minds?, about truth being ?the first casualty? about ?media manipulation? about ?opinion control? or about ?information war?. Or, to be more exact - it is about these things but none of them can quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the phrase information dominance.

Information dominance is a concept of elegant simplicity and at the same time complex interconnectedness. It plays a key role in US military strategy and foreign policy. The now quite well known statement of this is contained in the [/u]Pentagon?s Joint Vision 2020, where the key term is ?full spectrum dominance? which ?implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronized operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains ? space, sea, land, air and information?[/u]. [1]

The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ?information is an element of combat power?. [2]

...

According to Lt Gen Keith B. Alexander, the US Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence the way forward for integrating intelligence and information across the military is the creation of ?Information Dominance Centers?. There are already 15 of these in the US and in Kuwait and Baghdad." UnQ

etc.

link

---------

The Pentagon is twisting reality to make it fit into it's agenda, nothing new there. But to take anything they say at face value is gullible indeed. Lynch etc.

"It is evident that the US and its UK ally are intent on ruling the world and that information control has become central to that effort."

Yeah, thanks for that link. Chess seemed to like it though. If you seriously read stuff like that and believe it, then that explains a lot.

You need to read the Bush doctrine. You know the document that outlines the policy of US hegemony. The UK is simply tagging along for the moment.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Heart, I read the Guerillas in the Mist article. Thanks

whether you agree with him or not, you've got to admit that Hitchens is interesting to read, and even more interesting to listen to in person (at least when i've heard him on HardBall).

Andrew Sullivan is another interesting read, and speaker..again, whether you agree with him or not.

if your a conservative, ann coulter is our equivalent to al franken..ferociously funny (but only if your a conservative, otherwise i suppose one might find her a little over the top..much like i find al franken)

everyone have a good nite.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
linky

"U.S. military officers say they are optimistic they are close to breaking the resistance. "We are winning this fight," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander of the 1st Armored Division, responsible for security in most of Baghdad."

That's a good percentage but I thought it was a lot higher? During November, the daily attacks was like 45, today, it's more like 15. That's a 67% drop, right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So this means that 78% have reasons for attacking other than Saddam. Ok, thanks for that.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Chris Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan are certainly good writers but Ann Coulter *cough*.

if your a conservative, ann coulter is our equivalent to al franken..ferociously funny (but only if your a conservative, otherwise i suppose one might find her a little over the top..much like i find al franken)

She's certainly ferocious . . . like a starving piranha . . . unfortunately she has the visage and wit of a piranha.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Chris Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan are certainly good writers but Ann Coulter *cough*.

if your a conservative, ann coulter is our equivalent to al franken..ferociously funny (but only if your a conservative, otherwise i suppose one might find her a little over the top..much like i find al franken)

She's certainly ferocious . . . like a starving piranha . . . unfortunately she has the visage and wit of a piranha.

I take exception to this BBD. Piranha are attractive fish, and certainly have more redeeming value than Coulter. Also, I believe Coulter is not as high a life form as they. Please do not slander such fine creatures again. I would hate to give your name to the Piranha Anti-Defamation League.