Interesting breakdown of Psyops perptrated against Americans to Sell this war

[Zebo]

Here

Psyops specialists know that one of the strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our" team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding" of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced anti-war movement.

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down.

 

[Moonbeam]

Most of the War-Tools seem to me like they are totally convinced people like me and you who do seem a bit odd in our thinking are the nuts. Seems like your suggestion that this was an interesting breakdown has, so far, not inspired anybody but me. Hehe. When you begin to see that what people are really protecting is their thankful inability to feel how bad they feel, it becomes more obvious why things like brainwashing, psychological information about selective awareness, etc, are taboo. Self knowledge leads to the terror of memory of what really happened. It looks to me like only a very very tiny minority will ever look within and possibly get free. The obvious fact that we are headed for extinction could increase that number perhaps, but it looks like only marginally. Humanity is asleep. The cunning have learned how to play the sleeper, the cunning are just as deeply asleep themselves. Oh well. The sun shines every day somewhere in the world, and children have those few moments of joy. Maybe somewhere else in the galaxy there are minds that feel the infinite glory of it all. It could be.

 

[LunarRay]

Hmmmm.
This must by why I don't "hang out" nor ever did... I always seem to go against what ever grain is present... sorta stir up the pot a bit... or a lot.
There always is another side except perhaps to the other side of the universe... the part I can't see.
But, Brainwashing is a tool and I don't think the tool was used in this case unless you really consider embedded folks filled the air waves with nothing but go USA footage... which I would think would tend to polarize the already existing sides..

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm no9t brainwashed. I was told that by my handlers. I have nothing to worry about.

 

[LunarRay]

Well.... it be high time to wash your brain.... it gets pretty dirty up there in SF...
A bath upside down would be interesting if you can keep the water from falling out.

 

[jjones]

What an absurd article.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: jjones
What an absurd article.

Agreed. Evidently we not only had embedded journalists we had embedded censors.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down.

The video of the bombing was all the video they had in 91. They played the same shots over and over, and even as backdrops to phoned in reports. This time, we had live video from embeded reporters 24/7. Why replay the same bunch of bombing videos when you can put new stuff up constantly?

This guy didn't think this through much, did he?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down.

The video of the bombing was all the video they had in 91. They played the same shots over and over, and even as backdrops to phoned in reports. This time, we had live video from embeded reporters 24/7. Why replay the same bunch of bombing videos when you can put new stuff up constantly?

This guy didn't think this through much, did he?

In realtion to the bombing videos's - I can vouch for the fact that there was hardly any shown. It's not that they didn't need to repeat them - there was probably just far fewer of those kinds of shots released.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Amused

This guy didn't think this through much, did he?

That writer didn't think anything through. If I had a couple of hours to waste I'd point out his many manipulated statements of the obvious and fallacies bordering on the preposterous, paragraph by paragraph.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody can tell me anything because I am already full of my own opinions. I may be brainwashed but I have hostage syndrome so what do I care. It would never occur to me that like a prisoner released from jail, my job is to get back in as soon as I can. I would be very afraid of suddenly realizing my life is totally empty. Oh no, please not that.

 

[Vic]

The best sale is always when the mark didn't even know he was sold.


For the record, I wasn't against the war (per se). I was against the way it was sold.

 

[alchemize]

Psyops specialists know that one of the strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our" team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding" of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced anti-war movement.

Or maybe, just maybe, the majority of Americans logically analzyed the situation, and decided they supported the war. And mabye a resounding success and lack of support from the mainstream silenced the anti-war movement.

Nah, we were all brainwashed. Much easier to explain that way. Why we're practically sheep.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic
The best sale is always when the mark didn't even know he was sold.


For the record, I wasn't against the war (per se). I was against the way it was sold.

Exactly. If President Bush would have simply came out and say we need to oil and needed a foothold in the ME I would be much more sympathetic.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Vic
The best sale is always when the mark didn't even know he was sold.


For the record, I wasn't against the war (per se). I was against the way it was sold.

Exactly. If President Bush would have simply came out and say we need to oil and needed a foothold in the ME I would be much more sympathetic.

If you knew that then what is the difference. I knew that this is what he was saying, and I still supported it, and still do, I think there were more reasons than just those two though. If YOU see through it then what do YOU have to worry about?

Freedom of the Press = Freedom to choose your brainwash...that's the beauty of it, I can believe any source I want to...
Step right up! Pick a truth...any truth...hold it up so the audience can see...don't let me see it now...
IS THIS YOUR TRUTH???

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most of the War-Tools seem to me like they are totally convinced people like me and you who do seem a bit odd in our thinking are the nuts. Seems like your suggestion that this was an interesting breakdown has, so far, not inspired anybody but me. Hehe. When you begin to see that what people are really protecting is their thankful inability to feel how bad they feel, it becomes more obvious why things like brainwashing, psychological information about selective awareness, etc, are taboo. Self knowledge leads to the terror of memory of what really happened. It looks to me like only a very very tiny minority will ever look within and possibly get free. The obvious fact that we are headed for extinction could increase that number perhaps, but it looks like only marginally. Humanity is asleep. The cunning have learned how to play the sleeper, the cunning are just as deeply asleep themselves. Oh well. The sun shines every day somewhere in the world, and children have those few moments of joy. Maybe somewhere else in the galaxy there are minds that feel the infinite glory of it all. It could be.

You know Moonie I thought maybe the Matrix and Matrix:Reloaded would have helped. I havnt seen the second one, Matrix:reloaded, but I think many are missing what makes to movie good dispite it's glaring scientific probelms. I think it's about the re-birth of compassion and learing to think for ones self by looking within. Oh well perhaps all the special effects and kung-fu clouded the message, which is why I linked to this article..

Catch ya later neo.

 

[Moonbeam]

The term, Stockholm Syndrome, was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. On August 23, 1973, three women and one man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm. They were held for six days by two ex-convicts who threatened their lives but also showed them kindness. To the world's surprise, all of the hostages strongly resisted the government's efforts to rescue them and were quite eager to defend their captors. Indeed, several months after the hostages were saved by the police, they still had warm feelings for the men who threatened their lives. Two of the women eventually got engaged to the captors.

The Stockholm incident compelled journalists and social scientists to research whether the emotional bonding between captors and captives was a "freak" incident or a common occurrence in oppressive situations. They discovered that it's such a common phenomenon that it deserves a name. Thus the label, Stockholm Syndrome, was born. It has happened to concentration camp prisoners, cult members, civilians in Chinese Communist prisons, pimp-procured prostitutes, incest victims, physically and/or emotionally abused children, battered women, prisoners of war, victims of hijackings, and of course, hostages. Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome it the following conditions are met:

Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat
The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror
Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
Perceived inability to escape.
--------------------------------


This is the story of everybody's life. It's how conservatism survives. It's why we are bathed in fear.

 

[Tom]

elitist BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Whose Brilliant Summary were you refering to, DPS?

 

[JellyBaby]

The idea to embed journalists was conceived for a variety of reasons. IMO one of them was to ensure no one could claim the administration was hiding anything. Makes sense right? Yet what can a field reporter in harms way truly reveal other than 1) we're fighting a war, 2) the troops beside me pledge to fight to win and they're good guys and gals, and 3) it can get damn hot in the desert.

Those reporters gave a narrow view, play-by-play presentation. A lot of air time was devoted to show us these play-by-play commentaries. And at times it was fascinating to watch....just as a baby is often fascinated by that mobile over the cribb.

So my point is the Embeddeds converted what could have been more analytical war coverage into tightly focused entertainment. Was this intended all along? Seems like too complicated a plan to me.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Here

Psyops specialists know that one of the strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our" team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding" of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced anti-war movement.

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down.

Couldn't this article be construed as psyops? It's letting the conspiracy nuts conform to a group. It creates it's own jingoism and so forth. Also by the very fact that it was distributed cancels out one of the author's main points.

Basically, a waste of a few minutes to read it.

 

[Alistar7]

"BBC's"

is the same BBC whose own employees have leveled claims of anti-US bias against?


What about the great Psyops campaign of the dissenting countries? They made backdoor deals to keep Saddam in power at the expense of the Iraqi people, sold him more weapons to commit genocide with against them, and we have people like Carb who think the French agenda was out of "concern for the people of Iraq", what a joke.

They would have preferred we had done nothing and let 10,000 people die that month from "sanctions" instead of the 2,500 killed by the war. How bad was life under Saddam? You were 4 times more likely to die under his"peacefull" rule than under attack from the premier military superpower.

Worked great, you are convinced about French (etc.) "noble" intentions.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Whose Brilliant Summary were you refering to, DPS?

The original article and it's author.