To what degree are we brainwashed? What is true and what is false

1998. A war broke out between kosovo liberation army (KLA) and serbian forces.

NATO convinced us all that the KLA was a rebel group fighting ‘evil’ - A serbian state which was committing genocide. Slobodan milosovic was Hitler incarnated. The governments showed us ‘evidence’, there were the mass graves.

Who were we backing? Do research on KLA, they were separatists who cut off heads and murdered people. They were probably as bad or worse than the separatists putin is backing.

Slobadan milosovic had to be stopped cause he was a hitler? Sound familiar? Putin sells to his people that ukraine leaders are nazis oppressing Russian separatists so russia has to stop them

Back in 1999, Nato started a ruthless bombing campaign, civilians were killed. Thousands of civilians were killed, about 500 attributed to NATO bombings. Where was outrage? Pretty sure in russia they were showing all the civilian deaths and showing how barbaric NATO was, that they were targeting civilians. Over 1 million people displaced

what was true and what was false? Were the KLA the good guys? A google search will show pics of KLA members holding decapitated heads. Were the civilians killed back them ok as NATO are the good guys? Wonder if russians saw it this way.

Is putin really deliberately targetting civilians? Or is is just collateral damage? Was it ‘good’ collateral dmg when Nato killed 500 civilians during kosovo? Thousands during iraq war? It’s only bad when putin does it, as he does it ‘deliberately’ is that so?

here’s a worthwhile clip of a vietnam vet explaining how whilst he was at war and reading or hearing news, what was been reported back in US was the complete opposite of what was actually happening. Last time i checked, we were a free nation back then and had a free press.

i have no doubt that putin is acting badly but the media only sees it one way, in the worst possible way, for putin. What is true and what is false?

 

All war is stupid - but who is the aggressor here? Did Ukraine invade Russia? Is Putin the victim?

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle - but we are seeing too much destruction on the Ukrainian homeland to see Putin as the victim here...
but if you want to paint the Russians as the poor little abused kid on the block, you're going to have a pretty rough time selling it.

 

is that what you want to sell? Who’s selling that?

Purpose of OP is make us realize we are under the attack of constant propaganda, think of how different sides see things. Russia sells to russia what US and nato sells to us. How do you think kosovo war was covered in russia? Probably something like this. ‘There is evil empire of nato invading a country again, toppling regimes, backing terrorist separatists and bombing civilians’ meanwhile in US - ‘we have to back the good guys, the freedom fighters who are fighting evil’

We are in a constant propaganda war, governments need to have backing of their people.

 

Love how pelosi said ukrainians are "fighting for democracy"...
I bet the average Ukrainian soldier could care less what she calls it he probably thinks he's fighting for his homeland and his people.

 

Propaganda starts with what you want to believe and pats you on the back for believing it.
Unfortunately it starts in homes and school when you are very young and one set it is like concrete.
You emphasise what supports your opinion and ignore what doesn't. You forget to ask what is probable as seen through history and you confound details which are usually irrelevant anyway.
Just read this forum. It drips propaganda. But so do TV programmes, news programmes, the press and the social media.
Knowledge is power. You can never have too much.

 

Why do I get the impression you are a Putin apologist?

Putin is using thermobaric bombs.

Sorry, he's the bad guy, not us.

No one is saying America hasn't done some bad **** in the past, but that is irrelevant to Ukraine.

 

as expected based on your other posts on this forum, not a lot of thought put on your response.

if you had put an ounce of thought as you read OP, you would clearly see this is not about siding with putin, you can’t even follow simple arguments and get confused.

 

Credibility is a thing.
So, where was this compassion when discussing native issues?
Most bought right into the false narrative that blm were terrorists. Never saw Trimp supporters question that propaganda.

Why does putin get a pass or "reevaluation"?

 

Two sides here. What about false narrative that cops were terrorizing blacks and murdering them when out of millions of arrests a year, thousands of assaults against police a year and all the confrontations involving flawed human beings, only about 15-20 unarmed blacks killed a year. Not to mention twice as many whites killed by cops than blacks, but whites don’t matter. Contrast this to the thousands of blacks killed by other blacks. Aren’t these criminals terrorizing inner cities the real terrorists?

so again, what is true and what is false, requires a lot of digging.. watching conservative and liberal MSM media, reading, looking up stats (fbi crime, arrest, police vs citizen confrontation stats) before we can know what truth is.


Regarding war, US justifies all their wars, question if all of it was truly justified. Who has engaged in most large scaled wars in past 100 years? United states

 

Seems truth is always the first victim of so many misdeeds- political corruption, wars, etc.
Perhaps the most important war to fight is against those who would deceive us with lies, so we can't form opinions of facts.

 

i trust media and our government in US much more than media and governments in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes but our media, government don’t have the best track record either. Requires a serious attempt to see the other side’s point of view, even if challenging

 

This is why I don't weigh morality concerns as heavily as most in politics in general, but especially concerning matters of war and diplomacy. It is definitely a variable to consider but it is not the end all be all of evaluating the truth and consequences of relations between nations.

Wars are really never fought over what is right and wrong. Wars are fought to maintain or expand authority, and influence. To use the Yugoslavia example NATO had the capability, and a strategy to create a state in the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As there was no comparable power left in the region to combat it the issue of who's atrocities were worse became immaterial as the operation was conducted swiftly with specific goals.

By the time anyone had time to even question the official narrative the whole thing was over, and life goes on. This is more comparable to Russia's occupation of Crimea. Not in terms of devastation course but in terms of a nation acting within it's ability to expand it's authority.

Then you have your Iraqs, Afghanistan, Vietnams where a nation acted within it's tactical capabilities but lacked either clear goals or a strategy to obtain them or both. These are the conflicts where initially propaganda can serve to bolster support or at least indifference. The lack of objective prolongs conflict and engagement long enough for the true motivations to be revealed, and eventually erode the moral authority of the aggressor usually ending in a messy withdrawal and a power vacuum. This was also the fate of many colonial wars fought by European powers.

Then you have the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Which I would say is comparable to nazi Germany's invasion of Soviet Russia, or Napoleon's invasion of Russia. These are the overeaches of both tactical, and diplomatic capabilities. Usually born of a nationalist dictator surrounded by henchmen too fearful to divulge any possible limitations of the nation's military to the dictator.

As such these are the most dangerous conflicts humanity has ever known because the only check on expansion is the analysis of a single person who has had glorious smoke blown up their behind for years.

Attempting to compensate for the lack of strategy, goal, or capability they inevitably cause desperation in the aggressor who will escalate the brutality of the campaign to attempt to scrape out a victory.

This is when propaganda is most effective to galvanize resistance, and as the aggressor is the one that chose conflict they face an impossible task to protest that they are merely doing what every nation does when they are applying power in such a scattershot fashion.

If Russia had engaged with sufficient strategy, and tactics to defeat resistance. Or if they had limited themselves to more obtainable goals any civilian casualties they caused would be as immaterial geopolitically as the ones in Yugoslavia were.

There is no one to blame for the predicament they find themselves in but Russia itself. They failed to maintain their sphere of influence initially. They failed properly evaluate Ukraine, Europe, America, and their own capabilities, and history indicates that they will be the villains regardless of any equivocation with past events. Claiming hypocrisy is not a shield against poor decision making.

 

Vacuous claims are not a counter argument, not to mention the fact that you're the one who is trying to mitigate Putin's atrocities with whataboutisms.

 

I would agree with that assessment, except Russia is still sending in green conscripts with antiquated equipment- T72s and T80s. Their regular army as well as their T90s and Armatas are still in Russia. I think if they were desperate to scrape out a victory they'd be sending at least some of their 'front line' forces in. I think something else is going on.

 

what do you think they think of Trump calling Putin a Genius for attacking Ukraine?

 

Don't confuse morality with strategic skill. Hitler's concept of blitzkrieg, or "lightning war" for example was something used for evil intent, but was indeed a remarkable and effective strategy. The concept of invading with fast and overwhelming power was far less harmful to both people and infrastructure. The method was genius, the motive was madness.

We should learn from that, and when necessary use it for the right reasons instead of immoral ones.

 

was Hitler a genius? Should a US President say that?

 

I had considered that, but there is also the possibility they are being saved for any potential counterattack. Although this biological weapon charge their going to bring to the UN against the United States is telling that they are positioning for something.

I expect it to be pretty brutal other than that I couldn't predict.

 

If he said the tactic was genius, it would be reasonable. Of course all the people who think in limited terms would be jumping on the words, not grasping the meaning or learning a damn thing.
When someone you hate comes up with something that works, do you immediately think it doesn't because you don't like the source?

If so, then all a person needs to do as a president is tell you what you want to hear, and you will give them full faith and credit, regardless of other factors.
That's kind of how we got inthis mess in the first place- people failing to think, so eager to trash someone that reality is not longer relevant to them. Thinking like undisciplined children, demanding approval no matter what.

 

Another viewpoint on how we get "brainwashed", is something just breaking now. New study.

Global covid deaths have been officially claimed at 6-7 million. New studies, using the average, or actuarial deaths that normally occur, show an increase more like 18-20 million more than expected and very consistent norms. The immediate conclusion is to say these are the true covid numbers.

A very good reference is the statement that "Life is 10% what happens and 90% how you react to it", and I think that applies here. The number of people who have died due to the various stresses induced by how we reacted to the Covid pandemic are very likely higher than the number killed by the disease. Isolation of elderly, separation from families, depression, suicides, loss of faith in the future and increase in violence- and a lot more. I doubt that these will be acknowledged to any degree as this gets discussed, it will all be the fault of the disease instead of how we reacted to it.

"Brainwashing" can be done with denial of facts, distortion of facts, suppression of facts, or an overwhelming repetition of misrepresentations. And of course, all of the above. But it only takes place when people lacking a moral compass are in positions of power....

 

The truth is this country isn't as free as people are led to believe. Our speech is censored through various mega-corporations and the MSM press is free to create the truth as they deem fit.

NATO destroyed Yugoslavia using the genocide lie and backed radical kosovar muslims. Yet NATO still claims to be only 'defensive' in nature. Slobodan Milosevic was found innocent (twice) of genocide. NATO, and thus the US, was in the wrong.

When the US invaded Iraq, it was said that Iraq had WMDs. These WMDs were supposed to be several bio-weapons labs/stockpiles and nuclear-related weapons. None were found. The entire basis for invading Iraq was a lie.

When the US tried to change the regime in Syria, it armed terrorists (ahem, 'freedom fighters') and perpetrated chemical false flags in its campaign to turn the world against Assad. The freedom fighters turned out to be ISIS and the chemical attacks were staged.

At the same time Obama started his Syrian scheme, he and his cronies did the same in Ukraine. Except in Ukraine, Obama, Nuland, Biden, McCain and others had success. The US financed and helped orchestrate the 2014 Coup. For the last 8 years Ukraine has been in a civil war with civilians being targeted and killed. Put another way, the US approved government of Ukraine has been killing their own people for 8 years. Yet nobody gave a damn nor has our fake news media reported on it.

Nor does our fake news media report how our government has armed and funded the extremist groups in Ukraine.

Nor does our fake news media report how our government has built and funded, under the direction of the Department of Defense, bioweapons labs in Ukraine. The same kind of labs that the US used as justification to invade Iraq.

Really our government is ****. At least a large part of it as well as the politicians that thrive on foreign intervention...since this is their way to receive kickbacks.

The press is lower than whale dung.

 

Any military force that indiscriminately attacks a city has to know they are killing innocent citizens of that city. Same is true of pilots flying over a city either strafing or bombing, they know they are bound to be killing innocent citizens. War is never confined to only killing the opposing military forces.

 

I think that I understand the point you're trying to make and it has nothing to do with being an apologist for Putin.

Most of us have heard the maxim that "The first casualty of war is the truth." and only a fool thinks that just the "other side" uses propaganda.

War propaganda is as old as war itself and everyone uses it.

WW 2 has already been mentioned in this brief thread and even casual students of 20th century European history know that Joseph Goebbels was was Germany's propaganda minister.

However, that same casual student of 20th century European history is not likely to know that the OWI (Office of War Information) was America's propaganda ministry that with the aid of Hollywood's disinformation masters dwarfed Goebbels' pitiful little operation (1), (2).

Master propagandists / storytellers like Billy Wilder, Stephen Spielberg, George Stevens, John Ford, Samuel Fuller and others with unlimited US Government resources are largely responsible for what most Westerners "know" about WW 2.
In their zeal to demonize "the Hun", no lie, prop, stage or "eyewitness account" was / is too grisly or outrageous.

I don't see that in the information we're seeing from Putin's war and am unaware of any legitimate Ukrainian provocation that justifies the shelling of civilian targets.

Perhaps it is because there are so many news sources and, unlike 80 years ago, just about everyone has a camera / phone that it is harder to misrepresent the facts on the ground and fake atrocities that did not occur as officially represented.

Briefly put, I don't see how the Russian government can sanitize the deliberate shelling of a hospital when so many already angry Russian people have access to so much information. Even demoralized Russian troops who thought that this military invasion was a routine training exercise are expressing their despair & disgust at Putin's War.

Finally, I suspect that Putin doesn't even care enough about what the world thinks of his war to try to justify what he is doing in Ukraine and that's even more frightening.

Thanks,


(1) “The Director of the Holocau$t - Khazar Expatriate Billy Wilder”
https://archive.org/details/TheDirectorOfTheHolocaut-KhazarExpatriateBillyWilder

EXCERPT “Almost all the films you've ever seen of the Holocaust were staged. Using Allied propaganda as a rough script, directors from Hollywood were shipped to Germany and Poland to direct propaganda films for post-war use. One of the most notable of these was Billy Wilder, director of meny very well known films, such as "Some Like It Hot" with Marilyn Monroe." CONTINUED


(2) "The Hollywood Directors Who Filmed the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps"
https://hyperallergic.com/426644/lamoth-filming-the-camps-the-holocaust/

EXCERPT "George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller, best known for their work in Hollywood, all documented the Allied liberation at the end of the war.

But during this period of war, they were acting less as artists than as functionaries of US propaganda and information efforts, working for the US Armed Forces and Secret Services.CONTINUED

 

I'm learning (slowly) to sort out fact from opinion. Seems like it should be easy, but not so. For instance, soon after the maternity hospital was bombed, a reporter who is there said that Russia said there were armed folks shooting at them in that building; the reporter looks right at the camera and says "That is Russian propaganda." I thought how does he know that?" Answer: he probably didn't. I think it is entirely possible that from that very large building, there could very well have been Ukrainians shooting at Russians. Now you could argue that it doesn't matter, they still shouldn't have done this, and in my opinion you'd be right. But my point is that reporters ought to be reporting facts, at least unless they preface the remark that it's their opinion. And this is important because it could really inflame things.

 

So, it's OK for you to have an opinion, but not Speaker Pelosi? What was the context of her comment? Was she trying to generate support for the Ukrainian aid bill? Wouldn't that be part of her job if her constituents are behind it?