article recycling archive
PsyOps versus the MegaMedia #1: Familiar Labels and Instant Truth“Labels are commonly-used words and phrases which can be applied to a person or group and which prompt a particular reaction in the reader. Consider the label, ‘resistance fighter.’ This was used a lot in the 80s, during the Afghan War.
At the time, the Soviets sent troops into Afghanistan. The situation was complex but Pres. Reagan recognized a fight between good and evil when he saw one: the Russian invaders and their Afghan allies were evil; the US-backed Islamic Fundamentalists were good. ‘Resistance fighters’. The press adopted Reagan’s language and this colored the way Americans viewed the struggle...
‘Terrorist’ is a negative label – the opposite of ‘resistance fighter’. It is so negative that attacks on ‘terrorists’ need scant justification. This can be very helpful...
Here’s the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well...
But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands?
It would be a bit awkward, wouldn’t it...
When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were given a label (‘resistance fighters’) so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label (‘terrorists’) and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren’t these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters...
Will bin Laden have his label changed back to ‘resistance fighter’ when the U.S. government once more requires his services?”
Israel, Credible Deception: the NY Times and the Sudan missile attack,
1998 (revised 99, reposted 01), well before 9-11-01,