Syrians call for US intervention from besieged Homs

[delrem]

12. This is the reasoning of a propagandist intent of fomenting sectarian wars.

I note the reference to $$reconstruction$$ contracts, which is de rigueur since GWB's Iraq, a war predicated on exactly that kind of profit. Esp. the reconstruction of the natural resources sector; where it becomes stark obvious that "reconstruction" is a newspeak way of naming "looting". Look at how the very language we speak was hijacked and used against us, there!

Whew, "war propaganda" isn't an easy topic to discuss!

Libya, which devolved into an anarchy of militant gangs, has yet to pay back on the investment. One would think that a country which destroyed another country, even if "for the fuck of it", would reflect on what it did. Seemingly not in this case.

Perhaps the idea is: The US with proxies armed with US weaponry can sweep in later, after the whole ME is either in chaos or dictatorially secured, to clean up the mess and consolidate ownership of all?

That's one scenario that makes some wacko sense to me, re. Obama's military tactics.

Back to the topic 'war propaganda'. How can war propaganda foment sectarian wars in new target countries, after the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, with forays in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, .... (in the interests of the "war on terror&quot paved the way?

At one time war propaganda supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan, including a leader named "bin Laden". Just as at one time war propaganda supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq in a US backed war against Iran.
There are a lot of examples of US war propaganda because the US engages itself in a lot of wars, directly or by proxy.

It wouldn't surprise me if a US war propagandist actually supported al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, and the al Nusra front, although always saying that in fact support was only for "moderates". So it wouldn't surprise me if a US war propagandist rarely if ever mentioned al Qaeda (just because that's the truth the propagandist wants to hide), knowing that it isn't a friendly topic. Such a war propagandist would never discuss the matter of al Qaeda's (and bin Laden's) connection with the House of Saud, or god forbid explore the reason Bandar Bush is called by that name.

In fact such a propagandist will have to deny most of political reality - and make up a different story.

Students learning about "newspeak" within war propaganda efforts, and the "newlogic" that corresponds with it, take note of how fascist and imperialist gov'ts *change the meanings of technical terms*, esp. terms that occur in law texts. So-called "private interpretations of law" add a new twist but are of the same genus.

I've said enough for a post.