Psywar Film Reveals The Hidden Battle for Your Mind

The new documentary “Psywar,” featuring CMD founder John Stauber, explores corporate and government use of propaganda and public relations to manipulate American people. The movie explores how the U.S. government staged events to manipulate public opinion about the Iraq war, like the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch, the supposedly spontaneous mob that pulled over the larger-than-life statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It also discusses the Pentagon pundit scandal, and the hidden activities of the Rendon Group, a PR firm specializing in spinning war. The film exposes government and corporate activities to blur the lines between real news and fake news, as well as the development over time of public relations misinformation campaigns, strategic corporate campaigns to generate goodwill and the perception of good works, the use of staged photo-ops, and other manipulative PR tools that have turned the land of the free and the home of the brave into a place where citizens are now manipulated with great efficiency, and on a massive scale. You can watch it for free, or download it here.

Source: PrWatch.org

Another False Ending: Contracting Out the Occupation

By Bill Quigly and Laura Raymond, Counterpunch, September 1, 2010

Another false ending to the Iraq war is being declared. Nearly seven years after George Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Obama has just given a major address to mark the withdrawal of all but 50,000 combat troops from Iraq. But, while thousands of US troops are marching out, thousands of additional private military contractors (PMCs) are marching in. The number of armed security contractors in Iraq will more than double in the coming months.

While the mainstream media is debating whether Iraq can be declared a victory or not there is virtually no discussion regarding this surge in contractors. Meanwhile, serious questions about the accountability of private military contractors remain.

In the past decade the United States has dramatically shifted the way in which it wages war – fewer soldiers and more contractors.

Article continues . . .

The Greatest Covert Operation Ever: The Politics of Terror as the Business of Terror

by Douglas Valentine, Global Research, August 30, 2010

The politics of terror are the greatest covert operation ever.

In explaining why, I’ll begin by defining some terms, because, when discussing the covert op called “the politics of terror,” words and their management are all important.

How are politics and terror actually defined: how are these meanings manipulated; for what purposes, and by whom?

Terrorism is defined as “violence against civilians intended to obtain a political purpose.” This is an ambiguous phrase, which begs the questions: what are politics and violence?

Politics is defined as “the process by which groups of people make collective decisions.” And violence is the use of force to compel a person or group to do or think something against their will. That includes the violence of words – of threatening to hurt – and of social structures, as well as the violence of deeds.

So, by definition, terrorism is political violence – hurting people, or threatening to hurt them, in order to make them govern themselves against their will.

In America , terrorism is always condemned by the government, and, accordingly, America is never a perpetrator of terrorism, but always the victims of it. The US war on terror is the ultimate expression of this principle: it is a military response to terrorism; violence in self-defense, not (ostensibly) violence for a political purpose.

That’s the official story – the assumption. But I’m going to show that America does engage in terrorism – violence against civilians for political purposes. This “state” terrorism, however, is covert, in so far as it is equated with national security, and thanks to that built-in ambiguity, it has both stated and unstated purpose.

Article continues . . .

Afghanistan Crisis Deepens: U.S., Canada and NATO Threaten to Extend War

A Canadian soldier rests on the muzzle of his rifle while riding in an armoured vehicle in Kandahar province on Nov. 16, 2007. Photo: Globe and Mail

by Tim Kennelly, The Bullet, Aug. 25, 2010

On March 13, 2008, Canada’s Parliament voted to extend the country’s military “mission” in Afghanistan to July 2011. The motion by the minority Conservative government was supported by the opposition Liberals. The warmakers correctly estimated that fixing an exit date would deflect mounting opposition to the war among the Canadian public and buy time for Canada’s continued participation. Since then, the political and military situation in Afghanistan has continued to deteriorate for the occupying forces, and leading politicians are now floating proposals to extend Canada’s claimed exit date for a military mission that already constitutes a gross violation of the national sovereignty and human rights of the Afghan people.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the government will stick to its date. However, he also says that Canada will maintain a military presence in Afghanistan after 2011, to train Afghan police and military personnel. This is a de-facto extension of the military mission and not, as the government claims, in a non-combat role.

Following a visit to Afghanistan in late May, Liberal MP and Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae said it is time to revisit the exit date and prepare for a longer intervention. Even the New Democratic Party’s military affairs critic, Jack Harris, doesn’t rule out a continued military role. He was on the same delegation as Rae and told reporters in Kandahar, “Obviously, there are considerable humanitarian and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan. Whether that involves the military or not is another question, indeed. … There are other ways we can help build institutions.”

The Canadian government’s vast increases in military spending belie the promise of withdrawal. A 2009 report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated that Canada would spend $21-billion on its military in 2009-2010, a 56% increase since 1998-1999. Recently, it announced a $9-billion purchase of new fighter jets, one of the largest purchases in Canadian history.

Article continues . . .

Omar Barghouti explains the aims of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Part 2 of the interview is entitled Has Israel Moved to the Right?

AlJazeeraEnglish | August 31, 2010
We mark the International Day of the Disappeared and ask: What is being done to end forced disappearances, and what will it take to get justice?



America’s Holy Crusade against the Muslim World

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 30, 2010

We have reached a decisive transition in the evolution of US military doctrine. The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) directed against Al Qaeda launched in the wake of 9/11 is evolving towards a full-fledged “war of religion”, a “holy crusade” directed against the Muslim World.

US military dogma and war propaganda under the Bush administration, was predicated on combating Islamic fundamentalism rather than targeting Muslims. “This is not a war between the West and Islam, but .. a war against terrorism.” So-called “Good Muslims” are to be distinguished from “Bad Muslims”:

“The dust from the collapse of the twin towers had hardly settled on 11 September 2001 when the febrile search began for “moderate Muslims”, people who would provide answers, who would distance themselves from this outrage and condemn the violent acts of “Muslim extremists”, “Islamic fundamentalists” and “Islamists”. Two distinct categories of Muslims rapidly emerged: the “good” and the “bad”; the “moderates”, “liberals” and “secularists” versus the “fundamentalists”, the “extremists” and the “Islamists”.” (Tariq Ramadan, Good Muslim, bad Muslim, New Statesman, February 12, 2010)

In the wake of 9/11, the Muslim community in most Western countries was markedly on the defensive. The “Good Muslim” “Bad Muslim” divide was broadly accepted. The 9/11 terrorist attacks allegedly perpetrated by Muslims were not only condemned, Muslim communities also supported the US-NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, as part of a campaign directed against Islamic fundamentalism.

The fact that the 9/11 attacks were not instigated by Muslims has rarely been acknowledged by the Muslim community. Al Qaeda’s ongoing relationship to the CIA, its role as a US sponsored “intelligence asset” going back to to the Soviet-Afghan war is not mentioned. (Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism” Global Research, Montreal, 2005)

Article continues . . .

The Nazification of the United States

By Paul Craig Roberts, Counterpunch, Aug. 27-29, 2010

Chuck Norris is no pinko-liberal-commie, and Human Events is a very conservative publication. The two have come together to produce an important article, “Obama’s US Assassination Program.”

It seems only yesterday that Americans, or those interested in their civil liberties, were shocked that the Bush regime so flagrantly violated the FlSA law against spying on American citizens without a warrant. A federal judge serving on the FISA court even resigned in protest to the illegality of the spying.

Nothing was done about it.  “National security” placed the president and executive branch above the law of the land. Civil libertarians worried that the US government was freeing its power from the constraints of law, but no one else seemed to care.

Encouraged by its success in breaking the law, the executive branch early this year announced that the Obama regime has given itself the right to murder Americans abroad if such Americans are considered a “threat.”  “Threat” was not defined and, thus, a death sentence would be issued by a subjective decision of an unaccountable official.

Article continues . . .

By CASMII, August 16, 2010

The current U.S. standoff against Iran, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of “maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to U.S. interests”. In the case of Saddam’s regime, its fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its alleged links to Al-Qaida were used in the U.S. propaganda war to first impose U.N. sanctions and eventually invade Iraq. We now have a déjà vu situation in which the U.S. and its allies, prodded by Israel, demonize Iran as a threat to world security and accuse it of having a program to develop nuclear weapons. As with Iraq, the real aim is a regime change in Iran to set up a U.S. puppet government in this oil- and gas-rich country in the key strategic Persian Gulf region. This has also happened before in the 1953 U.S.-British coup in Iran. The same forces in U.S., U.K., Israel and allies today distort the truth and engage in deceit, coercion and aggression to achieve their goals. We will briefly examine some of the key facts in the standoff.

Article continues . . .

Aug. 6, 2010: Member of Parliament Bill Siksay was the keynote speaker at Winnipeg’s annual Lantern Ceremony, held to commemorate the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. His topic: a private member’s bill before the House of Commons calling for the creation of a federal Department of Peace.

For more information, visit the Campaign to Establish a Canadian Department of Peace.