Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Hollywood is to make propaganda

By drquick in Media
Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 05:56:23 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Hollywood entertainment industry and the White House has agreed on some issues that are to be promoted. Most notably we will be told that this is not a war aginst the USA or its foreign policy, but against everyone and against "civilization".


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Hollywood has agreed to "help" the US government to address some political issues in relation to 9/11.

According to CNN:

  • -- The anti terrorism campaign is not a war against Islam.
  • -- There is an opportunity to issue a call to service for Americans.
  • -- U.S. troops and their families need support.
  • -- The September 11 attacks were an attack against civilization and require a global response.
  • -- Children need to be reassured of their safety and security in the wake of the attacks.
  • -- The anti terrorism campaign is a war against evil.

All of the issues mentioned above might or might not be true. In my opinion the real issue here is that a government can agree with the entertainment industry on what people will be told. An article in CNN cleverly explains that the White House imposes not content or a propaganda role. But, what is the difference? The industry does what it's told anyhow.

I can't help but pointing out one of the issues. Even if it's the propaganda role on the whole I object against. I personally disagree with the claim that this is an attack on "civilization". How convenient! The US has brought about this situation with it's foreign policy that other democracies could not influence. Now, the administration wants to assure global support for a retaliation strategy that's largely disputed.

Do you think that Hollywood has agreed on playing a propaganda role?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you think that Hollywood has agreed on playing a propaganda role?
o Hell, yes! Hollywood is and extension to the White House. 60%
o In essence they have, but it's natural in this special situation. 23%
o I cant say, but all they do is good things 1%
o No, they didn't! Hollywood is free in the free world. 2%
o No, they didn't, but Hollywood is evil! 11%

Votes: 69
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o article
o Also by drquick


Display: Sort:
Hollywood is to make propaganda | 55 comments (48 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
We already knew Hollywood is greedy. (3.80 / 5) (#1)
by theboz on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 08:27:20 AM EST

Remember, this is the MPAA and it's people you are talking about. All they care about is making a buck, so they will go right along with the president on this. It's just the boost they need for some half-assed attempt at a plot that mentions the words America and has some patriotic stuff in it right now. Especially if the president recommends people should watch certain TV shows or movies, that's the kind of publicity Hollywood would love to have. Of course, it's no problem if Hollywood makes whatever movies they want. My problem (and I imagine the author of this story agrees) is that government officials are trying to wage a propaganda war against it's own citizens like this.

Stuff.

The price of Hollywood cooperation? (3.50 / 6) (#3)
by jabber on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 08:35:04 AM EST

Well, stronger Copyright and Content Protection legislation of course... Especially when you consider that terrorism is sponsored by the pirate CD business, and anyone with DeCSS is a potential terrorist fund raiser.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Waging propaganda? (4.77 / 9) (#4)
by yonasa on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 08:41:18 AM EST

Most geopolitical(?) literature I have read seem to agree that there is one remarkable feature of modern American propaganda, and that is the degree to which the general US population participates in the US porpaganda machine. The theory goes that the structure of Corporate America is such that only those who agree with the "party line" are allowed to rise to a position of influence, and this results in a vicious cycle of only those toeing the party line are allowed to join this exclusive club (there's some more to it than that, but I forget the rest...)

Thus the US government does not need to intervene directly in the running of media since they are under the control of those who agree with the general consensus. Indeed, the government may not even need to be aware that such propaganda is being carried out, since it has become so integrated into society.

The (somewhat naive and blithe) conclusion is that the government itself is not the one waging a propaganda war against the population, but that the population is waging this war against itself.

--

I wish I was more eloquent
[ Parent ]

No (4.16 / 6) (#5)
by forgotten gentleman on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 08:45:17 AM EST

Do you think that Hollywood has agreed on playing a propaganda role?
No. The article says,
'No specific recommendations or plans were unveiled after Sunday's meeting, which was described as "the beginning of the beginning" of Hollywood's effort.'
Rational people always do things for a reason, so you can certainly find motivations for this meeting. During wartime, it helps to make connections with the government. But I don't see much more overt propaganda coming out of this meeting than is inevitable for Hollywood anyway.

No ? (4.00 / 4) (#7)
by drquick on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 08:52:37 AM EST

There is a point by point list of issues the entertainment industry has promised to pursue.

Of course, in the same breath they exclaim:
"This is not propaganda".
Remember that CNN is a part of the propaganda industry itself.

[ Parent ]

cnn's part (none / 0) (#43)
by kraft on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 06:32:05 AM EST

Remember that CNN is a part of the propaganda industry itself.

Dangerously true :(

--
a signature has the format "dash-dash-newline-text". dammit.
[ Parent ]
Hey! (2.66 / 6) (#11)
by xriso on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 10:37:34 AM EST

Big Brother says propaganda is good (doubleplus, in fact!). Did you know that everyone in history who did not recieve their Reccommended Daily Propaganda amount has died? How does THAT make you feel?

:-)
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)

Hollywood is to make propaganda (4.33 / 6) (#12)
by FredBloggs on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 10:55:07 AM EST

Er, i think you`ve got the tense wrong there mate!

This has been done before, people. (4.14 / 7) (#14)
by Fubar the Clown on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 11:05:40 AM EST

Remember World War II? Hollywood was churning out plenty of propaganda then; right down to Bugs Bunny cartoons.

They did it before; why be shocked that they're going to do it now, especially with a conservative in the White House? After all, conservatives have been known to browbeat Hollywood for "immoral" content.

So, instead of cartoons where BUgs Bunny makes fun of the Japanese, we'll probably have the Cartman and Co. tormenting Taliban piggies with foul language.

I can see it now: "Ohmygod, they killed Kenny! You raghead bastards!"

--
Coming soon from Megafarce Records: Antipop Superstar by Fubar the Clown

Heh (4.00 / 6) (#15)
by Happy Monkey on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 11:30:47 AM EST

I can see it now: "Ohmygod, they killed Kenny! You raghead bastards!"

You didn't see last week's South Park, did you?
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
No, I didn't. (2.66 / 3) (#16)
by Fubar the Clown on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 11:50:32 AM EST

Not only am I a troll and a mediocre rock musician, but I'm also an ethnocentric bastard and a fucking elitist pig who thinks that only losers watch television.

Besides, I was busy adding a new hard drive and CD-RW to my computer.

--
Coming soon from Megafarce Records: Antipop Superstar by Fubar the Clown
[ Parent ]

The South Park guys would do that anyway (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by itsbruce on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 02:55:43 PM EST

Nobody has to pay them.


--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.


[ Parent ]
I don't remember WWII... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by demi on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 01:31:15 PM EST

...all I have seen are a bunch of old movies that could have easily been made on a sound stage and a Macintosh G4. This whole 'world wars' nonsense is a propagandistic fabrication made up to support the suppressive views of the RULING ELITE. Hollywood is controlled by a small committee of people that regularly consult with government authorities to decide what the common man (that's you and me) is supposed to be thinking.

They did it before; why be shocked that they're going to do it now, especially with a conservative in the White House? After all, conservatives have been known to browbeat Hollywood for "immoral" content.

Yet they have not succeeded in getting a single piece of legislation through that does anything about it. In every case, Hollywood has acted to control its own content rather than submit to regulation. No matter what people would like to believe, Hollywood is certainly not an extension of Washington DC.

So, instead of cartoons where BUgs Bunny makes fun of the Japanese, we'll probably have the Cartman and Co. tormenting Taliban piggies with foul language.

Heh, I would laugh at that. I would probably tune in and watch it. How is that any different from portraying Americans as stupid fat rednecks on TV? I laugh at that stuff too.



[ Parent ]

But *I* remember. (none / 0) (#45)
by Fubar the Clown on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 08:58:57 AM EST

I remember because I was there. I poured poison into a little man's ears and millions died screaming. I did it before, and I'm doing it again.

"Fubar the Clown" is but one of my thousand names. >^..^<

--
Coming soon from Megafarce Records: Antipop Superstar by Fubar the Clown
[ Parent ]

Blah (4.00 / 13) (#18)
by delmoi on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 01:14:26 PM EST

I don't see what's wrong with this. Most Hollywood movies have little artistic merit, and are calculated make money. I don't see that there is anything wrong with them trying to parrot the government line.

If you want something really insidious, look at the war on drugs content propaganda, witch is actually legally enforced (if you don't change the content of television shows to be anti-drug, you have to loose advertising money by playing government anti-drug advertisements)
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Newsflash: Baker to make bread (3.50 / 14) (#20)
by itsbruce on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 02:56:39 PM EST


--It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.


Good story idea. (4.50 / 2) (#30)
by ambrosen on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 09:22:43 AM EST

I've always thought we needed an article on inner peace through breadmaking. Maybe I ought to do one.

--
Procrastination does not make you cool. Being cool makes you procrastinate. DesiredUsername.
[ Parent ]
This is something new? (4.63 / 11) (#21)
by SvnLyrBrto on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 03:56:50 PM EST

Quick! Name a movie in the last twenty years that has given a positive viewpoint of islam...

I thought about this for five minutes before I started writing, and I haven't come up with one yet. Mabye little indie or arthouse films, but certianly nothing that's been widely seen.

Wait... just remembered ONE example of ONE muslim who was a "good guy". That was Morgan Freeman's character in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. But all the OTHER muslims in that movie were you standard cruel, sadistic, hand-cutting-off, bastards.

I think it started when fundamentalist muslims decided to assault the American embassy in Iran, and hold our diplomats hostage...

Ever since then, all throughout the '80s especially, whenever hollywood needed a convinent "bad guy" for the heros to fight, islamic fanatics would do. "The Delta Force", "Navy Seals", "Iron Eagle", even both "Hot Shots" movies...

Every so often, columbian drug cartels (License to Kill) or the IRA (Patriot Games) would be used. But by far, fundamentalist islam gave hollywood the most "bad guy" fodder. Hell, the columbians were just being good capitalists, a bit ruthless that's all, and the irish are... well... too white to make good "bad guys".

And islam did nothing to help matters. The airliner and cruise ship hijackings and bombings gave hollywood SOOO much material. Look at "The Delta Force" for example... They took a REAL hijacking (The TWA jetliner where the hijackers murdered a diver from the US Navy), swapped around a few details, and gave us the ending everyone WANTED. (Chuck Norris got to go kill all the hijackers, with a little help from Lee Marvin)

Even in the slightly less warmongering Clinton era... the bad guy of convinence? Muslim fanatics. Arnold shoots up a building full of 'em from a Harrier, and Bruce drives tanks into New York to ferret them out.

Hollywood propaganda for the war on terror, will be more of the same, no doubt. What's REALLY going to change?

But I think were all pretty much desencetized to it by now. When you see an arab in the movies now, everyone already KNOWS that, much like the stormtroopers from Star Wars, or the nazis in Indiana Jones, he is only there for the hero to kill (or at least beat the living bejeazus out of).


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

True.. but (3.33 / 3) (#22)
by plug on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 04:27:31 PM EST

I always thought that the English were the natural 'evil ones'. With the exeption of Austin Powers (himself Canadian of course).

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."Mikhail Bakunin
[ Parent ]

Next summers blockbuster! (4.00 / 2) (#28)
by bil on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 07:33:53 AM EST

Get ready for "Delta force in Afghanistan herocally fighting evil Taliban scum from Luton, England"

Starring Bruce Willis (in a vest obviously) as the heroic Capt, Chuck Chuckson the third, and Christopher Walken as Osama Bin Laden!

Coming soon to theatres near you! :)

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Making History More Suitable :) (3.00 / 1) (#38)
by plug on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 03:32:21 PM EST

Alan Rickman surely. Tom Hanks could play George Bush. We'd have to change the story in some bizzare fasion. Maybe the planes never do hit the twin towers - whilst the passengers overpower the evil but weak terrorists a 5 year kid (sub plot about his 'soap box' racing adventures) takes control of the plane bringing it down safely.

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."Mikhail Bakunin
[ Parent ]

Bond, James Bond (4.50 / 4) (#23)
by /dev/niall on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 05:22:37 PM EST

The Living Daylights? Well, sort of. The mujahideen were Bond-buddies. They helped him outsmart some nasty Russians.


--
"compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
[ Parent ]

Rambo (4.00 / 2) (#25)
by drquick on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 04:34:41 AM EST

In one of the Rambo films (Rambo III I think) Rambo rescues a grateful Afghani Mujahedin. Heroism etc...

However, the point is not that propaganda is something new, it isn't! The point is that Hollywood now openly meets with the White House to "get orders", if I exaggerate a bit. We now have a list of exactly what was decided.

[ Parent ]

Pitch Black n/t (4.00 / 2) (#27)
by Zeram on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 07:32:58 AM EST


<----^---->
Like Anime? In the Philly metro area? Welcome to the machine...
[ Parent ]
Minor quibble (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Sanityman on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 11:19:27 AM EST

Not so much the IRA - isn't it normally a breakaway faction/lone crazed IRA psycho who was the Bad Guy(s)?

Wouldn't want to offend those nice NORAID fund-raisers, after all.

Sanityman



Disclaimer: Whatever organisation you had in mind, I'm not representing it.
If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.
[ Parent ]
The Mummy Returns (3.50 / 2) (#44)
by kstop on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 07:08:17 AM EST

Features Muslim holy warriors with beards who defend the world from ancient evil. I remember this (and nothing else from said B-movie) because it was the only positive muslim character that I could remember seeing in a Hollywood movie. Obviously there are more, but few.

[ Parent ]
13th Warrior (4.00 / 1) (#54)
by twi on Mon Nov 19, 2001 at 09:14:23 PM EST

13th Warrior featuring Antonio Banderas as a muslim who ist smart, well mannered and generaly kicks ass. (Watch out for stupid censored versions :-)

[ Parent ]
War against evil! (3.75 / 16) (#24)
by mmcc on Mon Nov 12, 2001 at 10:42:17 PM EST

    The anti terrorism campaign is a war against evil.
OBL: Over one million children were killed in Iraq. The killing is continuing.

BUSH: OBL is EVIL!!!

OBL: They divided the whole world, and Palestine was occupied by the British. Since then, and for more than 83 years, our brothers, sons, and sisters in Palestine have been badly tortured.

BUSH: OBL is EVIL!!!

OBL: Russians have annihilated the Chechen people in their entirety and forced them to flee to the mountains where they were assaulted by snow and poverty and diseases.

BUSH: OBL is EVIL!!!

OBL: Our brothers in Kashmir have been subjected to the worst forms of torture for over 50 years. They have been massacred, killed, and raped.

BUSH: OBL is EVIL!!!

OBL: In Somalia, on the excuse of restoring hope, 13,000 of our brothers were killed. In southern Sudan, hundreds of thousands were killed.

BUSH: OBL is EVIL!!!



Of course, (2.50 / 2) (#26)
by FredBloggs on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 06:00:43 AM EST

Bin Laden would have had more credibility if he`d mentioned the situation in Palestine (for example) before September 11th.

[ Parent ]
Re: Of course... (none / 0) (#29)
by mmcc on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 09:08:59 AM EST

    Bin Laden would have had more credibility if he`d mentioned the situation in Palestine (for example) before September 11th.
And if he had, everybody would have listened to him, just like they're listening to him now, right?



[ Parent ]

And as you'll notice (none / 0) (#31)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 10:47:25 AM EST

A few days ago, someone posted a link to a Bin Laden statement that wasn't being widely shown in the US media.

He complains about Palestine all right. He complains that Israel is allowed to exist *at all*.

Even if Bin Laden is sincere about the Palestinians, it's a lie to claim that he'll be satisfied if Israel just treats Palestinians nicely or withdraws from the occupied territories. It wouldn't make any difference to him. As long as Israel even *exists*, he'll go on killing us. What should we do then, kill every Israeli to satisfy Bin Laden?

[ Parent ]

State of Isreal (none / 0) (#48)
by JonesBoy on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 03:49:44 PM EST

Well, the arabs and the jews are very close in their beliefs. In some interpretations of the torah, jews (and obviously islamics) believe that God banished them from the desert, to forever roam without a home. The formation of a jewish state is considered forebidden. A lot of people in the jewish faith complain about the isreali attack on palestine (circa 1948 IIRC) as being a hostile movement separating the jewish faith. It was when the brits pulled out...

Honestly, I don't know if I have all this right, but I am not terribly interested in it, and don't want to research it too much. Ok.. here is some from the CIA world factbook http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html


Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]
Bush/USA and OBL/Taliban are moral equals. (2.50 / 4) (#35)
by demi on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 01:17:21 PM EST

No one is more evil than the other. I can enjoy basically the same life, standards of freedom, and be susceptible to the same dangers in either George Bush's world, or Osama bin Laden's. In fact, since the USS Vincennes accidentally (bah, probably intentional) shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, it is only fair that Islamic people should be able to take down some of our airliners. George Bush can be proven to be a hypocrite so he is wrong, and all of his arguments are thereby invalidated. If George Bush says he is going after evil he should be going after himself and all of the evil ruling elite of America. QED.



[ Parent ]

Not if you're female (none / 0) (#55)
by pin0cchio on Sun Dec 16, 2001 at 11:45:06 AM EST

I can enjoy basically the same life, standards of freedom, and be susceptible to the same dangers in either George Bush's world, or Osama bin Laden's.

Not if you're female. Bin Laden allied himself with the Taliban, who took away almost all rights of women to travel, to receive an education, etc. The Taliban wanted women not to exist except to produce baby Taliban.


lj65
[ Parent ]
Evil is as evil does... (3.80 / 5) (#37)
by WombatControl on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 03:16:34 PM EST

OBL: Over one million children were killed in Iraq. The killing is continuing.

You have Saddam Hussein's stealing of humanitarian aid to thank for that. He continues to develop weapons of mass destruction while his people starve. The UN gives Iraq more than enough aid to prevent this - it just never reaches the populace.

OBL: They divided the whole world, and Palestine was occupied by the British. Since then, and for more than 83 years, our brothers, sons, and sisters in Palestine have been badly tortured.

At the same time, Palestinian militants have absolutely no qualms about killing hundreds of innocent Israelis every year. Bus bombs, disco bombs, blowing up a pizza stand - those are the actions of barbarians. Can you honestly say that Israel *doesn't* have a right to defend itself from such things?

OBL: Russians have annihilated the Chechen people in their entirety and forced them to flee to the mountains where they were assaulted by snow and poverty and diseases.

Of course, that ignores the fact that Chechen rebels routinely slaughtered ethnic Russians, took command of hospitals, and generally did everything they could to slaughter Russians who were in Chechnya at the time.

OBL: Our brothers in Kashmir have been subjected to the worst forms of torture for over 50 years. They have been massacred, killed, and raped.

...while at the same time, bin Laden's troops have done the same to the Hindus in the region.

OBL: In Somalia, on the excuse of restoring hope, 13,000 of our brothers were killed. In southern Sudan, hundreds of thousands were killed.

That's just pure bullshit. The US forces in Operation Restoring Hope were trying to avoid a major famine and were attacked by warlords financed by bin Laden for their troubles.

All this shares a common threat - this notion that it is US imperialism that is behind the problems in the Middle East. It ignored the fact that groups like al-Qaeda and Hamas are responsible for more bloodshed in the Middle East than anyone else, all while wearing the mantle of the oppressed. It's time this ended, and if it means hunting down and eliminating these terrorist cells one by one, then so be it.

The fact is, Bush is right. Osama bin Laden *is* evil, and anyone with any degree of moral judgment or logic can see that as clear as day.



[ Parent ]
OBL's words condemn him (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by avdi on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 11:07:39 AM EST

OBL: ...In southern Sudan, hundreds of thousands were killed.

Oh, that is ripe. OBL is basicly seeking sympathy for the fact that the animist and Christian southern sudanese have tried to defend themselves against mass slavery, kidnapping, indoctrination, rape, torture, and genocide by the Arabic Muslim north. "How dare those black Africans defend themselves! They should lay down their arms, convert to Islam, and happily accept their rightful Arab rulers!"

The reason nobody's listening is because the man is blatantly supporting genocidal governments with the some of the worst human-rights records in the world. Sounds like a reasonable definition of "Evil" to me.

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
[ Parent ]

Yep... (3.00 / 2) (#33)
by dennis on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 11:46:57 AM EST

No wonder Hollywood gets every bill they want rammed through Congress....

McCarthy anyone? (3.75 / 4) (#34)
by Sanityman on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 12:27:16 PM EST

I'm surprised no-one has brought up Hollywood's complicity in the censorship and blacklisting of 'unAmerican' film actors/producers in the 50's witch hunts

AFAIK there was one film about it, made years later, which played to non-mainstream audiences. Compare other episodes of American ignominy, such as Vietnam, and you might conclude that Hollywood just didn't feel it needed much in the way of absolution.

Hollywood has always seen its interests very much aligned with the establishment. Call it a conspiracy or just cynical pragmatism depending on your level of paranoia, the results are the same.

Sanityman



Disclaimer: Whatever organisation you had in mind, I'm not representing it.
If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.
Conjecture and fact (1.40 / 5) (#39)
by epepke on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 05:05:26 PM EST

The idea that the attacks were due to America's foreign policy is conjecture. Some people agree with it, and some don't. I think that the only aspect of America's foreign policy which, if it had been changed, would have satisfied bin Laden, was our entry into World War II against the Axis. People are projecting their own relatively moderate concerns onto these immoderate people. However, my agreement is neither here nor there.

The fact is that the attacks were on the World Trade Center.

World.   Trade.   Center.

You know, the place in New York where they had a lot of people from other countries working there, a lot of them for the purposes of world trade, hence the name. It wasn't the Statue of Liberty or the NYSE or even the bleedin' headquarters of Wal-Mart. It was the World Trade Center. Furthermore, it was done by people who think that the 13th century is the best possible time to live (except for the guns).

Of course it was an attack on civilization! I don't see how one can claim otherwise and still claim to be literate. If you blow up the one thing most representative of what world civilization does in the premier archtypical Big City of the entire planet, it's an attack on civilization.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


Your perspective is not ours, and thus flawed... (4.40 / 5) (#41)
by Shovas on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 06:39:18 PM EST

Greetings,

Excuse the subject. It just seems there's little factual evidence going around with all these "intellectual" debates.

At any rate, the World Trade Centre may be filled with people from all over the world, but it is moreso considered the absolute icon of capitalism and the ultimate land of capitalism: the United States.

The WTC was not the only thing attacked that day. And it is quite possible more attacks were planned and would have been executed if not for the immediate security increase the same day.

I think that the only aspect of America's foreign policy which, if it had been changed, would have satisfied bin Laden, was our entry into World War II against the Axis.

You obviously have not read up on US foreigh policy nor bin Laden's rationale for his actions. The US has a long history of events creating anti-Americanism abroad. One, bin Laden, is known to have finally turned against the US when they failed to remove themselves from Saudi Arabia, after the Gulf War. This land was considered Holy by bin Laden and an unforgiveable act. It is reasonable to assert that bin Laden's passionate "disenchantment" with the US was a direct result of this final straw. It is further possible that the later attacks may not have occurred given a pull-out of Saudi Arabia.

You may say hind sight is 20/20, but if the very institutions which raised this monstrosity do not realize the mental workings of their trainees, perhaps we have other problems.

The fact of the matter is, we like to encase our problems in easy to label, quick to deal with boxes.

This bin Laden is crazy. We must kill him.

He may very well not be crazy. This situation goes deeper than "throw a nuke at it and it'll be fixed". There will always be anti-American sentiment just waiting to breed this type of man, if US policy continues in its self-righteous and careless ways. I hate to plug my own writings, but I've written on this subject(that even mad men have reasons) on my personal page:
http://www.inconceivable.org

Farewell,
---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
[ Parent ]
there is a subject here damnit..! (4.00 / 2) (#50)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Nov 15, 2001 at 04:48:23 PM EST

why is it then if, as a member of society and so called civilization that i had never even heard of the world trade centre before Sept 11(...as usual i seem a bit lagged...)...?
i realize the building itself held thousands of people, and it is a horrible thing that those people had to die. i dont agree with it's taking down in the slightest... and i also realize that the building _was_ in fact important on a global scale.
however.
it wasnt that important as to inflict the threat of death to millions of afghani through starvation...or to take away the rights and freedoms of pretty much anyone living in any democracy around the world...we are talking about far more people than died...and many more people are going to die because of the americans poor reaction. pointless slaughters. revenge and murder. for what? so that the white middle class american can feel more safe in thier neighborhood which was really in very little danger to begin with...
...OR...
this was bound to happen eventually. you have to expect that the worst, such as this....is going to happen...becuase...look! it did!
if you werent overly dependant on one parcel of land to hold so many important things perhaps it wouldnt have been quite as nasty?
also realize that not everyone lives in america, and to us, your big city is just another collection of a species that is for the most part a waste of good carbon. i'd think this through further but i'm really busy. or something.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Rambo IV (4.00 / 2) (#40)
by KittyFishnets on Tue Nov 13, 2001 at 05:46:17 PM EST

Rambo May Take on Osama & the Taliban [ABC News]. "Sylvester Stallone may bring his one-man army out of retirement and send him back into Afghanistan..."

For those who missed it, last week's South Park saw the boys visit Afghanistan and meet Osama. Including several parodies of Bugs Bunny and other WWII era cartoons.

KFN

national coalition agains censorship (3.66 / 3) (#42)
by kipple on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 05:04:26 AM EST

as you may already know (or could see over here something has already been done.
It's not a matter of propaganda, nor forcing hollywood or whoever to act according to gov't rules. Now it's way more subtile.
If you publis anti-US opinions, movies, whatever could "influence" people, then they'll blame you. And you'll lose customers, wich is much worse than being forced to obey gov't rules and give up a little bit of your freedom.
What makes me sick is that it's commonly believed that "people" aren't able to use their brain, but are influenced with media. So, what right does anyone have to decide what is 'wrong' to show people, and what is 'right'? Surely the 11/9 attack was a horrible thing. But limiting information and bin laden messages on TV networks, is more or less like Saddam was doing a while ago - not broadcasting CNN into iraq.

I think the best thing to do is let media free to show whatever they want. If someone wants to publish anti-US messages, let him free to do it. People's judgement will either cast him away or let him speak.
But allowing only a monopoly of information will absolutely be a wrong thing. Once such a power of "censorship" has been acquired, how long will it take to give it back?

It IS a war against civilization (3.50 / 2) (#46)
by Jman1 on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 11:03:26 AM EST

Most of it, anyway. Maybe this one battle is just against the US, but does anyone really have any doubt that bin Laden and his cronies want to knock off every single non-his-particular-brand-of-fundamentalism country on the planet? It's like the old quote "When the nazis came looking for the Jews I didn't protest because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the Poles, I didn't protest because I wasn't Polish... When they came for me, there was noone left to protest."

I don't care what you think of our sanctions on Iraq. Right or wrong, they don't make bin Laden's actions any more right. Please. He's a moral man?

There is a need for "propaganda." Not over here so much as over in Afghanistan and the various other countries with high degrees of violent fundamentalism. The "propaganda?" Um, life is better this way. Look at the Western world. Sure, it's a little bland and stuff, but we've got a pretty damn high standard of living, good quality of life, etc. etc. etc. Stop letting corrupt dictators keep all your resources (oil, aid) for themselves and pushing you all down.

I don't believe you (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by broken77 on Wed Nov 14, 2001 at 04:45:39 PM EST

Ok, this has been gone over many times, but I'll do it again, just because...
...does anyone really have any doubt that bin Laden and his cronies want to knock off every single non-his-particular-brand-of-fundamentalism country on the planet?
Yup. I doubt it very much. Yes, I know he's said some really inflammatory and threatening statements in the past. He's said "kill 'em all", in a sense. But you know what? He's really angry. People make idle threats all the time. How many times have you seen a bumper sticker that says "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"? Do these people want everyone in the world they don't approve of dead? Even if they do, are you afraid they're going to go out and do it? Simple example, yes, but consider this... Bin Laden so far hasn't given us any reason to think that he's systematically attempting to wipe out all non-Islamics. He's suspected to be behind a few terrorist attacks (read that again: suspected). But let's assume he really is the mastermind behind these attacks. There is plenty of information by very well-studied peoples all over the world why he's done these things. People go on terrorist campaigns for reasons. Not just willy-nilly. It's a political agenda. Look up the definition of terrorism. If he wanted to wipe out the largest amounts of westerns as possible, there are better, more efficient ways of doing so than crashing planes into buildings to kill a few thousand people.
It's like the old quote "When the nazis came looking for the Jews I didn't protest because I wasn't Jewish...
No it's not. Not in any way shape or form. See my above quote as to why. He is not responsible for any form of ethnic cleansing or genocide, as WWII Germany was. He is responsible (maybe) for a few acts of major terrorism. BIG difference. He has not come after anyone. He's hit key targets (maybe) because of their psychological effects.
I don't care what you think of our sanctions on Iraq. Right or wrong, they don't make bin Laden's actions any more right. Please. He's a moral man?
Absolutely, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think anyone on this site has accused him of being a moral person. BUT, I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it, ad infinitum... If I was living in a foreign country, and a foreign power came and killed thousands (nay, millions) of my people and made life damn near unbearable, I don't know what I might do in response to that. You can argue all day long about the morality of my response, but what would you do if you were bullied your whole life?
There is a need for "propaganda." Not over here so much as over in Afghanistan and the various other countries with high degrees of violent fundamentalism. The "propaganda?" Um, life is better this way.
I disagree whole-heartedly. A. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else in the world "you should live this certain way, trust me, I know better". B. Our "way", as you put it, is not depicted accurately, or comprehensively, in your statements. For our "good quality of life", "high standard of living", etc., how many people across the globe are suffering as a result of it? I've given this subject a great, great deal of thought. What I've come up with? Our "way of life" is not sustainable, in the long term. For example, the world does not have enough resources to keep up with our level of consumption forever. I could go on, but don't want to write a dissertation on the subject. But keep in mind that "our way of life" includes terrorizing foreign countries, exploiting cheap labor overseas, drug trafficking, assassinations, increasing repression of free speech and liberties, etc. etc. And why? All in the name of greater profits and higher "standards of living" for our inhabitants. It can't go on forever. We will eventually run out of resources and areas to exploit. It just isn't sustainable. No, we should NOT be teaching "our way of life" to other countries. I'm appalled at the idea.
Stop letting corrupt dictators keep all your resources (oil, aid) for themselves and pushing you all down.
Maybe you should do a little more reading on the subject. Part of the reason OBL is so pissed, and got to where he is right now, stems from his opposition to the (corrupt, oppressive) Saudi monarchy asking the U.S. to establish a military presence in Saudi Arabia, effectively giving us unfettered access to their oil supplies in exchange for keeping them in power and stinking rich. He was a dissident in the country, a voice of major opposition, and was banished because of it. They don't tolerate political dissidents in middle eastern countries nearly as well as they do here in the U.S. (although I do say that statement sort of tongue-in-cheek).

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Of course it is (none / 0) (#52)
by epepke on Fri Nov 16, 2001 at 12:16:26 PM EST

I wrote about this elsewhere, but people apparently didn't like it. So, from dictionary.com

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Intellectual, check. Especially compared to only educating men to the 6th grade and women not at all.

Cultural, well... People put down U.S. culture, but you can find everything in New York City. It's not exactly Los Angeles.

Material, check.

Progress in arts and sciences, check.

Extensive record-keeping, yowza! Everybody in the world keeps records in New York.

Complex political and social institutions, check. Try dealing with New York politics some day. You'll need Valium.

Plus, New York City is a force in world civilization to an even greater extent than it is an important American city. It has an influence similar to that of Paris on art and cooking. And the World Trade Center was arguable the dominant symbol of that force.

Perhaps some people put "civilization" in quotes because they don't like civilization. To a certain extent, I agree. I'm much happier in uncivilized places, so long as I can make money. However, that's no excuse for not knowing what the word "civilization" means.

Not that all of this is true (except the 6th grade crack) totally regardless of who did the attacks.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Isn't it ironic? (3.50 / 2) (#51)
by gromm on Fri Nov 16, 2001 at 05:51:07 AM EST

All through the 70's and 80's, (and probably well before that, just that I wasn't born early enough to tell) the US media would report on news from the Soviet side of the world as "propaganda" in such a tone that meant it was blatant garbage that should not be trusted. They also implied (and often blatantly stated) that the United States, the beacon of light and goodness and free speech it is, would *never* do *anything* like that, that their media told The Truth (tm) rather than Government-funded lies (in between commercials for army recruitment, of course).

It gets better too of course. To deepen the sense of irony, the American public drank it right up like a big 'ol glass of Old South and a bowl of Cheerios, while at the same time paying for the privelidge to do so! The American public would pay for it in their taxes, pay for it in the products they bought that they saw advertised on TV, and pay for it at the box office by the millions. They've been lining up for their fill of lies, deceit and false promises, and then coming back for more.

Don't believe me?
- Top Gun (The air force is good for you)
- Dirty Harry (Americans have all the best guns)
- Rambo III (Americans have all the best guns and are invincible, now let's kick some commie butt! (oh, and we're friends with the Afghans, mmmkay?))
- A view to a kill (James Bond saves Silicon Valley... somehow this is a good thing)
- An Officer and a Gentleman (the army is good for you)
- Independence Day (alternately titled "The President Of The United States Of America Saves The World!! (again.)")
- Crocadile Dundee II (drugs are bad, mmmkay?)
- The Final Countdown (it was clearly nothing but propaganda; there was no plot otherwise, and 2/5ths of the film was used solely for taking shots of bombs and missiles and planes being moved around)
- Other cheesy movies whose entire appeal could only possibly be propaganda. Plots include nuclear annihilation, communism is bad, drugs are bad, crazed islamics are bad, America is good, the Army, navy, and air force are good (and marines triply so), capitalism is good, and so forth. These are always easy plots to sell when you can't afford to pay for actual screenplay writers.

Don't worry about the latest deals Hollywood has made with the government to produce propaganda! You'll like it! You'll think it's fun! You'll gladly pay for the privilege of being lied to about how great and wonderful your cesspool of a country is! And you'll believe it because the ones who make the lies for public consumption are experts at what they do! Be happy! Go to Disneyland! Have some fries with that!


Deus ex frigerifero

A new link (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by drquick on Mon Nov 19, 2001 at 03:32:36 AM EST

I found this article on www.wsws.org:

Hollywood enlists in Bush?s war drive

Hollywood is to make propaganda | 55 comments (48 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!