Military Review

How the United States and the United Kingdom prepared for information aggression

18

Provocation as a way to create a pretext for action is as old as the world. Arson of the Reichstag gave the Nazis a reason to start repressions against the Communists and other parties, which led to the creation of the Third Reich with one NSDAP. Proof of? The Reichstag is on fire, and in its corridors the Dutch Communist Van der Lubbe was detained. What other evidence? None Yet obvious! Van der Lubbe smiled the whole process (probably drugged) and went to the guillotine. Evidence of the communists' involvement in the arson was never found; therefore, Georgi Dimitrov’s Bulgarian even the Nazi Themis justified and freed. But the goal of the provocation has already been achieved - the Fuhrer of the NSDAP gathered in his hands all conceivable power.




Today, the Anglo-Saxons apply a similar scheme in Syria.

Someone used sarin in the suburbs of Damascus. On the Internet there were videos with dying people. Everything is clear - applied chemical weapons Bashar Asad. Proof of? Do you have enough clips on the Internet? Then the UN inspectors found fragments with inscriptions in Russian with traces of sarin. True, such trifles that these fragments from the 60's Soviet warhead, which is not in service with the Syrian army, are not taken into account.


Theme "weapon mass destruction (WMD as a pretext for invasion) "for the West is not new. That is how the United States and Great Britain justified their invasion of Iraq. One of my readers, who asked not to publish his name, sent a material on the analysis of how the West created the necessary public opinion through fraud and falsification during the invasion of this country. Parallels are visible to the naked eye.


Here is this material. This is a chronology, a step-by-step analysis of the actions of London, since the one who sent the material in those years lived and worked in the Russian mission in Great Britain. The peculiarities of the strike by the United States and England on Iraq in 2003 were the fact that at that time the aggressors did not even consider it necessary to get UN approval. Just invaded without any resolutions. 10 years have passed. See how the situation has changed - today the same countries cannot afford it. And it is gratifying.


But back on 10 years ago ...


“Every day it becomes obvious to the world community that the reason for the war with Iraq, as well as the accusations of the regime of S. Hussein that he harbored weapons of mass destruction, and was ready to use it against his neighbors, were fictitious and fraudulent. The leadership of the United States and Great Britain, using methods and methods of manipulating consciousness on a global scale, literally wrested consent to a military action from their peoples. In other words, there was a grand propaganda campaign on a global scale. Of great interest to researchers are the actions of the leading powers of the “coalition of good will”, the United States and Great Britain, in de facto forcing their citizens to support aggression against Iraq.


The purpose of this article is to attempt to describe the chronology of actions and reveal methods of manipulation during a public relations campaign, with the help of which the British government, in full compliance with the existing legislation of the country, was approved by the British for their actions.


Before starting the story, it must be said that British public relations specialists divide operations carried out in the information field into media operations and information operations. At the same time, the first type of operations is aimed at its own population in order to inspire it with the thoughts it needs, the government of Her Majesty. Other information operations are carried out to influence the enemy.


Great Britain took an active part in the 1991 war against Iraq, and its aircraft since then for over ten years have been patrolling Iraq’s restricted areas for Iraqi flights. aviation... However, in the end, the leadership of the United States and Great Britain decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein and create a "democratic government" in Iraq.


Given that the relevant UK media governing bodies have a detailed psychological analysis of the British population with clearly defined target audiences, the task of introducing the most original, memorable and strategically correct metaphors into the British minds was the most important during the "media operations" to change the picture. the world of ordinary Britons. Since the beginning of the war between Iraq and Kuwait, the British authorities and the media have been constantly "warming up" the Iraqi theme by publishing materials aimed at "demonizing" Saddam Hussein in order to implement the campaign's intention. Here are just a few steps towards achieving the intended goal - creating the necessary public opinion in order to ultimately attack a sovereign country.


1. In the fall of 2002, the government fired the first volleys in an information war against its own people. In September, in the respected Financial Times, a collage was printed on one of the pages - twin skyscrapers in New York in clouds of smoke and in this smoke the profile of Saddam Hussein. And although there was and is not to this day any evidence of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the terrorists accused of organizing the events of September 11, 2001, a "hotbed of excitement" appeared in the British minds. "Overkill" using the image of S. Hussein against the background of the burning twin towers was later explained by the chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee Scarlett, as "the exercise of freedom of speech in expressing one's opinion."


2. Further, during the September 3 2002 press conference in his constituency, British Prime Minister E. Blair made a statement in which he noted that Iraq with the current ruling regime is a threat to the UK, the entire world community and the government will soon provide direct evidence of that. The publication of "direct evidence" was preceded by a meeting of the government cabinet, at which Prime Minister E. Blair enlisted the support of the majority of ministers for "the unprecedented publication of sensitive information prepared by the joint intelligence committee."


3. Later, in September 2002, the government file “Weapons of Mass Destruction of Iraq” published by the media and posted on British government websites was published. The publication was a truly unprecedented step, as for the first time a serious document that implied the adoption of relevant political decisions was provided with thoroughly prepared material for manipulating public opinion, without a real factual and evidence base.


Even a cursory scrolling of the material “dossier” created the impression of a document, the main purpose of which was to have an impact primarily on the feelings of the British. Using carefully selected photos, explanatory inscriptions to them, numerical data, as well as just unfounded statements. It is characteristic that in the preface the Prime Minister himself essentially admitted that the report was, in general, unsubstantiated, since it did not contain, "for reasons of state secrets," references to the sources of the information contained in it. The British public was given only government assurances of the quality of the information.


4. Some applications required special attention. So, in the dossier it was said that S.Hussein is able to use weapons of mass destruction after 45 minutes after making the appropriate political decision... This assumed that the Iraqi regime was very dangerous and required immediate dismantling. At the same time, the "reconnaissance" and "carefully prepared" dossier did not contain data on what means of delivery would be used, what is the range of destruction of these means and who S.Hussein is going to attack. As it turned out during the hearing of D. Scarlett, Chairman of the Committee for Intelligence, before a special committee, it was a question of tactical (!) Means of delivery, such as: hand grenades, mortars and barreled artillery. It is clear that all these "delivery vehicles" to the UK from the territory of Iraq clearly did not reach. But it all surfaced ALREADY AFTER the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons in Iraq.


5. As a result, at an extraordinary meeting of the House of Commons held at the end of September, E. Blair was generally able to secure restrained support from the majority of parliamentarians to continue his course on the Iraqi issue. The members of parliament were convinced by the government dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Using the figures and facts taken from the dossier, the prime minister tried to show that Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, was constantly striving and is now striving for the possession of weapons of mass destruction, does not fulfill the requirements of UN Security Council resolutions, he cannot be trusted, which means that there is a threat from Baghdad's side is growing, and the policy of containment through sanctions does not work here. It is interesting just as the question of voting on the problem of Iraq was put before the parliamentarians. Members of the British Parliament were only required to support the “government activity to disarm Iraq,” although in reality it was a question of starting a war against a sovereign state.


5. In early October, an action was held to create the illusion of objectivity of the British government in solving the problem of Iraq. The British Attorney General's "confidential advice" to the Prime Minister was made public, warning that military action against Iraq to change the regime would be a violation of international law, and if such a decision was made, the Labor government risked becoming a "client" of the international criminal court for blatant violation of the UN Charter. On October 15, 2002, the British Prime Minister said that he considered it possible and necessary to fight simultaneously with international terrorism led by the Al - Qaeda organization and the Saddam Hussein regime. He reiterated that Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism are new threats to peace in today's environment.


6. To track the results of propaganda impact on the minds of the British regularly conducted public surveys. Thus, during a public opinion survey in the country, conducted by 14 in October 2002, by independent analytical organizations and leading media outlets, it turned out that the number of supporters of the use of force against Iraq increased by 10 percent and reached 42 percent of the total number of respondents , with 37 percent opposing and 21 percent without a definite opinion, the 41% of citizens supported the prime minister and did not link the Iraq problem with the fight against al-Qaeda. However, according to the same survey, the overwhelming majority of respondents believed that the participation of the British Armed Forces in the operation against Iraq is possible only with a UN mandate.


7. In early December 2002, the UK Ministry of Defense prepared and published a report on alleged mass crimes and human rights violations in Iraq by the regime of S. Hussein. The document mainly used the testimony of Iraqi immigrants and materials collected by representatives of humanitarian and human rights organizations. It contained sections: torture, violence against women, prison conditions, murder, persecution of the Kurds, persecution of the opposition.


8. British Foreign Secretary D. Straw 6 January 2003 at a meeting of British ambassadors in London outlined the main directions of the country's foreign policy for the next decade and for the first time connected troubled states and international terrorist organizations into a single unit. According to D. Straw, the likelihood of a war with Iraq has recently decreased, but he noted that the situation around this state changes daily. The government’s position, he said, is based on the need to prevent any possibility of international weapons acquiring weapons of mass destruction from problem countries.


9. 7 January 2003 Minister of Defense D.Hun announced the start of 1,5 mobilization of thousands of reservists, primarily logistics and combat support specialists, and on January 8 2003 visited Ankara on a one-day working visit and held talks with the Turkish military and political leadership on obtaining consent to use the territory of the country as a springboard for deploying the US-British land grouping in preparation for the war against Iraq.


10. To stir up hysteria and create a sense of danger, in January 2003, the installation of concrete blocks around Parliament and other government facilities began amid claims that "no imminent threat to London", there is no clear threat to London. They were "afraid" of trucks with explosives, which, of course, were not there. In the future, no attacks on the territory of the United States and Great Britain from Iraq and “terrorist accomplice” Saddam Hussein did not happen.


11. British Prime Minister Blair during the January 13 press conference, 2003, said that, if necessary, the British government would provide full US support in resolving the Iraq problem by force. It was emphasized that military action is possible without an additional UN resolution. The main argument in justifying such an approach is called a direct threat to the national interests of the state from the side of Iraq, which has weapons of mass destruction.


12. Under the cover of the “debate in power”, when 15 in January more than 130 deputies of the British parliament signed an appeal against a single US attack on Iraq, the UK Navy group already 17 in January 2003 began the transition from the metropolitan waters to the region of the Arabian Peninsula. 21 Jan Blair declares that al-Qaida’s attack on Britain is inevitable and there are no limits to the potential danger from terrorists in the country. Before this statement, the bombings in Kenya and Bali (and who carried them out on time?) Just happened, and a group of “activists” Al-Qaida in European countries was arrested. The prime minister of Great Britain aggravated the situation, linking Iraq with terrorists. He said that he believes that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is trying to rebuild its nuclear program.


13. On 25 January 2003, “documents” allegedly obtained by the “opposition group”, written by hand, were made public, proving that the Iraqi military had purchased some of the components needed to produce weapons of mass destruction. In the "Daily Telegraph" from 25.01 the same information. Large and serious article with names. According to the government, this data is reliable. Significant information, Hussein is ready to use MP weapons. Two days later, Time magazine (27.01/2003/XNUMX) publishes information about "North African terrorist cells in Britain." Four out of seven appeared in court. Others, arrested in November, write that they wanted to organize a gas attack in the metro.


14. On January 29, E. Blair, during his speech in the British Parliament, announced that he knew about the ties of the Saddam Hussein regime with the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. However, he avoided giving a more detailed answer to the question about the content of these connections.


15. On January 30, The Times newspaper published an article signed by the leaders of eight European states (Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic). Dubbed the `` New Europe Conversion '', it calls for the support of the United Kingdom and the United States in their fight against the danger posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. An anti-Iraqi propaganda campaign continues in the UK media. Some information has been published on the contents of the US dossier on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. According to the conclusions of British experts, this dossier is data from space and air reconnaissance, interception of Iraqi telephone and radio communications. And also testimony received from the militants of the Islamic movement "Taliban" who are in American captivity.


16. In the first half of February, the British government is taking active measures to protect the population from possible terrorist acts using components of chemical and bacteriological weapons. As part of the ongoing activities, the Cabinet of Ministers announced plans to deploy a single network throughout the country, including 1500 stationary and mobile points for detecting and identifying components of bacteriological weapons.


17. 14.02.2003 UK government is conducting a large-scale anti-terrorist operation in London. In its implementation involved special services (MI-5, MI-6, ShKPS), the police, as well as the forces and means of the UK Armed Forces. The reason for the start of the operation was the information received through the special services on the possible conduct of a major terrorist act using a portable anti-aircraft missile system. During the action, it is allegedly provided for the destruction of one of the airplanes when they take off or land at Heathrow International Airport. In order to ensure flight safety and prevent a possible terrorist act, 1000 police officers (usually 300), reinforced by 450 troops of the Grenadir Gards Army of the ground forces, are stationed around the airport. In addition, the security of other airports, government and military facilities, as well as central London has been strengthened. Scotland Yard’s antiterrorism department is directly involved in identifying and verifying suspects.


18. However, the information campaign does not go like clockwork. A massive protest against a possible war in Iraq is taking place on February 15 on February 2003 in London. Its main organizers were the Stop the War coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the British Muslim Association. More than 1 of a million London residents and representatives from 250 cities in the UK took part in the protest in general. The participants of the rally spoke against both unilateral actions of the US and UK governments to start a military operation against Iraq, and for resolving the crisis exclusively through diplomacy.


19. In addition to the informational whip, material gingerbread is also used. 17.02.03 military and political leadership of Great Britain decided to increase from 1 on April 2003 of the pay for all categories of military personnel. It is envisaged to increase the cash payments to the officers by 3,2 percent, and to the junior command and rank-and-file staff - by 3,7 percent. At the same time, the average annual level of basic salaries in monetary terms for military personnel, depending on the level of the tariff scale, will be: for the Brigadier General category - from 76 to 79,3 thousand pounds sterling, for officers in the rank of colonel - from 63,4 to 70,1 thousand f., Captain - from 31 to 36,9 ths. F.st., lieutenant - from 12,7 to 26,7 thous. F.st., for military officers and sergeants - from 24,5 to 38,2 thous. F.st., for the rank and file - from 13 to 27,1 thous.


20. Oiling the military with increased salaries, the atmosphere is again being pumped up. It is already a question of war, as a completely resolved matter. By 20 February 2003, the UK government has completed a set of preparatory measures for admitting British military personnel affected by chemical and bacteriological weapons to the hospital on the territory of the metropolis, who will take part in a possible military operation against Iraq. During the first four days of the fighting, thirty medical institutions of the Ministry of Health and six military hospitals will be ready to receive up to 6 thousand troops affected by WMD after their evacuation through the air from the Persian Gulf zone.


21. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is giving an interview that 1 of March is publishing in Russia, the Izvestia newspaper. It is entitled: "We cannot and should not believe Saddam." We will not talk about the fact that both the title and the text of the interview itself are maintained in a semi-negligent and familiar tone with respect to the leader of the sovereign state of Iraq, S. Hussein, which is extremely strange for an experienced diplomat. (I wonder what Mr. Straw would have said if the then foreign minister of the Russian Federation I. Ivanov had said in the English newspaper We Can't And Should Not Believe Anthony, ”even before deigning to the pronunciation of the surname of the British Prime Minister? Or today Sergey Lavrov was interviewed under the title “We cannot believe Barak”. We will not also point out that any war is a way of a radical resolution of an acute political crisis, and is resorted to only when diplomatic means have proved ineffective; to rush into war is the property of the generals, and a diplomat calling for war, in a situation where there is at least a small opportunity to continue the dialogue, is thereby recognized as impotent and unprofessional.


22. 5 March 2003, the UK government is taking active measures to prepare state and municipal services for action in conditions of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. To this end, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to conduct comprehensive exercises in London and other major cities of the country to eliminate the consequences of terrorist acts using WMD components. The first teaching in this series will be held in London 23 March. G. In the vicinity of one of the central metro stations. During the event it is planned to work out the questions of actions in the conditions of using chemical weapons. In the exercise, more than seven thousand volunteers from the reservists will be involved.


23. The propaganda and whipping up of a sense of danger among the British is paying off. Representatives of British think tanks note that, as of March 12, 2003, 52% of British citizens oppose the country's participation in a military action without the approval of the UN, 24 percent are against a military action even if it is sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and only 19 percent - for a military solution to the Iraqi problem. In February of this year, these indicators were 62, 24 and 11 percent, respectively.


24. By 18 March 2003, the British Armed Forces command completed the deployment of the national air force in the Persian Gulf. Once the figures are placed, the discussion about "the need or uselessness of war" is quickly turned off. On March 19, the House of Commons of the British Parliament approved the policy of the country's government to resolve the Iraqi problem by force and the participation of the British Armed Forces in the military operation against Iraq. When voting at 1.00 Moscow time on March 19, at a meeting of the lower house of parliament to discuss the Iraqi conflict, the deputies by a majority vote (396) rejected the proposal of a group of parliamentarians that there is currently no reason to start military action against Baghdad. As a result of the debate, the parliamentarians also supported the government's decision to use the British military contingent in the fighting in Iraq. At the same time, 412 deputies voted “for” and 149 “against”.


25. Formalities have been met - the British Armed Forces overnight - from 20 to 21 March 2003 began full-scale participation in the military operation against Iraq.


In summing up, I would like to note the following: the main method of Western diplomacy in the situation with Iraq, and even today in the situation with Syria, was and remains the substitution of the problem. The media and Western politicians with their “Fifth Column” inside Russia manage to divert the discussion away from the substance of the matter with the help of this technique. Indeed, all-and the proponents of aggression and opponents speak of disarmament. Some argue that Iraq (Syria) has WMD, and it should be disarmed by military means, having displaced the government of Hussein (Assad), others are in favor of a peaceful way of disarming Iraq (Syria).


But another question should be asked: on what basis do the US and its supporters demand from a sovereign state, which is formally the same subject of international law, to disarm unilaterally, that is, to cause obvious damage to its defense capability, and even in a situation of probable external attack?


We will not get an answer to this question. "




A source: Nikolay Starikov blog
Author:
Originator:
http://nstarikov.ru/
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Stiletto
    Stiletto 25 September 2013 16: 00
    10
    Once again I am convinced of two common truths:
    1. Winners are not judged (often - to my great regret);
    2. If you want peace, get ready for war.
    1. Tambov we ...
      Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 16: 53
      -3
      And why chatter on the whole tyrnet about his insight?
    2. Tambov we ...
      Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 16: 55
      0
      I wanted to incriminate, but accidentally pressed the wrong way. Those. Minus you from me.
      1. Stiletto
        Stiletto 25 September 2013 17: 16
        +2
        Quote: We are from Tambov ...
        And why chatter on the whole tyrnet about his insight? I wanted to incriminate, but accidentally pressed the wrong way. Those. Minus you from me.


        Thank you, colleague. Your minus for the right to have your own opinion was taken into account. If you accidentally clicked the wrong direction, it doesn't matter. Go to my profile, there is an option to "lower user rating", use it.
        1. Tambov we ...
          Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 17: 45
          -1
          It is very necessary to humiliate. Try it yourself.
      2. Tambov we ...
        Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 17: 43
        0
        Thank you, you have a good reaction. Only your reaction smells bad. You did not serve in the Soviet Army.
        1. Stiletto
          Stiletto 25 September 2013 17: 53
          +2
          Quote: We are from Tambov ...
          Thank you, you have a good reaction. Only your reaction smells bad. You did not serve in the Soviet Army.


          Let's not label it. If under the reaction you had a minus affixed to you, then it is not mine, I do not engage in such nonsense (petty avenging out of the blue).
          1. Tambov we ...
            Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 18: 55
            +1
            Then, ... I'm sorry. There are errors.
      3. b-612
        b-612 25 September 2013 19: 18
        0
        a person just expressed his opinion (and received support), and you like this: "chatter" ... that's why the forum, what would you say!
        1. Tambov we ...
          Tambov we ... 25 September 2013 21: 41
          +1
          You are late to "bridle". I apologized.
    3. 755962
      755962 25 September 2013 17: 49
      +2
      No comment ....
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 25 September 2013 16: 01
    +2
    in my opinion, this even blinkered Westerners began to understand. there, though not at all, but already at many eyes begin to see
  3. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 25 September 2013 16: 05
    +6
    Freedom of speech American and British politicians understand freedom to lie, covering up their true aggressive plans, talking about the "democratic goals" of the NATO military in Iraq, Libya and Syria. In order to gain the support of its population, the propaganda machine of America, Britain, France rains down on the heads of the townsfolk streams of provocative statements, slanderous fabrications to justify the invasion of sovereign countries. But in the case of Syria, this number did not work. Obama's lie was so obvious that the closest US ally to the British Parliament did not believe the American president.
  4. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 25 September 2013 16: 07
    +4
    Well, why go far for examples ...
    "Desert Storm" 1991
    A huge role in shaping public opinion in the United States itself, supporting the 1st war against Iraq, was played by television frames, where a 15-year-old girl, who was portrayed as a Kuwaiti refugee, said that she saw with her own eyes how Iraqi soldiers pulled 312 Kuwaiti babies from maternity hospital, and put them on a concrete floor to die. They wanted to pick up the incubators where these babies were. Interviews with this girl were played on American TV hundreds of times before the war. I must admit that the girl performed her role masterfully, even cried, in the hall, too, many wiped away tears. The girl’s name was hidden because she allegedly left a family in Kuwait and could suffer from Hussein’s soldiers. In order to understand how important this video was, we add that President George W. Bush used the story of dead babies ten times in the forty days of the pre-war propaganda campaign. Members of the US Senate repeatedly appealed to the interview when deciding whether to send troops to The bay

    Subsequently, it was proved that the girl shown on TV was not a refugee, but the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, who lived in the United States and therefore could not be an eyewitness to the occupation of Kuwait, moreover, she is a member of the royal family that administers Kuwait, her relatives have huge fortunes, estates abroad and live mainly in the USA and Western countries, so they could not suffer, even if she performed under her own name.

    http://panteon-istorii.narod.ru/sob/irak.htm
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 25 September 2013 16: 16
      +2
      Yugoslavia 1991-1999:
      Showing the ruins of Vukovar, destroyed after three months of fighting between the neo-Ustash and the Yugoslav army, Western TV channels kept repeating: "These are the ruins of Dubrovnik, a city under the protection of UNESCO. Serbs barbarously shell the pearl of Dalmatia from artillery guns." On May 1, 1995, the same Western TV channels "did not notice" the Croatian invasion of Western Slavonia, which was under the "protection" of the UN. But on May 2, when the Krajina Serbs fired missiles at Zagreb (either a retaliation strike, or a gesture of despair), the Western media immediately raised a howl! But of course, "Serbian separatists fired on Zagreb, the capital of young European democracy!" In 1994, after the end of the Bosniac-Croatian war and the restoration of the anti-Serb coalition, Bill Clinton gave the "green light" to supply arms to Croatia from the United States and Iran, sending military advisers MPRI, reconnaissance flights over the Republic of Srpska Krajina and the Republic of Srpska. Thanks to this support, the Croats capture Kupres, Livno, key heights in the Dinaric Mountains, Western Slavonia, Glamoch, Grahovo and Kninska Krajina. On August 28, 1995, an explosion occurred in the Markale market, as a result of which 37 people were killed and 90 were injured. For two days, American television channels showed the mutilated bodies of people and wounded, blaming the Serbs for this. And on August 30, on the orders of Bill Clinton, American aviation began to bomb the infrastructure of the Republika Srpska: radar installations, weapons and ammunition depots, command posts, air defense systems, bridges, barracks, telecommunications centers, radio and television broadcasters, transformer substations, water reservoirs, etc. .. Under the cover of NATO aircraft, using the factor of destroying the military potential of the Serbs, Boshniak and Croatian troops launched a serious offensive and occupied 400 square meters. km. Serbian territories and expelled from there more than 50 thousand Serbs. The towns of Yayce, Mrkonich-Grad, Ribnik, Sipovo, Vozucha fell. In these cities, massacres were committed against the peaceful Serb population. The Serbs were forced to surrender. At the talks in Dayton, Slobodan Milosevic, under pressure from Bill Clinton, agreed to the terms of the peace agreements that were humiliating for the Bosnian Serbs, and by the spring of 1996 Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied by NATO.
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 25 September 2013 16: 23
        +2
        Kosovo
        How Washington Prepared Its War
        "I know what terrorists are, and I can tell them apart. And I tell you that the people of the KLA are terrorists."
        Robert Gelbard, US Special Representative for the Balkans, February 22, 1998
        "According to the US, the KLA is not a terrorist organization"
        State Department Spokesman, July 7, 1998
        Are the Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists or not? "Yes" - Robert Gelbard, one of the US political representatives in the Balkans, declared three times publicly in early 98. "No" - the US State Department denies it some time later.
        And at this very time ...


        Well, in order to finally convince public opinion of the need to bomb Serbia, there was an "incident in Racak" - an anti-Serb provocation organized by Albanian terrorists on January 15, 1999 in the village of Racak (Kosovo and Metohija). According to the research of Finnish-Belarusian experts, later confirmed by the director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine Hamburg by Klaus Puschel, thirty-nine dead Albanians were UChK militants, killed in battles with the Serbian and police and transported to Racak from other places. This incident was presented by the Western media as "genocide of the Albanians" and served as a justification for NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. Subsequently, the Hague Tribunal removed the item “Massacre of civilians in Racak” from the indictment filed against Serbian generals. Nevertheless, the bombing of Yugoslavia began ...
  5. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 25 September 2013 16: 33
    +4
    Undoubtedly, information warfare is one of many effective tools for promoting the interests of the state.
    I would like to esteemed forum users to recall how Russia was represented in 2008 in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict.
    We and the barbarians and aggressors and enemies of democracy and other, other, other, in general, our very existence is a reason for declaring us enemies of the WESTERN VALUES.
    It is clear that if we put our heads in the sand we will be treated the same way as with the Serbs and Syrians, therefore we must conduct a constantly active attack on the information front without any mercy for the enemy.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 25 September 2013 17: 32
      +2
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      Undoubtedly, information warfare is one of many effective tools for promoting the interests of the state.

      That's why there are stuffs from anonymous sources that probe the relevance or the degree of tension of a particular topic.
  6. rugor
    rugor 25 September 2013 16: 50
    +1
    I sometimes get the impression that reliable and unbiased information cannot be found, because it does not exist at all. Each has its own truth. sad
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 25 September 2013 17: 04
      +5
      In short, something like this ...
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 25 September 2013 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: rugor
      I sometimes get the impression that reliable and unbiased information cannot be found, because it does not exist at all. Each has its own truth. sad

      True, the truth is always its own, the same amers perfectly understand the reasons for the last wars: resources, support for their military-industrial complex, etc., that is, everything is done for the good of their country, their economy ... As they say - "everyone wants to eat", and amers are the most and cheaper ...
  7. brr7710
    brr7710 25 September 2013 17: 55
    +1
    Quote: andrei332809
    in my opinion, this even blinkered Westerners began to understand. there, though not at all, but already at many eyes begin to see


    Something I do not believe in it.
  8. Gur
    Gur 25 September 2013 18: 53
    +1
    What a long walk August XNUMXth on fox girl tell me how you were bombed by Russians not Russian Georgians Pss ... blunder go to the following information if we did so I would never believe again and looking at them if I read info from sources from different countries
  9. Harlampy
    Harlampy 25 September 2013 19: 46
    +2
    The article is good, but here it reveals Openel's secret. To grab a piece fatter than the Yankees and the Britons lie, they lie blatantly, they always lie. Goebbels tosses and turns with envy. And I am glad that Russia has finally made up its mind with the dilemma - "am I trembling, or have the right". Keep it up!
  10. Strashila
    Strashila 25 September 2013 20: 05
    0
    The main task of the West is to maintain the conflict in Syria, it is a smokescreen covering their stall from Afghanistan. How many copies were broken about Ulyanovsk ... from Coca ... a lot ... but it wasn’t in demand, the conclusion is that one overland highway going through Pakistan began to work without failures ... that is, now there are no attacks on NATO convoys, and before they just blazed. The cries and tantrums in the West about the death of NATO military personnel in this region were silent ... no one now makes fun of them. Calmness in the provinces of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan ... there Americans do not drive anyone with UAVs, and the battles of radical Islamists with Pakistani government forces do not hear the same thing, but before all the time ... now there is peace and quiet. Only those who have not long fought in Afghanistan against NATO are increasingly flashing in Syria ... left at the mercy of radical Islamists.
  11. konvalval
    konvalval 25 September 2013 23: 04
    0
    Well, what kind of partners are they after that?
    1. Sterlya
      Sterlya 26 September 2013 01: 20
      0
      the same as they were 100 and 50 years ago. is always. what else can they be
  12. rpek32
    rpek32 26 September 2013 01: 08
    0
    Is there an English version of the article?
  13. slacker
    slacker 26 September 2013 09: 32
    +1
    We need a new Nuremberg tribunal against George W. Bush, Clinton, Obama, their British and French colleagues.
  14. PValery53
    PValery53 26 September 2013 10: 00
    0
    In the information war it is necessary to narrow down the information space of the enemy and expand our own, and then our influence will increase, in addition to military force. And our political strategists need to be more skillfully wagging their tongues.
  15. klavyr
    klavyr 26 September 2013 12: 44
    0
    Thus, Russia with the existing ruling regime may turn out to be a threat to Great Britain, France or the United States and the entire world community. It is enough just to say: "Putin must leave!" But something doesn’t grow together - the "bloodthirsty" Putin ceases to be "bloodthirsty" in the eyes of the world community.