ISSN 1440-9828
May 2003
No 194

 Truth is antisemitic!

Truth does not fear investigation


Last update: 17April 2003 

The Occupation of Iraq


with some help from Hollywood

 All according to the Anglo-American-Zionist plan, no doubt!


Detecting disinformation, without radar

Gregory Sinaisky/Asia Times

10.04.2003 [15:33]


How to tell genuine reporting from an article manufactured to produce the desired propaganda effect? The war in Iraq provides us plenty of interesting samples for a study of disinformation techniques.

Take the article "Basra Shiites Stage Revolt, Attack Government Troops", published on March 26 in The Wall Street Journal Europe. Using its example, we will try to arm readers with basic principles of disinformation analysis that hopefully will allow them in the future to detect deception.

The title of the article sounds quite definitive. The article starts, hoever, with the mush less certain "Military officials said the Shiite population of Basra ... appeared to be rising". "Military officials" and "appeared to be" should immediately raise a red flag for a reader, especially given a mismatch with such a definitive title. Why "officials"? Were they speaking in a chorus? Or was each one providing a complementary piece of information? A genuine report certainly would tell us this and also name the officials or at least say why they cannot be identified.

Why "appears to be"? There are always specific reasons why something "appears to be". For example, information about the uprising may be uncertain because it was supplied by an Iraqi defector who was not considered trustworthy and has not been confirmed from other sources. Again, every professional reporter understands that his job is to provide such details and it is exactly such details that make his reporting valuable, interesting, and memorable. If such all-important details are missing, this is a sure sign to suspect intentional disinformation.

Going further down the article, we see even more astonishing example of the same vagueness. "Reporters on the scene said that Iraqi troops were firing on the protesting citizens ..." For an astute reader, this short sentence should raise a whole host of questions. Were the above-mentioned reporters Western media reporters embedded with the troops? What was their location and the distance from which they observed the event?

Obviously, being inside a besieged city with riots going on is an exceedingly dangerous business. Why were the names of the reporters distinguished by such shining bravery concealed from us, instead of being proclaimed with pride? Why do they not want to tell us where they were observing from and how they managed to get there? In any case, under the circumstances, being closer to the scene than the distance of a rifle shot, say one kilometer, merits a special explanation. Now, an interesting question is, what are the visual clues allowing a reporter to distinguish, at such distance, between an uprising and, let's say, troops firing on looters or many other possible explanations for the same observation?

The only cue I can think of is not visual, but an aural cue from an editor requesting the reporter to report what we cannot explain as anything but an attempt of intentional disinformation. Given a very specific nature of the disinformation produced in this particular case, its obvious potential effect on both resisting Iraqis and anti-war public opinion, we cannot see any other explanation for it, except that The Wall Street Journal directly collaborates with the psychological warfare department in the Pentagon.

Some unexpected light on the story is shed in "UK: Iraq to feel backlash in Basra" posted on also on March 26. In this article, the original report on a civilian revolt is attributed to "the British military authorities and journalists", again unnamed. Here, the chorus of "the officials" singing in unison with "journalists" makes the somewhat more specific and exceedingly bizarre statement: "We have radars, that, by tracing the trajectory of mortar rounds, are able to work out the source, as well as the target location, which in this case were civilians in Basra." So, now we know that the uprising in Basra was detected by British officials and journalists watching a radar screen! This amazing British radar can even tell an Iraqi official from a simple citizen and a civilian from a soldier! Moreover, it apparently can read minds and determine the reasons people fire on each other!

Truly, there is a big lie in the information attributed to British officials. Or maybe I am wrong and this is an example of the famous British sense of humor deployed to get rid of pestering American correspondents? Chorus of American correspondents: "Is there an uprising going on in Basra? There must be. My editor told me to report it. You say, how would you know? That's impossible, my editor told me ..." British official: "All right, chaps. I see it on the radar." Sounds of cellphone dialling and keyboards rattling ...

To conclude: Remember the following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it.

Want to know the names of rising stars of disinformation to watch? The Wall Street Journal article was "compiled" by Matt Murray in New York from reports by Christopher Cooper in Doha, Qatar, Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Jaffe in Washington, and Helene Cooper with the US Army's Third Infantry Division in Iraq.



WAR and Terror Allert




AAZF — Anglo-American Zionist Force: THE EVIL EMPIRE STRIKES

[Evil axis of Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and Sharon]





How can Ali's fate be justified by the Anglo-American-Zionist Forces' Invasion of Iraq?


"The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge...

... Opposition throughout the world is enormous and unprecedented, and the same is true of the United States. Yesterday, for example, I was in demonstrations in downtown Boston, right around the Boston Common. It is not the first time I have been there. The first time I participated in a demonstration there at which I was to speak was in October 1965. That was four years after the United States had started bombing South Vietnam. Half of South Vietnam had been destroyed and the war had been extended to North Vietnam. We could not have a demonstration because it was physically attacked, mostly by students, with the support of the liberal press and radio, who denounced these people who were daring to protest against an American war.

On this occasion, however, there was a massive protest before the war was launched officially and once again on the day it was launched - with no counter-demonstrators. That is a radical difference. And if it were not for the fear factor that I mentioned, there would be much more opposition.

The government knows that it cannot carry out long-term aggression and destruction as in Vietnam because the population will not tolerate it.

There is only one way to fight a war now. First of all, pick a much weaker enemy, one that is defenceless. Then build it up in the propaganda system as either about to commit aggression or as an imminent threat. Next, you need a lightning victory. An important leaked document of the first Bush Administration in 1989 described how the U.S. would have to fight war. It said that the U.S. had to fight much weaker enemies, and that victory must be rapid and decisive, as public support will quickly erode. It is no longer like the 1960s, when a war could be fought for years with no opposition at all.

In many ways, the activism of the 1960s and subsequent years has simply made a lot of the world, including this country, much more civilised in many domains.

[ZNet | Iraq is a trial run: Professor Noam Chomsky interviewed by Frontline's VK Ramachandran; Frontline India; April 02, 2003]


Australia's Role in the Anglo-American-Zionist Forces (AAZF) invasion of Iraq






Revisionists of the World Unite!

Blair Wants Free Speech in Iraq, But Not in Britain

George Galloway, The Guardian

Last week the government enlisted the Murdoch press to launch an assault on me with the journalistic equivalent of a cluster bomb. The central thrust of their attacks, that I am a traitor not fit to sit in Parliament, was scattered over the Sun, News of the World, Times and Sunday Times. Some bomblets were designed to wound now (like the incitement to pound me with hate mail and threatening phone calls), others to explode later, and with terminal effect (like the order to strip me of parliamentary rank through withdrawal of the Labour whip, followed by expulsion).




... as the defiling of Saddam Hussein's alleged personal opulence continues, think of the CEOs and their private jets; think of the US Christian Fundamentalists living in luxury in Florida; think of the British Queen/Bush's White House; above all, think of the millions of poor and homeless United States citizens; think of the 2 million prisoners that languish under Talmudic justice in US prisons - the land of democracy where the only freedom you have is the freedom to go shopping - but if you have no money, then that's your fault; the USA is the land of freedom and democracy where terrorism is a state-run enterprise!





Who says this unilateral war didn't have a plan smithied by eastern European immigrants now having a controlling influence in the US administration?

Imagine, had Joe Lieberman and Al Gore won the presidency over George Bush. That would have been too brazen a show of strength for those who hide their motives behind a highly developed sense of victimhood.

Israel, Jordan May Talk about Reviving Iraqi Oil Pipeline

by Julie Stahl, 09 April 2003

Jerusalem ( - A pipeline that once transported oil from Iraq to British Mandatory Palestine may be reopened to ship oil to Israel if a new government in Baghdad is pro-Western, an Israeli source said on Wednesday. Israel and Jordan have been holding some unofficial talks about operating the pipeline once the war in Iraq is finished, said Benny Rom, advisor to National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky.


For full story go to\


Forget the helicopters, invest in armoured bulldozers

Send in the bulldozers: what Israel told marines about urban battles. As troops close on Baghdad, Pentagon takes notes on house-to-house fighting in Jenin

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem

Wednesday April 2, 2003

The Guardian,3858,4638802,00.html


Martin van Creveld's advice to the US marines on what lessons to draw from Israel's bloody urban battle in Jenin was precise: Forget the helicopters, invest in armoured bulldozers.

For months now, the Pentagon has been taking notes from the Israelis in preparation for what looks increasingly likely to be an arduous house by house, street by street, fight for Baghdad. Pentagon strategists have pored over videos of the Israeli military's assault on Jenin a year ago, when 150 lightly armed but determined Palestinians kept the army at bay for 11 days and killed 23 soldiers.

US officers watched Israeli tank raids into West Bank cities in February, and American soldiers have learned in the Israeli desert how to blow their way from house to house to avoid booby traps and street fighting. The Israeli insights build on years of exchanges of military technology and intelligence between the deeply intertwined armies. Among other things, the US is using Israeli-manufactured drones to scout across Iraqi lines. 

But with the US army faced with fighting through Baghdad's sprawling maze of streets and alleyways, known intimately by its enemy, American technological superiority is probably worth less than the Israelis' bitter experience. And now there is the added factor of suicide bombers.

As the war with Iraq loomed, the US marines called in Mr Van Creveld, a military strategist at Jerusalem's Hebrew University with close ties to the Israeli army. At a briefing in North Carolina in September, he offered some lessons.

"There were three key things," he said. "How to clear streets house by house, particularly using bulldozers. They're very useful in this kind of war to break houses. 

"How and when to use helicopters to take out snipers. And when not to, and I'd say Baghdad is one of those situations. And how to avoid civilian casualties."


The Israeli army used giant armoured Caterpillar bulldozers and helicopter gunships to crush and rocket a square kilometre of Jenin, killing dozens of Palestinian fighters and civilians and destroying hundreds of homes. The American-made bulldozers - originally used in Vietnam - are in themselves weapons, bringing buildings crashing down on an enemy without having to engage him room by room. It was a widely condemned tactic in Jenin, which the Israelis claim saved civilian lives even though, like bombs, the killing is not selective.

But US forces have also been receiving insights into how to fight room by room if it becomes necessary. Close to 1,000 American soldiers were sent to Israel for joint manoeuvres at the beginning of the year. Some were sent to a mock Arab town in the Negev desert to draw on Israeli experience. Among other things, they were shown how Israeli soldiers avoid having to show themselves on the street by moving from inside one house to another by blowing a hole in the wall without bringing the building down.

In February, residents of Nablus reported seeing English-speaking troops in unfamiliar uniforms accompanying Israeli soldiers during a two-week incursion into the old city, where just such tactics were used. US army officers have observed Israeli units at first hand in Jenin and Bethlehem.

The traffic has been two way. Israeli officers have visited the US marines' thinktank at Quantico, Virginia. Its commander, Colonel Randy Gangle, confirms the visit took place but declines to discuss it other than to say he "appreciated the insights offered by the Israeli experience of the intifada".

Mr Van Creveld told the Americans that for all the lessons learned from the West Bank, the fight for Baghdad was likely to be a lot tougher. "The Americans and Brits are taking measures very similar to the ones we've being using for years in the [occupied] territories," he said.

"But whatever resistance we faced in Jenin and Gaza is nothing compared to what the Americans can expect. 

"The Palestinians are empty handed compared to the weaponry the Iraqis have. The Americans can expect heavier casualties. Baghdad will be really brutal."

Because the Iraqis are better armed, Mr Van Creveld warned the Americans that the Israeli experience of using helicopters to kill snipers was probably of little use to the US. That is almost certainly a lesson the Pentagon has already taken on board from its disastrous foray into Somalia.

The Israelis say they had another advantage the Americans will not.

"We have built a very robust intelligence structure which Americans don't have in Iraq," said retired Brigadier-General Shlomo Brom of the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv.

"On the other hand, I think the Palestini ans are more motivated than the Iraqis."

Israeli officials believe that Saddam Hussein has also learned some of the lessons of Jenin, particularly the use of booby traps and suicide bombers. After just one such bombing the Americans have swiftly adopted Israeli tactics at roadblocks - with tragic consequences for one vehicle full of women and children.

Gen Brom said possibly the best advice the Israelis had offered was to take it slowly until victory, and then get out fast.

"An urban environment is the great equaliser," he said. "You can't utilise your superiority in training and equipment. It's very easy for your adversary to hide and he usually knows the terrain much better than you. There is the need to be cautious and understanding that it takes time.

"But once it's over, the most important lesson is not to stay there any longer than is absolutely necessary. I see the similarity between the situation in Iraq and when we invaded Lebanon. Our mistake was to stay there much too long."



The Russian View





Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech

Benjamin Franklin



 Operation Iraq Freedom


Operation Iraq Liberty (OIL) ?

Where are the WMD, weapons of mass destruction?


Cairo Press Review 8 April 2003


As winning a war can come about only if the will and resolve of both the army and the people are squashed, which is not the case in Iraq, where Americans believed that Operation shock and Awe would yield swift results, the invaders have resorted to an old dirty trick: to starve and exterminate the Iraqis. American forces have thus destroyed around one million tons of foodstuffs in a storehouse in Basra. We can only wonder if foodstuffs is categorised as WMD and is accordingly a fair target for American missiles to hit.

Despite the above, and notwithstanding other small captures, the enemy has not achieved a decisive victory and is unlikely to, even if the capital, Baghdad, falls. The Iraqis themselves will not be beaten. - Al Akhbar

US and British invaders have awoken. They now realise that fighting will continue unabated; that the solidarity and steadfastness of the Iraqis can only mean one thing: they will not surrender, nor will their resistance weaken. Even if the invaders recapture the airport, even if Baghdad itself falls, it will be at a very high price, as high as that which occupiers have paid, and indeed are still paying in Beirut and Jerusalem. The fire of resistance will never be extinguished. - Al Gomhuria





View: Beauty 






using weapons of mass destruction


destroying the cradle of civilisation because those who direct this war are themselves uncivilized





fighting a racist war against Semites



View: Middle East Zionism 




Iraq blockbuster is running awry

The much vaunted Hollywood blockbuster, American conquest of Iraq, is not running to script. There have been too many retakes of southern cities, and an over-zealous special effects, with dust storms that have on occasion led to unfortunateoccupational health and safety events.The Iraqi cast has proved particularly difficult, often appearing on the wrong sets at unfortunate moments or in unscripted events. The majority seem not to have learned their lines, expressing anger instead of gratitude. It appears that this production is already well over budget, the much vaunted Iraqi star has not yet turned up for rehearsels, and additional extras have been called for.At this stage, the whole thing is reminiscent of that earlier box office disaster, American conquest of Vietnam. Regardless of the financial outcome, there should be a rich return of hatred for the chief investors for years to come.

David Lyons, Halliday Point, NSW. The Australian Financial Review, 1 April 2003 




 View: The Expert Reporter whose moral and


intellectual courage is still in tact



unleashing upon Iraq weapons of







 Who lied?

The government of Iraq declared that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical or biological.

Bush and Blair and their governments said they had evidence that Iraq had these weapons.

Who lied?

Bush and Blair and their lies dishonor their people. We the people must call them to account and remove them.

The international community must demand reparations and compensation for the government and people of Iraq for the destruction, death and suffering caused by British and American forces.

ICHEE bulletin 4/8/2003

ICHEE The International Council for Human Ecology and Ethnology reminds us that air, earth and water in Iraq are being poisoned by explosives. Iraq is entitled to compensation from its attackers.



And Don't Forget The Underlying Reason For This Middle East Conflict:

The Existence Of The Zionist, Apartheid, Racist State Of Israel

  Israel's offer a 'humiliating demand'

Paul Dixon, Fraser, ACT, Australia

The Australian Financial Review, 7 April 2003

The Israeli Embassy's Orna Sagiv perpetuates the myth that Israel offered the Palestinians 96 per cent of the West Bank and a capital in East Jerusalem ('Wrong to dismiss resolution wording', AFR, Letters, April 4).

Israel did no such thing. Israel's actual offer was, in the words of Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, "a humiliating demand for surrender".

Israeli journalist Tanya Reinhart, in her recent book Israel/Palestine, says that Israel's offer was a "fraud", which proposed a Palestinian "state" split up by Jewish settlement blocks, Israeli bypass roads and closed Israeli military areas that would have left the Palestinians with actual control over about 50 per cent of the West Bank, not 96 per cent, and with a capital in Abu Dis, a village on the far outskirts of East Jerusalem.

Israel's offer was designed to be rejected.

When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords in 1993 they agreed to accept Israel in 78 percent of Palestine, and to accept the remaining 22 per cent (the occupied Territories) for their state. This of itself is an enormous compromise, but since 1993 successive Israeli governments have continued to pour bJewish settlers into the territories (numbers have doubled since 1993), build new Jewish settlements (and expand existing settlements), destroy Palestinian houses and crops, and confiscate Palestinian land.

As for the 1967 being a war of "self-defence", a number of Israeli generals and politicians have admitted that this was was nothing more than a land grab, with the myth of "self-defence" made up after the event. Israel's settlement policy since 1967 proves this. I would suggest these simple facts are the best indicators of who is truly interested in peace.



From the comforts of home in Adelaide to the edge of tragedy


Töben reports


from the


Middle East



Why it always pays to know your enemy

The neat files of a library in Baghdad reveal just how the city will meet the army now at its gates, writes Scott Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector for Iraq, 1991-98.

The Sydney Morning Herald, April 5-6, 2003


There is a complex of buildings in downtown Baghdad — if it still exists after coalition bombing — that contains a dark secret unknown to, or ignored by, the US military when it developed the "Operation Iraqi Freedom"battle plans. Called the Al Bakr Institute for Higher Military Studies, it is the Iraqi version of the American War College and Army General Staff College rolled in one.

As a chief weapons inspector for the UN, I studied this institute for seven years, inspecting it twice. My interest stemmed from a concern that if Saddam Hussein's regime was to continue to maintain chemical and biological weapons (CBW), it would need a corresponding doctrine of employment. The Al Bakr Institute was the place in Iraq where doctrine was developed. I found no evidence of a CBW doctrine, but I did find something that should be of great concern.

When I first visited in 1992, the library and archives of the institute were filled with binders containing interviews with every Iraqi military commander, down to the battalion level, who had engaged in combat with US forces during Operation Desert Storm. I reviewed these files, looking for any mention of CBW, but found probing investigatiuons into the tactics and equipment of the US military, the deficiencies of Iraq equipment and tactics, and plans for reorganising, re-equipping and retraining the Iraqi military to overcome those deficiencies.

A second inspection in 1997 showed this program had matured, and a new doctrine had been formuated and disseminated. Furthermore, the institute had formalised a sophsiticated program of ongoing study of the US military that updated Iraqi military thinking on a regular basis to compensate for developments in technology and tactics.

The Iraqis had learnt not to engage in a stand-up fight where Americans could bring to bear their superiority in fire-power, target-acquisition of capabilities and manoeuvrability. The Iraqis reconfigured their military to emphasise small-unit tactics, as opposed to the plodding division-and corps-level operations of the Iran-Iraq and Gulf Wars.

The Al Bakr Institute developed concepts of active defence, constantly moving assets with an eye towards the US ability to collect, process and respond to intelligence data, so the US would bomb what had happened, not what was happening. Deception integrated throughout, including tactics that had the Iraqis place derelict vehicles in freshly evacuated battle positions, drawing US air attacks away from the real combat power.

Command-and-control was decentralised, with Iraq divided into four autonomous defence regions each broken into combat sectors. The success of the ongoing resistance in southern Iraq attests to the efficacy of this strategy. Radio communications were de-emphasised — couriers and face-to-face briefings became the standard.

The Al Bakr Institute found that special care had to be taken to maintain and retain the loyalty and reliability of the Iraqi population. So the Baath Party was instructed to engage in formal Islamic training and to integrate its functionaries with religious and tribal leaders, especially in the south. Tribal relations were moved away from the party and turned over to the Special Security Organisation, responsible for regime security, including the President's. The Baath Party Militia was melded with tribal militias to form rural defence forces with a shared identity.

Further troubles await the coalition forces as they close on Baghdad. The Special Republican Guard, Saddam's elite security force, has been given an expanded role in responding to emergency situations beyond the basic physical security of Saddam. While certain battalions are responsible for the security of Baghdad and Tikrit, other, broken into companies and platoons, serve as "stiffener" forces for Republican Guard units.

In the aftermath of the failed CIA coup d'etat in June 1996, the Special Republican Guard dissolved its 5th Brigade and merged that brigade's four battalions with the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam, creating an elite and fanatically loyal of the Special Security Organisation.

Those who predicted that the Iraqi army would surrender, that the Iraqi population would welcome the coalition with open arms and that the Iraqi leadership would collapse were wrong. Unfortunately, the "effects-based" strategy embraced by the Pentagon was based on these conditions. What has transpired is a case of arrogance resulting from ignorance of the enemy.

The Iraqis, thanks to the Al Bakr Institute, have not made that mistake. And today we are paying the price.


Dallas Fort Worth Airport


John Pilger

In the years since Vietnam, the Americans have invaded and caused, directly and through stooges, great suffering in many other countries, but none tells us more about the current war than their enduring atrocity in Vietnam, known as the first "media war".

Like their attack on Iraq, their invasion of Vietnam was accompanied by a racist contempt for the people. The Vietnamese were "gooks" and "slits" who would never fight, who would be crushed within weeks. As in Iraq today, the uncensored evidence of America's killing was not shown on TV but covered up.


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute