This article is about manufacturing consent for the next foreign war.
For the last decade of occupation, at least, the Taliban controlled all the tribal regions, which is the majority of the nation. Do you think these crimes against humanity were not occurring then?
So how come now, after the withdrawal and end of the occupation, are news organizations suddenly devoting so much masthead to covering them?
People tend to believe that propaganda means lies, but the most effective propaganda is the truth. It’s putting out information that is designed to elicit a specific emotional response or reaction. That is what this torrent of post withdrawal Afghanistan articles are about.
How much coverage has been devoted to women’s rights versus the American post withdrawal policy freezing Afghanistan bank accounts to repay victims of 9/11? A policy that was directly linked to famines and food insecurity across the country.
That is serious question and my point isn’t some reductive America is bad argument. It’s that only one of those stories advances a pro-western military intervention narrative.
I will repeat what I already said, the story of that women is horrific and the Taliban is full of evil sadistic pieces of shit. But that is exactly why those narratives have been selected, because they help condition Western readers to be ready for the next foreign war.
If you don’t believe me, look through all of the replies here that are using the emotional resonance of that woman as justification for military occupation.
This article is about manufacturing consent for the next foreign war.
For the last decade of occupation, at least, the Taliban controlled all the tribal regions, which is the majority of the nation. Do you think these crimes against humanity were not occurring then?
So how come now, after the withdrawal and end of the occupation, are news organizations suddenly devoting so much masthead to covering them?
People tend to believe that propaganda means lies, but the most effective propaganda is the truth. It’s putting out information that is designed to elicit a specific emotional response or reaction. That is what this torrent of post withdrawal Afghanistan articles are about.
How much coverage has been devoted to women’s rights versus the American post withdrawal policy freezing Afghanistan bank accounts to repay victims of 9/11? A policy that was directly linked to famines and food insecurity across the country.
That is serious question and my point isn’t some reductive America is bad argument. It’s that only one of those stories advances a pro-western military intervention narrative.
I will repeat what I already said, the story of that women is horrific and the Taliban is full of evil sadistic pieces of shit. But that is exactly why those narratives have been selected, because they help condition Western readers to be ready for the next foreign war.
If you don’t believe me, look through all of the replies here that are using the emotional resonance of that woman as justification for military occupation.