Atrocity propaganda is the spreading of information about the crimes committed by an enemy, which can be factual, but often includes or features deliberate fabrications or exaggerations. This can involve photographs, videos, illustrations, interviews, and other forms of information presentation or reporting.

The inherently violent nature of war means that exaggeration and invention of atrocities often becomes the main staple of propaganda.[1] Patriotism is often not enough to make people hate the enemy, and propaganda is also necessary.[2] "So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations", wrote Harold Lasswell, "that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public is to hate."[3] Human testimony is deemed unreliable even in ordinary circumstances, but in wartime, it can be further muddled by bias, sentiment, and misguided patriotism, becoming of no value whatsoever in establishing the truth.[4]

According to Paul Linebarger, atrocity propaganda leads to real atrocities, as it incites the enemy into committing more atrocities, and, by heating up passions, it increases the chances of one's own side committing atrocities, in revenge for the ones reported in propaganda.[5] Atrocity propaganda might also lead the public to mistrust reports of actual atrocities. In January 1944, Arthur Koestler wrote of his frustration at trying to communicate what he had witnessed in Nazi-occupied Europe: the legacy of anti-German stories during World War I, many of which were debunked in the postwar years, meant that these reports were received with considerable amounts of skepticism.[6]

Like propaganda, atrocity rumors detailing exaggerated or invented crimes perpetrated by enemies are also circulated to vilify the opposing side.[7]. The application of atrocity propaganda is not limited to times of conflict but can be implemented to sway public opinion and create a Casus belli to declare war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda


I will list here 1 good example of atrocity propaganda. It is regarding an invasion that happened in our life-time, and we watched on television the death of this man. But atrocity propaganda was used against him, which is strange, considering if the real arguments against him were so strong, why did the US get involved in a conspiracy to influence public opinion?


The Nayirah Testimony
The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيرة الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign, which was run by the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.


Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International, a British NGO, which published several independent reports about the killings[3] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors ... fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[4][5] Amnesty International reacted by issuing a correction, with executive director John Healey subsequently accusing the Bush administration of "opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement".[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony


Please feel free to offer farther examples of atrocity propaganda, or to discuss the moral ethics of spreading propaganda one knows to be false, in order to commit an atrocity ones-self, or discuss the distrust that this may cause, even amongst ones own people that may begin to question the validity of everything their own government says, even in times of no war, and also feel free to discuss certain parts of the Niyirah Testimony, or put it in to perspective, or even debunk it, if you feel the claim made by what would be considered reputable sources, is infact bunk, despite the fact that it has gotten on to wikipedia.

Uh... welcome... to the... er... forum...?

One major incident became known as the Katyn massacre. In 1940 the Soviet Union killed 22,000 Polish military officers, police men and members of the intelligentia, buried their bodies in a mass grave and planted mature birch trees over the top to make it look as though the killings had happened during the first world war while the Germans were in control of the land. Examination of the trees' growth rings revealed this to be a subterfuge.

A smaller but more famous false flag event was the faked attack of a German radio station near the Polish border in 1939. It became known as the Gleiwitz incident. Nazis placed dead bodies from the Dachau concentration camp dressed up as radio station staff as well as German and Polish soldiers in the building. The faked tableau served as a pretext for Germany's invasion of Poland.

A more recent incident may, or may not have been the Douma chemical attack in 2018. It killed 40 people. Depending on whom you lend credence to, the bombing was either done on the order of Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, or perpetrated by forces opposing him who wanted to make it look like he was responsible.

Many other major or minor false flag operations have been perpetrated by paid or volunteer agents provocateur for propaganda purposes.


Nevets, is there any particular point you are trying to go with this thread?

Nevets, do you have any thought of your own on this topic, or are we to simply discuss your copy/pasta from wiki?

The_Metatron wrote:Nevets, do you have any thought of your own on this topic, or are we to simply discuss your copy/pasta from wiki?

Hi Metatron.

Mostly, i will form my beliefs and opinions on a matter with the help of people such as yourself, and i have no actual strong beliefs on the subject, though i may actually be coming from the point of view that i would like an official debate with someone regarding the matter of Saddam Hussein and how innocent or guilty he was.

My hope is that i would take on the roll of defending Saddam Hussein, in the same manner he would be defended in a court of law, and my opponent would take on the roll of prosecuting Saddam Hussein, using whatever arguments they so wish, or whatever allegations they so wish. It would not need to be the same list that was presented in his official trial. That is completely up to my opponent.

Also what is regarded as the winner or loser in the debate would not be set in stone, the same way it is not in a court room.

If someone takes on the debate hoping for a full out guilty and execution result, they may find themselves the loser, should after having a debate, they find their argument perhaps only warrants a lesser charge, with a lesser punishment.

On the otherhand, they may consider any charge a victory.

This thread is a kind of precursor to finding an opponent to take on this challenge.

It should be obvious from what i have already posted however, i am of the belief that Saddam Hussein was also the victim. At least in certain respects.

But to establish a more precise opinion, and understanding, would require a friendly debate.

Hermit wrote:One major incident became known as the Katyn massacre. In 1940 the Soviet Union killed 22,000 Polish military officers, police men and members of the intelligentia, buried their bodies in a mass grave and planted mature birch trees over the top to make it look as though the killings had happened during the first world war while the Germans were in control of the land. Examination of the trees' growth rings revealed this to be a subterfuge.

A smaller but more famous false flag event was the faked attack of a German radio station near the Polish border in 1939. It became known as the Gleiwitz incident. Nazis placed dead bodies from the Dachau concentration camp dressed up as radio station staff as well as German and Polish soldiers in the building. The faked tableau served as a pretext for Germany's invasion of Poland.

A more recent incident may, or may not have been the Douma chemical attack in 2018. It killed 40 people. Depending on whom you lend credence to, the bombing was either done on the order of Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, or perpetrated by forces opposing him who wanted to make it look like he was responsible.

Many other major or minor false flag operations have been perpetrated by paid or volunteer agents provocateur for propaganda purposes.


Nevets, is there any particular point you are trying to go with this thread?

Well i dont want to deviate too much from the thread being about atrocity propaganda, and the effects that this "conspiring" can possibly have on creating "conspiracy theories".

I believe that "real" conspiring, such as the conspiring committed in this instance, to give reason to justify going to war with Saddam Hussein, and trying to fuel enough hatred in order to justify ones own atrocities, actually sows distrust, and could be the roots of conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 and controlled demolition, or a missile hitting the Pentagon, et cetera, all things i consider preposterous.

However i would like to seek out the real issues that caused catastrophes such as 9/11, and whilst not attempting to exonerate men such as Osama Bin Laden, and Al-qaeda, who i firmly believe committed 9/11, i would like to look at aspects of USA's foreign policies that probably included allkinds of espionage during the coldwar, financing men such as Saddam Hussein one minute, then declaring war on him the next, and also their highly controversial relationship with certain members of the Arab league, especially those within Saudi Arabia, that USA share major oil interests with.

A lot of good could also come from focusing on those issues, and resolving them, as it would then maybe begin to help explain things better to people that are stuck in the 9/11 rabbit hole of inside job et cetera

That clears that up. Thank you very much.

Nevets wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Nevets, do you have any thought of your own on this topic, or are we to simply discuss your copy/pasta from wiki?

Hi Metatron.

Mostly, i will form my beliefs and opinions on a matter with the help of people such as yourself, and i have no actual strong beliefs on the subject, though i may actually be coming from the point of view that i would like an official debate with someone regarding the matter of Saddam Hussein and how innocent or guilty he was.

My hope is that i would take on the roll of defending Saddam Hussein, in the same manner he would be defended in a court of law, and my opponent would take on the roll of prosecuting Saddam Hussein, using whatever arguments they so wish, or whatever allegations they so wish. It would not need to be the same list that was presented in his official trial. That is completely up to my opponent.

Also what is regarded as the winner or loser in the debate would not be set in stone, the same way it is not in a court room.

If someone takes on the debate hoping for a full out guilty and execution result, they may find themselves the loser, should after having a debate, they find their argument perhaps only warrants a lesser charge, with a lesser punishment.

On the otherhand, they may consider any charge a victory.

This thread is a kind of precursor to finding an opponent to take on this challenge.

It should be obvious from what i have already posted however, i am of the belief that Saddam Hussein was also the victim. At least in certain respects.

But to establish a more precise opinion, and understanding, would require a friendly debate.

The thing to do then is to be honest with us, say what you mean, and use the quote function when you're lifting pages of text from wherever you happen to find it.

Defending Saddam Hussein from what accusations? Invading Kuwait?

tuco wrote:Defending Saddam Hussein from what accusations? Invading Kuwait?

Yes, but rather than have me write my argument out all over again, i have gone in to greater detail in the link below.
Click on it.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... 56527.html

Yes, I've seen it and do not understand how it defends him.