[iwar] [fc:With.the.ground.offensive.underway,.the.'Propaganda.War'.heats.up]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-25 18:31:18
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Can.Congress.Convene.Online?]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Take.stand.against.smear.campaign,.Abdullah.tells.media]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110260131.f9Q1VI721885@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:With.the.ground.offensive.underway,.the.'Propaganda.War'.heats.up]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

                           October 24, 2001
   With the ground offensive underway, the 'Propaganda War' heats up
  This survey is based on 62 editorials from 31 countries, October 15-24.
 Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

As the U.S.  military campaign in Afghanistan moved into the ground
offensive phase, overseas media reaction has indicated that the U.S. 
was facing another battle: an information and propaganda war.  Observers
around the globe held various interpretations as to how the U.S., the
Taliban and Usama bin Laden were using or "controlling" the media to
capture public opinion.  And charges that U.S.  "censorship" was
"eroding" the very democratic values it was trying to defend, punctuated
the commentary.  While many in the European press saw worrisome signs of
the U.S.  losing ground on the "front lines of publicity," most Arab and
Muslim outlets suggested that the Western media--notably CNN and
BBC--were colluding with the U.S.  in a "vilification campaign" against
the Muslim world.  That said, a pair of editorials in a semi-independent
Bahraini paper instead gave American journalists credit for presenting
an "honest and objective" analysis and blamed the "weakness" and
"arrogance" of the Arab media for propagating cultural misunderstanding. 
Salient themes follow:

Freedom of Speech As 'A Casualty Of War': Perceptions that the American
government was attempting to "restrict" the media raised both the
hackles and suspicions of observers.  This view played out most
negatively in Europe, Australia, Latin America and Africa, where a
majority saw "lack of information" and "secrecy" as anathema to
democracy.  According to European analysts, U.S.  efforts to control
information, media access and publication of post-bombing imagery could
undermine its "credibility" and end up "weakening" the coalition. 
Skeptics warned that perceived efforts on the part of the Bush
administration to keep tabs on media coverage could "smack of a cover
up," and thus constitute a "victory" for the terrorists.  Accusing the
U.S.  of a "media witch hunt," a Tunisian daily derided U.S.  attempts
to "pressure" Al Jazeera and to limit the airing of Taliban interviews. 

Media As Conduit For Disinformation And Negative Imagery: Throughout the
Arab and Muslim media, negative assessments of America were rampant. 
These ranged from charges that the U.S.  had seized assets of the Al
Rasheed organization because, in the words of a Taliban spokesman, "it
was feeding the hungry people of Afghanistan" to spurious reports that
the U.S.  was using biological and chemical weapons and killing
innocents to "protect its oil interests." Disinformation was not
confined to the Muslim media, however, as some of the same themes and
negative U.S.  image peddling also played out in the East Asian and
Latam press. 

U.S.  Image Vs.  Taliban's 'Verbal Artillery' And Usama's 'Malign Gift
Of Public Relations'

While a Canadian daily focused on UBL's "clever" mastery of the media to
create and sell his image, European papers warned that the U.S.  image
problem was "only going to get worse" if civilian casualties increase. 
A Pakistani daily predicted that "world opinion will turn against U.S. 
"war madness." Cambodian, Filipino, and Thai commentary suggested that
the U.S.' efforts to portray its actions in Afghanistan as a noble
cause--fighting terrorism--were "falling on deaf ears," with some
suggesting that UBL was "coming out ahead" in the propaganda war. 

                                EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Brand Of The Free"

In the independent Financial Times, Richard Tomkins offered this view
(10/20): "For a country with the largest marketing industry on earth,
the U.S.  has made a surprisingly poor job of managing its own image--a
problem that has shifted sharply into focus in the propaganda war that
has broken out since the September 11 attacks.  And so the question
arises: is it time to rebrand America? The Bush administration seems to
think so.  Two weeks ago, a new under secretary for public diplomacy and
public affairs was sworn in, charged with winning the hearts and minds
of the world community in the anti-terrorist war.  And the chosen
candidate was not some career diplomat or politician but Charlotte
Beers, previously chairman of the J.  Walter Thompson advertising
agency.  It is not just a large task but also an extremely difficult
one.  A rare example of success, perhaps, is Spain, which in 30 years
has shaken off its image of poverty-stricken, autarchic society and is
now seen as a modern and sophisticated democracy.  Brand experts say it
is easier to rebrand a small country than a large one because people in
the rest of the world are likely to have fewer preconceptions about it
and because the sources of people's ideas about the country, being
relatively few in number can be managed and controlled.  The U.S.,
however, is at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Ultimately,
advertising executives and brand experts agree that nations are judged
by what they are and what they do, not by how they would like to be
seen.  People's perceptions of Spain changed because the country
changed, not because of a glitzy advertising campaign."

FRANCE: "Boomerang"

Jacques Amalric argued in left-of-center Liberation (10/23): "If the
U.S.  continues with its policy of controlling information on the war
and its casualties, it will soon be facing a serious problem of
credibility....  Strikes are a triple edged weapon....  While they
destabilize enemy forces, they also cause civilian casualties.  These
victims will come back like a boomerang to weaken the heterogeneous
coalition built by Washington....  This three-tier system is already at
work.  While no one knows exactly the number of civilian casualties, it
is clear that the Taliban figures are part of their propaganda. 
Nevertheless, everyone knows that civilians have been killed and that a
large number of Afghans have nothing whatsoever to do with international
terrorism....  These victims are being used by Bin Laden's network.... 
This information and propaganda war is a real challenge for the U.S. 
While Washington continues to lose percentage points in Arab public
opinion, belated denials will not be enough to dissipate a number of
certainties about the methods being used.  Particularly since no one
believes that bin Laden and his men will be put out of commission
through these strikes."

"America Is Missing Its Targets, But This Fits With Its Plans..."

Eric Le Braz held in right-of-center France Soir (10/23): "The U.S-led
strikes are getting everything wrong....  They have missed all their
main targets....  On the other hand, Afghan civilians have suffered from
these surgical strikes....  The U.S.  media censure, which opted for not
showing the casualties of the World Trade Center is beginning to look
like a bad decision....  While the attack of September 11 took on a
disembodied appearance, the war on Afghanistan is beginning to look like
U.S.-made carnage....  The raid on Kandahar was bad propaganda.  The
images were poor and the results insufficient.  If the U.S.  continues
to either hide everything or show us disembodied images of the war, it
will lose the propaganda war, while it is far from winning the other
one."

GERMANY: "Truth And Make-Believe"

Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/23) observed in an
editorial: "No day is going by without the world having to ask the key
question of any military conflict: Is everything we are hearing
true?&amp; There are no clear answers....  Unlike the Taliban, the
United States must be concerned that propaganda can have the opposite
effect.  If the United States was using biological weapons--which one
cannot seriously believe--it would be risking the demise of its
political coalition."

"The Most Secret War Ever"

Centrist Tagesspiegel of Berlin (10/23) stated in an editorial: "Nobody
knows what is happening in Afghanistan.  Independent reporters have no
access to the country; freedom of the press is severely restricted in
neighboring Pakistan and Uzbekistan.  The U.S.  administration is
keeping its information secret as well&amp;.  Nobody can say whether
some operations may have failed or whether more civilians have been
killed than officially confirmed....  It is true that, in a war,
information can endanger lives.  However, the keeping secret of all
important information endangers democracy."

"War Of Images"

Udo Ulfkotte judged in a front-page editorial in center-right
Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/22): "The battle for the hearts and minds
will not be decided be elite troops, but by camera teams and media
strategists.  In Chechnya, Bosnia, and the Philippines, Islamic
terrorists took pictures of soldiers' mangled corpses, but no television
network chose to show them.  That could be different in Afghanistan,
with the help of Al-Jazeera.  The entry of a new player has created a
changed situation on the world's public stage, which was previously
dominated by CNN and a few other Western television networks.  Western
governments, which have long dealt with a free press, are used to making
their actions transparent and explaining themselves publicly.  But the
Taliban, which are now counting on propaganda to defeat its opponents,
may have miscalculated.  The messages with which Bin Laden stirs up hate
against the 'infidels' are producing a propaganda effect counter to the
one intended: They are increasing the demand for free information
especially in the Arab-Islamic world.  And on that score, the Taliban
have nothing to offer."

ITALY: Media Treatment

Several reports in leading dailies (10/23) highlighted Taliban statement
that a hospital was hit in Herat and subsequent Pentagon denials. 
Sample headlines: Human Errors, Collateral Damage, Famine (banner, L
Unita'); The Taliban: Bombs Hit Civilians, A Hospital Struck (Corriere
della Sera); Kabul Accuses, A Hospital Was Hit (La Repubblica); A
Hospital Was Bombed, 100 Die (Il Messaggero); The Taliban Accuse: 100
People Died In An Hospital Hit By The U.S.  (Il Giornale). 

The Taliban Accuse: 100 People Died In A Hospital Hit By The U.S. 

Luciano Gulli filed from Islamabad in pro-government, leading
center-right Il Giornale (10/23):

The military campaign of the Northern Front is at a stalemate&amp;.  The
only certainties are the bombs that continue to fall and spread terror
among the floods of desperate people who are pushing at the still-closed
borders with Pakistan....  And nobody knows the exact number of
victims&amp;.  Men, women, children, doctors, and nurses.  It is a
massacre that the Pentagon neither confirms nor denies.  &amp;. 
(Although) the International Red Cross says that deaths were few - not
more than ten .  Everyone has his truth to be sold, and the indiscreet
eyes of journalists are not welcome."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Victims Of Psychological War"

Martin Denemark commented in business Hospodarske noviny (10/23): "Right
from the beginning it was evident that this will be a different type of
war....  Nevertheless, the pictorial coverage from Afghanistan is
absolutely insufficient.  The private satellite, taking all the detailed
pictures from Afghanistan, was bought exclusively by Pentagon...  It is
understandable that Americans block off all pictures that could threaten
their soldiers, but if there will be such severely limited information
as is the case so far, they risk losing the psychological war.  How are
people supposed to find out about civilian casualties? If Taliban
hyperbolize their numbers, which is probable, Americans should counter
their lies with facts not just proclamations from the White House or
Pentagon podiums.  Less information means more doubts."

IRELAND: "Campaign Against Terrorism; Civilian Casualties"

The centrist Irish Examiner observed (10/23): "Afghanistan's Taliban
turned its verbal artillery against the United States yesterday,
accusing U.S.  forces of killing more than 100 people in a hospital in
western Herat and of using chemical and biological weapons....  'We have
absolutely no evidence at all that would suggest that that allegation is
correct.  I'm sure that it's not,' Mr.  Rumsfeld told reporters at a
media briefing....  'It is now clear that American planes are
intentionally targeting the Afghan people,' Abdul Salam Zaeef, the
Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, told a news conference.  'The goal is to
punish the Afghan people for having chosen an Islamic system.'"

"Press Freedom A Casualty Of War"

Filing from Belfast, Monika Unsworth noted in the liberal Irish Times
(10/22): "The freedom of the press has inevitably become one of the
first casualties of wars and disasters, a former editor of the
Washington Post has told a media conference in Belfast.  Mr.  Ben
Bradlee (is) now the newspaper's 'vice-president at large.'"

THE NETHERLANDS: "Propaganda Front"

Influential liberal De Volkskrant editorialized (10/23): "Wars are not
only fought at the front lines but also at the frontlines of publicity. 
The media, whether they like it or not, are an important instrument in
this war, as is currently also the case in the war in Afghanistan.  Be
these Pentagon briefings or Bin Laden's videos, all parties are doing
their utmost to get public opinion on their side....  One does not need
much imagination to think of a situation in which the coalition would be
under pressure.  That will be when the number of civilian casualties
increases, or if we get a humanitarian crisis among Afghan refugees. 
This would encourage the call to stop the fighting, particularly if
there won't be any success stories....  This is a realistic risk the
Bush administration is facing.  The Bush administration realizes very
well that it has a tough propaganda war to fight...in the interest of
maintaining the coalition, the U.S.  is keeping a very close eye on
proportionality of the military operations.  The actions are targeted;
there are no bombing carpets or 'cowboy actions.' So far, the American
approach worked: the heterogeneous coalition still stands....  However,
the biggest risk for the U.S.  is the prospect of a hopeless war.  That
might be the reason why Secretary of State Powell says he hopes the job
will be done before winter sets in.  That is not very wise of him,
because if that expectation cannot be met, we will have doubt
prevailing; a doubt which from the point of view of media relations will
not be easy to remove."

NORWAY: "Blind Eyes"

Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten commented (10/19): "American authorities
have through a clever action made it impossible for the media to look
into the U.S.' cards in Afghanistan, and thereby make it easier to
distinguish propaganda from reality.  This has happened by the official
U.S.  having bought up all the pictures that the civilian satellite
'Ikonos' can take of the region...  In spite of all the briefings from
the American Defense and State Departments, one could easily be left
with the feeling that the Americans are not telling the whole truth, if
they are telling the truth about their operations at all."

"A War About Truth"

The independent Dagbladet (10/19) commented: "The U.S.  is leading a war
against terrorism and has created broad international support in this
fight...  We have also got a debate about censorship, misinformation and
cover operations to mislead public opinion while the war actions are
going on.  Should this be a kind of crusade for human rights, this must
also be a fight for the right of free expression.  That is certainly a
central part of democracy and that which should justify this war... 
Yesterday it was made known that the U.S.  had bought the rights of the
satellite 'Ikonos' to obstruct publication of photos that show the
results of the bombings in Afghanistan...  It cannot be shown more
clearly that this is also a war about public opinion, as all wars are... 
We cannot have a state of emergency and set freedom of expression and
human rights aside while the war is going on, and then reintroduce
democracy when the battle hopefully is won.  Then much would be lost on
the way, and we would squander away important values."

PORTUGAL: "Yellow Sacks"

Online editor JosT Vitor Malheiros wrote in influential center-left
P�blico (10/23): "The so-called humanitarian daily rations that the
[USAF] is dropping every day...constitute a propaganda gesture, not a
gesture of humanitarian aid.  There's nothing wrong with this propaganda
in the context of this war....  [But] the U.S.  committed itself, in the
words of its president, to accompany the military offensive with massive
food aid.  It's time to fulfill this commitment.  It's time for the U.S. 
to in fact begin to collaborate with the humanitarian organizations
working in Afghanistan and the surrounding countries to get the aid to
where it's needed."

ROMANIA: "Democracy Under Quarantine"

Vladimir Alexandrescu underlined in pro-government Dimineata (10/24):
"Since people were used to the fact that, through its long time use, the
right of information worked emblematically for the benefit of the very
idea of democracy, (thus) they do not accept, they cannot accept,
censorship, not even for their own good.  And yet...  whether we like it
or not, democracy is under quarantine, firstly, in its very home,
America.  For how long? This is a question neither the Pentagon
strategists, nor the CIA experts, nor President Bush, can answer, so
far."

SPAIN: "Washington And Taliban, Between Propaganda And Disinformation"

Independent El Mundo wrote (10/23): "The Taliban, which prohibits
television on its own soil...can't be considered the most reliable
source of information, to say the least....  But if the Americans come
to us cloaked in this necessary silence in order to wiggle out of
answering questions that they could have known the answers to -- for
example, that supposed hospital destroyed in Herat, which now they say
'they don't have any information on and have no comment'-- it would be
creating a much more serious loss of credibility than that of the
Taliban."

Afghanistan, Second Act

Independent El Pais noted (10/21): "Washington has chosen thick silence
as one of the weapons in its war against Islamic terrorism.  Tight
secrecy may be militarily justified; surprise is an advantage in and of
itself....  But lack of information is unacceptable in a democracy."

TURKEY: "Terror Is Only A Pretext"

Necati Ozfatura wrote in conservative/religious Turkiye (10/24): "The
war in Afghanistan is the first oil-war of the 21st century.  The U.S. 
and Pakistan helped the Taliban to control 90 percent of Afghanistan. 
Things were not bad until recently the Taliban posed a threat to the
U.S.  interests in oil reserves in the Caspian Sea and Central Asia.... 
The strike against Afghanistan is also an attempt to protect oil giants'
interests.  ...  Having control over the rich oil resources required the
death of some Afghan people; and that is what's happening right now."

UZBEKISTAN: MEDIA TREATMENT

Leading, Uzbek-language, state-run, Xalq Sozi (People's Word), ran a
front page story (10/20): "A Country with Peaceful Borders" by
journalist Qurbon Eshmatov.  The author says that since the beginning of
the U.S.-led military operation in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan has suffered
malicious reporting by some foreign media, "sowing panic among people."
Journalists are being paid to wage an "information war" in the media
against Uzbekistan, according to Eshmatov. 

"The Ruse"

People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, O'zbekiston Ovozi (Voice of
Uzbekistan) ran a front-page article, criticizing Russian TV-6 for what
it said was spreading false information on the situation in Uzbekistan's
border with Afghanistan (10/20): "On October 16 Russian TV-6 channel
reported that 'people in Termez [Southern Uzbek town bordering
Afghanistan] are living in a war zone.  A missile from Afghanistan fell
on house number 80 on The Eighth of March Street in Termez.' The report
showed a blasted house, black smoke and people's cries.  Although we
knew it was another falsehood, we went to Termez...  in search of house
number 80 on The Eighth of March Street...  The owner appeared to be a
Russian woman who said her family of six has been living in this house
for 20 years and had not heard anything about a missile destroying her
house....  Then we went to the hotel where most journalists stayed.  One
of them, a special reporter of First Russian Public Television, Eduard
Hayrullin, said he [himself] was annoyed by the reporting of some of his
fellow-journalists.  He said his colleagues and he did not watch TV-6
reports at all...  Ivan Valyukhin, a reporter for TV-6, said he did not
see any grounds for such rumors in Uzbekistan's southern regions."

                             MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT: "Taliban Claim Of U.S.  Air Raid On Hospital"

The mistaken U.S.  shelling of allegedly friendly Afghan opposition
sites was played prominently as front page news (10/23).  The lead story
in moderate opposition Al Wafd described this as a "new American
massacre in Afghanistan." Both opposition papers Al Wafd and Al Ahrar
emphasized a Taliban claim that 100 Afghans were killed in an American
air raid on a hospital, and that Afghan doctors had accused the United
States of using chemical and biological weapons in these attacks. 

"Iraq Not Responsible For Sending Anthrax"

Egyptian televison late night program "Editor-in-Chief" (10/22) reviewed
all pro-government and opposition press criticizing U.S.  attacks on
Afghanistan.  Guest Dr.  Ashraf El-Bioumi, professor of biochemistry at
Cairo and Washington universities said: "Iraq is not responsible for
sending anthrax." He reviewed research papers and documents stating that
an American microbiologist isolated the anthrax strain a long time ago;
this man was a member of "The Nation" an extremist organization which
asserts the superiority of whites.  "The U.S.  admitted that chemical
and biological tests have been launched in the air since 1977 at least
48 times under a pretext of national security imperatives.... 
Unfortunately, the U.S.  administration exploits science in war."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Poor America"

Abha-based, moderate Al-Watan held (10/23): "Since the Zionist terrorism
is being inflicted on the U.S.  daily, it blocks the improvement of
American-Arab-Muslim relationships.  We know quite well that the
American media is the first target of Zionist terrorism.  This influence
on the media sometimes even works against American interests. 
Therefore, we are not surprised by the current American media campaign
against the Kingdom...but for this campaign to reach Congress, the
source of American domestic and foreign policy, indicates that the
Zionist Anthrax has penetrated the American body to the bone."

"Falseness Reveals Truth"

Jeddah-based conservative Al-Madina's editorial read (10/23):
"Everything became possible after the events of September 11.  Premature
judgments now seek solid evidence.  The fraudulent photo and interview
of an Abdullah Usama bin Laden, alleged by the British newspaper, Sunday
Mirror, to be that of terrorist bin Laden's son, is a proof of the rash
behavior of the West in introducing fake evidence to justify a premature
judgment.  The Sunday Mirror has unintentionally served the truth.  It
is now known two people can have the same name and same identity card. 
We are absolutely sure that what the Sunday Mirror presented was a fraud
because the real Abdullah has been living among us in Jeddah for many
years.  All of this provokes increased suspicion about U.S.  allegations
that some suspects of the events of September 11 are Saudis.  All
suspects on the airplanes died, and the only way to identify them was
through passports and papers that can easily be forged, stolen or
otherwise ill gotten as proven by misidentification in the Sunday Mirror
incident....  We would like to express our gratitude to the Sunday
Mirror, which through its insistence on perpetrating a fraud, has
unveiled another truth."

"Unfounded Allegations"

The moderate, English-language Riyadh opined (10/22): "Whether it is the
efficacy of the Jewish lobby or plain misconception, the Western media
seem to be running amuck with reports against the Kingdom and its way of
life....  They found the Kingdom's deep religious beliefs fueling
extremism in different quarters of the world....  Such sweeping
deduction would be akin to alleging that every lewd behavior and smut
literature in the world stems from the indulgent societies of the West,
particularly America....  Yet the Western media seem to be resolute in
pursuing its vilification campaign against the Kingdom and the Muslim
world at large.  Such bigoted onslaughts would only create an artificial
divide between the two distant, yet otherwise friendly, zones of the
world."

"Al-Jazeera"

Jeddah-based, moderate, English language Arab News featured this letter
to the editor (10/21): "Since CNN and BBC have admitted that they are
reviewing and 'editing' incoming news because it may contain 'coded
messages' that may harm Western security, their independence is gone
and, with it, their reputation.  They are becoming tools in their
government's war and propaganda machinery....  The Al-Jazeera (TV)
channel remains my only remaining source of unfiltered information."

BAHRAIN: "There Is A Balance Of Views In American Balance"

Semi-independent, Arabic-language Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment
(10/24) by Sayed Zahra: "While condemning the fierce campaign in the
American media against Arabs, Islam and Muslims...we must not forget
that in America there are many honest people who refuse to participate
in this (anti-Arab) campaign.  A person can list many names of
(American) thinkers, writers and journalists who, since September 11,
have been publishing fair and respected articles and studies of America,
and cautioning about the consequences of its policies.  I have a file
full of articles by those people who opposed the war even before it
started, defended the Arabs and Muslims and made honest and objective
analysis on why the world hates the policies of the American
administration....  If the American administration really wants to
repair its relations with Arabs and Muslims, it should listen to what
those honest and honorable people say."

"Weakness Of Arab Media"

Semi-independent Arabic-langauge Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment
(10/24) by Reem Khalifa: "One of the reasons behind the negative media
campaign (about Arabs) in the West has been the weakness of our (Arabs')
media message....  To make the West listen to our views on Arab and
Muslim issues, we should abandon our arrogance and improve the quality
of our journalism, which in reality is very limited."

TUNISIA: "The Voice Of Its Master"

Senior editor Tarek Zammouri wrote in independent, French-language
weekly Jeune Afrique (10/19): "In its present war waged in the name of
freedom, it is worth noting that Washington does not neglect any front. 
Voice of America (VOA), which airs 'in an independent way' (and in 53
languages) its programs throughout the world, was the first media to
face the wrath of the American administration whose pretext was that
'Voice of America is not the voice of the Talibans.' The Department of
State prevented VOA from airing four minutes of an exclusive interview
with the Mullah Omar.  Finally, VOA decided to quote some sentences in
another program.  This time it was Congress which took offense.  But the
media 'witch hunt' does not stop here.  Today, it is the Qatar satellite
channel 'Al-Jazeera' that suffers from this pressure....  Colin Powell
reproached its 'incendiary statements' and Condoleezza Rice qualified
the statements as 'at their best propaganda and at their worst new
terrorist attacks.' The battle expands: CNN, which had exclusive
agreements with 'Al Jazeera' decided to suspend live broadcast of its
images.  The explanation is unequivocal: 'to decide about what needs to
be broadcast, CNN must seek advise of the appropriate authorities.'... 
Because in the United States, diplomats and press, during war times,
must not communicate with the enemy.  We fight by using all methods that
can reduce him to silence to the extent that we can affirm, without any
risk of erring, that the first world democracy can no longer envy the
Arab countries when it comes to information and propaganda control."

                              SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Let This War Stop: Let Mankind Be Saved"

Pro-Awami League, Bangla-language Ajker Kagoj featured this op-ed
(10/24): "The world community should not be swayed by U.S.  propaganda. 
They have to see why Bin Laden and the Taliban have taken such a stance
against Anglo-U.S.  hegemony.  Laden and the Taliban emerged to protest
the plunder of the oil resources of the Middle East by the Anglo-U.S. 
clique.  One should keep in mind the role of Middle East oil for the
affluence of the United States and the United Kingdom.  The world
community must come forward to protect the Afghans.  Otherwise,
civilization will sink into darkness.  Governments of almost all
countries are united in support of the United States to continue its
attack on Afghanistan.  In this situation, people of all countries of
the world should come forward to protect civilization and human culture. 
If the slogan is raised to stop the war and save mankind, a new
political force may emerge in favor of justice and fairplay, and the
Anglo-U.S.  clique will restrain themselves.  If progressive policy is
followed, the problem of backwardness and radicalism of the Taliban and
Bin Laden will also be resolved."

"Taliban Morale Is Very High"

Independent Bangla-language Prothom Alo (10/24): In an interview the
Taliban ambassador in Pakistan said that carpet-bombing is going on in
Afghanistan.  "The bombing is indiscriminate.  But the Afghans have been
used to these types of bombings.  Their morale is very high." The
Taliban ambassador termed as false propaganda the reported defection of
the Taliban Foreign Minister.  On the possibility of a broad-based
government in Afghanistan, the ambassador said that these are Russian
and American plans.  None of these countries protested the bombing of
the innocent people of Afghanistan.  The ambassador asserted that "we
are now in a Jihad.  Allah is our helper." He sounded very determined
and urged the world community to help and protect Afghanistan, which in
his language is the "poorest and the most helpless nation in the world."

MEDIA TREATMENT

The print media (10/23) gave extensive reportage--but limited
commentary--to Taliban claims that 100 Afghans were killed by U.S. 
bombing of a hospital and claims that the U.S.  is using biological and
chemical weapons in Afghanistan.  Lead stories included: "Taliban Claim
100 Killed in U.S.  Strike on Hospital: Pentagon Neither Confirms Nor
Denies," "America Using Biological and Chemical Weapons," "Use of
Chemical Weapons in Afghanistan?" "U.S.  Planes Bomb Taliban Positions
Again," "U.S.  Retreats From Commando Attack," "Over 100 Killed in a
Herat Hospital by American Bombing," "Two More U.S.  Helicopter Downed:
Attack on Hospital," and "British Troops also to Join in Land
Offensive."

"The Battle Plan Against Terrorism is Outmoded"

An editorial page article in the centrist English-language Independent
held (10/18): "Propaganda warfare is also being fought together with the
military operations in Afghanistan.  Many believe that Usama has a
malign gift of public relations, he can stage a dismaying series of
catch-me-if-you-can for the cameras.  Furthermore he wants to give the
impression that the war on terrorism is a war against Muslims.  Already
the use of military force against the Taliban led many extremist Muslims
and pacifists to protest around the world.  This is partly because there
are reports of deaths of innocent civilians including women and children
in Afghanistan.  In the given circumstances one may reasonably conclude
that the U.S.  has entered into an uncharted area.  There is an
overwhelming opinion that the military operations alone may not be able
to act as a deterrent to the terrorists.  It involves continuous
identification and pressure on terrorists for a long period of time. 
Cooperation by a host of nations on many fronts is required to eliminate
terrorism."

PAKISTAN: MEDIA TREATMENT

Headlines (10/24) read: "American Planes Destroy Mosque, 112 Including
Namazis (Worshippers) Martyred," lead story in the second largest Urdu
daily Nawa-e-Waqt; "U.S.  Constantly Hitting Civilians: UN" news story
in the pro-Muslim League Urdu daily Pakistan; "U.S.  Helicopters Shot at
Civilians Collecting Food" news story also in Pakistan.  In contrast, a
news story in Nawa-e-Waqt reported that "U.S.  Ambassador, Agreement
With Pakistani Factories for Manufacturing Tents For Afghan Refugees,
35,000 Blankets Reach Pakistan," noting that "Wendy Chamberlin has said
that America will continue to help the Afghan people on a humanitarian
basis.  America's war is not with the Afghan people but against
terrorism....  George W.  Bush has announced aid of $320 million for
Afghan refugees."

"Killing Civilians"

The Peshawar-based independent Frontier Post opined (10/24): "The United
States is taking the joke rather too far.  When President George Bush
announced military strikes against Afghanistan, he promised these would
be precise and targeted and 'collateral damage would be avoided'.... 
Resentment is manifested in the rising number of rallies against the
demolition of civil facilities....  There may be some exaggeration about
the deaths and injuries caused to civilians, but the very fact of their
being bombarded cannot be allowed to go unnoticed....  The spectacle of
dead and disabled Afghans is likely to fuel protests on the streets of
Pakistan.  By presenting these deaths as inevitable, the United States
may well have assuaged its conscience, but it may not be able to escape
the consequences of its ruthless dispensation of killings of the
civilian population.  It must lend an ear to the voice of the people
questioning the rationale of its tactics."

MEDIA TREATMENT

Pakistani dailies consistently gave coverage (and lend credibility) to
Taliban reports of civilian casualties and spurious claims of American
chemical-biological weapon use.  Examples from (10/23): a news story in
the second largest Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt headlined "118 Civilians
Martyred As U.S.  Bombs Hospitals And Clinics Full Of Patients." Popular
Din published Taliban claims of "72 U.S.  Commandos Captured, Helicopter
Destroyed, [Claim Taliban]; U.S.  Denies; Biological Attack Initiated,
150 Killed," while sensationalist Khabrain focused on the same spurious
claims. 

"Killings a Terrorist Act, Says Zaeef"

A news story in the center-right, national Nation (10/23) quoted Afghan
Ambassador Zaeef on Monday on the "'Martyrs who fell victim to U.S.-led
air strikes, in Herat hospital included patients, doctors, nurses and
other hospital staff....  It is now clear that American planes are
intentionally targeting innocent Afghans for choosing a true Islamic
system in their country,' said the ambassador."

"Gift Of U.S.  Bodies"

Sensationalist Ummat editorialized (10/23): "Despite the dominance and
occupation of the western media by the Christian and Jewish lobby, it is
difficult to hide now that the second U.S.  commando action against
Taliban has also failed.  Now the talk of the failure of the U.S.  war
in Afghanistan can be heard all over the world.  International opinion
turning against U.S.  war madness.  For how long will the U.S.  waste
its men and material in this war?" Note: This Ummat writers obviously
assumes that Taliban claims of U.S.  commando casualties are correct. 

"U.S.  Intentions Against Islam"

An op-ed by Maulana Din Mohammad Faridi argued in Karachi-based,
Taliban-mouthpiece weekly, Dharab-e-Momin (10/19-25): "In the wake of
the September 11 incident, the United States has frozen the bank
accounts of several organizations including the Al-Rasheed Trust.  The
reason why the U.S.  is so disgusted with Al-Rasheed is that the latter
was feeding the hungry people of Afghanistan.  The aid that comes from
the U.S.  or the UN is only spent on their own offices while Al-Rasheed
had no worldly gains to attain from its humanitarian assistance work. 
The day the United States banned Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Al-Rasheed
Trust, the insane President Bush vowed to finish all Jihadi
organizations.  He must, however, note that the passion for Jihad has
now risen in the hearts of every Muslim and he will not be able to
remove this feeling from their hearts."

"Is There a Propaganda War On?"

An op-ed by Zubeida Mustafa in the Karachi-based independent national
Dawn (10/21): "Significant parallel development is taking place on the
media front.  This is a propaganda war which has been unleashed. 
Western TV networks focus heavily on the events that they want to
project as the major developments of the day.  For instance, doesn't a
JUI protest rally which is telecast repeatedly throughout the day make a
strong impact? The images of awe some expressions and defiant gestures
of bearded men burning effigies and chanting angry slogans convey the
impression to those not familiar with our society that the whole country
is up in arms in support of Usama bin Laden and the Taliban.  The
networks are creating the impression world-wide that Pakistan is
Taliban-land....  Before the media circus gets out of hand, it is time
for the major actor in this game, the Bush administration, to stop and
think.  The media thrive in a climate of crisis, melodrama, uncertainty
and insecurity.  These are the conditions being created by the United
States' ill-considered policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan today."

                              EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: "Truth Still Too High On The Casualty List"

An editorial in the liberal Melbourne Age said (10/23): " It is
understandable that U.S.  media organizations do not wish to be regarded
as opposing the mood of national solidarity that has taken hold in
response to the terrorist attacks.  At a time when the flow of
information about the war in Afghanistan is being tightly managed by the
Pentagon, however, there is also increasing pressure on U.S.  news
organizations to which they have sometimes too readily succumbed to
impose forms of self-censorship that sit oddly with American ideals of
free speech and a free press....  Some of the restrictions are just
silly....  But other self-imposed curbs are more insidious in their
implications....  The reluctance of newspapers to discover the truth,
however, may give the terrorists another reason to think they have
harmed the United States."

CAMBODIA: "America Ponders A Chilling Prediction; Start Of An
Unavoidable Crisis?"

The weekly Business News (10/15-21) carried an article in the View Point
column: "Two American authors predicted four years ago that the United
States within the decade would face a one-in-a-century national crisis. 
The U.S.  bombing in Afghanistan has not gone well with the Muslim world
in particular, and attempts to portray it as directed at terrorists are
falling on deaf ears.  The plight of Afghan refugees does not lend
credibility to the American declaration.  Osama Bin Laden...declared:
'To America, I have only a few words to say.  I swear by God that
America and those who live in America won't dream of having security
before we have it in Palestine and all infidel armies depart from the
land of Muhammad.' Washington's preoccupation with Osama is lending
support to the belief that the exiled Saudi is much more threat to the
super power than communism or the former Soviet Union.  Reading Howe and
Strauss and Osama together does not bode well, both for the United
States and the world"

PHILIPPINES: "Global Support Bush Has Flaunted Is Deceptive"

Columnist Walden Bello wrote in the leading business Business World
(10/23): "After over two weeks of Anglo-American bombardment of
Afghanistan, once one gets beyond the sound and fury of American bombs
and the smoke screen of CNN propaganda, it appears that in the war
between the United States and Usama bin Laden, the latter is coming out
ahead....  The global support that Bush has flaunted is deceptive.  Of
course, a lot of governments would express their support for the UN
Security Council's call for a global campaign against terrorism.  Far
fewer countries, however, are actually actively cooperating in
intelligence and police surveillance activities.  Even fewer have
endorsed the military campaign and opened up their territory to transit
by U.S.  planes on the way to Southwest Asia.  And when one gets down to
the decisive test of offering troops and weapons to fight alongside the
British and the Americans in the harsh plains and icy mountains of
Afghanistan, one is down to the hard core of the Western Cold War
alliance....  As it now stands, Washington has painted itself into a
no-win situation.  If it kills bin Laden, he becomes a martyr, a source
of never-ending inspiration, especially to young Muslims....  Sept.  11
was an unspeakable crime against humanity, but the U.S.  response has
converted the equation in many people's minds into a war between vision
and power, righteousness and might, and, perverse as this may sound,
spirit versus matter."

"Love And Hate"

Commenting on Larry King's October 19 interview with Dan Rather, Conrado
de Quiros noted in the widely read Philippine Daily Inquirer (10/23):
"Things will never be the same after the Sept.  11 attack on New York. 
Clearly, it has taken its toll not just on the world's way of life but
on the world's way of thinking.  That a well-known journalist should be
reduced to passing off silly platitudes as profound truths must tell us
of the depths to which we are fast sinking.  As platitudes go, it is of
the same order of breathtaking vapidity as George Bush's statement last
week that he was 'amazed by the hatred the Islamic world harbored for
America because 'like most Americans, I know how good we are.' For
someone who has scoured the world, Rather clearly has little learned
from it.  He is right to correct King's premise.  Most people in the
world do not hate America or Americans....  But Rather is wrong to think
that the people who resent or even hate America are the rest of the
world's population who do not belong to America's admirers.  Some are,
the groups who resent or hate America out of religion, culture or
presumed hurts, real or imagined.  But not all of them belong to this
group.  Many, probably most, belong to the very camp that admires
America.  Those two camps -- those who admire America and those who hate
America---are not mutually exclusive.  The sooner Americans recognize
this, the sooner they will find the answer to the question they have
been asking poignantly of late: 'Why do they hate us?'

"As several commentators have pointed out in BBC and CNN, the situation
in Afghanistan is also the product of the American abandonment of that
country.  After arming the Talibans to help them oust their Soviet
oppressors, it quite cynically left them to oppress their own people
while pursuing its advantage elsewhere....  'Why do they hate us?'
America asks.  That is a question many of the world's peoples have been
asking for a very, very long time.  Why does America hate us?"

THAILAND: Propaganda War

The lead editorial of conservative, Thai-language Siam Rath commented
(10/18): Once a war starts its first casualty often is veracity.... 
This new war is obviously multifaceted in nature, and the mass media are
one of the prime weapons with greater significance than Tomahawk cruise
missiles....  The U.S.  war against terrorism still has an unconvincing
target.  Despite its pinpointing a specific terrorist group, the
judgment was based on the U.S.  and the UK s own criteria....  In
response to the U.S.  attacks, the U.S.  intelligence claims, the
terrorists have unleashed an Anthrax scare, causing panic among the
American public....  The truth is yet to be established.  The Thai press
and public are warned not to trust information from any side
wholeheartedly.  Remember that the public is the main target of the
propaganda warfare. 

"America Is Stuck As Osama Grows Popular"

Government-influenced, Malay language Berita Harian editorialized
(10/18): "To win support and sympathy for American efforts to fight
terrorism, propaganda has focused on a 'warrior' named Usama bin Laden. 
The majority of American now hate him but they have been saturated with
news and images of Osama, that any message by President George W.  Bush
has been drowned in the deluge.  While the Americans can claim victory
in commanding the skies above Afghanistan, they cannot claim to be able
to "win" the propaganda war as the support for the fight against is
still far from hoped for.  Anti-American sentiment continues as the
strikes seem to cause more suffering to the civillians.  It seems
America is stuck.  The request by Secretary of state Colin Powell to the
Emir of Qatar that the al-Jazeera satellite television be controlled did
not work out.  Meanwhile CNN has given agreement to only air selected
excerpts from Al-Jazeera.  The public has clearly gone stale on the
biased news and this does not help their feelings of reservation about
the strikes or the hatred (for the U.S.) in some nations."

                          WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Master Of The Media"

Contributing foreign editor Eric Margolis commented in the conservative
Ottawa Sun (10/21): "Bin Laden enjoys a unique asset no other leader of
the Muslim world today possesses: respect.  He has cleverly crafted for
himself the image of an 'Ansar', the desert warrior of Islam's early
era: courageous, austere, honourable, driven by faith.  Small bands of
such warriors and explorers helped spread Islam from Morocco to China. 
In Islamic culture, as in Japan, a noble warrior who battles impossible
odds, knowing he will die, is held in highest esteem.  Martyrdom for
Islam is also venerated by Muslims.  Bin Laden has captured both themes
in a remarkable display of medieval thinking turbocharged by 21st
century public relations.  Westerners see him as a loathsome, murderous
fanatic.  But to many people in Asia and Africa, including non-Muslims,
bin Laden is a defiant, heroic figure who gives a measure of
self-respect to those who have little; a mujahid, or holy warrior
battling the successor to the British Empire, the American Raj; and an
avenger come to smite the United States for all the real and imagined
wrongs it has done around the world.  Bin Laden, has proclaimed a jihad,
or holy war, against the West, (though he has absolutely no authority to
issue religious edicts fatwas).  This has endangered millions of Muslims
living in the West, and provided justification for another jihad--George
Bush's 'crusade against terrorism' which will inevitably hurt Muslims."

BRAZIL: "War Targets"

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political columnist Janio de Freitas
commented (10/24): "Ten days ago the USG said that all Taliban military
targets had been destroyed by the bombings....  Everything was ready for
ground action.  But the air strikes continued over the heads of the
civilian population.  The media censorship that is supposed to be for
the protection of military actions now shows its purpose.  With the
recent bombing of a hospital, we now see a repetition of what has
happened several times: Both the U.S.  government and the military deny
a bombing incident that is unacceptable according to war crime laws and,
much worse for them, capable of affecting the U.S.  public opinion... 
The war being waged by the U.S.  and British military has been conducted
against the Afghan people.  So far there has been no success against bin
Laden and terrorism.  The facts have shown that the purpose of the
censorship in the United States, which is extended to the world, is to
cheat public opinion and protect lies....  It happens all the time:
Censorship always hides something repulsive."

"The News War"

Rio's conservative O Globo editorialized (10/24): "The American attacks
on Afghanistan produce restless side effects even when they don't
directly kill or maim.  The number of Afghans who run from bombs and
missiles towards the frontier is increasing.  Reproduced daily by the
media, scenes of frightened multitudes...are powerful images on the
information front.  The bombs from Afghanistan are hitting the
conscience of people on the other side of the world.  This daily
exhibition of common people's pain and the harshness in Afghanistan
lends another element of uncertainty in this war against a faceless
enemy.  It gives the impression that innocents are being punished for
the crimes of Osama bin Laden and the Talibans who protect him.  Such
images can always be manipulated and may serve the purposes of
misinformation campaigns.  Taking advantage of the networks in their
area of influence, Bin Laden's sympathizers and U.S.  enemies in the
Arab world are benefiting from this persistent exhibition of human
suffering....  And they'll continue to do so while military actions
don't hit targets and don't present results that can be noticed by
public opinion's radar.  All of this makes one think that the decision
of the American authorities to restrain the freedoms of reporters to
cover the war, tying and gagging the press, may also be a serious
strategic mistake."

"Reverse Terror"

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political columnist Clovis Rossi questioned
(10/23): "How can we describe the death of Afghan children shown
yesterday in a photo published on Folha's front page? Can it be called
anything except terrorism? Unless, of course, we are all such brutes
that we accept the military euphemism 'collateral damage' to explain the
death of children hit by U.S.  bombs.  When innocent people die as a
result of an attack against the United States, it is terrorism.  When
innocent Afghans die, it is 'collateral damage'...  Ignoring the death
of children in Afghanistan is the same as giving the U.S.  military a
license to kill....  Not even the many foreign policy mistakes committed
by the U.S.  since its founding can justify the September 11 attacks. 
But those attacks do not justify the death of Afghan children either."

"Beginning The 100 Years War"

Independent Jornal do Brasil ran a byline by Candido Mendes, Chairman,
Senior Board of Unesco's Social Sciences International Council (10/23):
"Bush's speech--his face etched with new lines upon entering the war on
terror--made very clear the character of the escalation that began with
bombing the cities of Afghanistan....  But launching this has set into
motion a holy war kindled by bin Laden, who hasn't assumed
responsibility for the catastrophe in New York but implies it by
fingering the rosary beads of U.S.  acts of aggression, on the greatest
nation of infidels to be defeated in this 'prophetic vanguard' of Islam. 
A 100-year conflict...is in the contenders' minds....  But the same way
Bush announced a long conflict in the vein of resuming the Cold War, the
Eastern apocalyptic enemy promises to establish irreversible fear.... 
The burning fuse promised by Washington is a long one, and foresees a
global task to eradicate all traces of terrorism, an operation that may
question the continued support of Eastern nations....  One still doesn't
have the final balance of the U.S.  impasse on the bread and bomb
policy, that in a new scale would have the same purpose of the Marshall
Plan....  To what degree can eating the enemy's food rations dismantle
the Afghan mind? Or above all...will the world alliance against bin
Laden continue if the fight for mankind starts to resort to
geo-strategic and economic interests of some partners? The immediate
test after October 7 is not of the Taliban removal.  But rather, how
many of its people--with bases in Pashito in Pakistan--will or will not
overthrow General Musharaff, and when will bin Laden's disappearance
break through the barrier of the universal exile to transform itself
into an irreversible myth?"

MEXICO: "The New U.S.  Imperialist Adventure"

Angel Trejo wrote in nationalist Informador (10/20): "The military
actions taken by the United States against Afghanistan are not part of a
war against terrorism...like the U.S.  government would have you
believe...rather it is a war of aggression by a powerful and rich state
against a poor nation--an imperialist war that has as its objective
strategic territorial domination of an economic-commercial stripe.... 
With (this) war, the United States is trying to assume control of
Central Asia....  There are at least two explanations for this new
imperialist aggression by the United States...one of these presents the
possibility that the famous 'hawks' of the military-industrial complex
promoted the events of 11 September 11...the other version, widely
disseminated in Asia and known here in Mexico...suggests that the 'black
Tuesday' attack was the work of the government of Israel to prevent Bush
from recognizing the Palestinian state."

"Fighting Terrorism With Genocide"

Guillermo Guajardo states in nationalist El Universal (10/20): "I do not
know which is worse: the Taliban terrorism or the anti-terrorist
genocide of the U.S.  against Afghanistan.  I believe that the civilian
targets are no mistakes in Afghanistan.  They were no mistakes in
Vietnam or Panama.  They are part of a process to break the cohesion
around the Taliban.  They are part of a short-term decisions that would
facilitate the victory over the enemy."

ECUADOR: "A Little Of Everything"

An opinion column by Edmundo Ribadeneira in leading centrist El Comercio
(10/22): "Secrecy accompanies the vengeful warfare process the United
States is waging against the Muslim population in Afghanistan.  IAPA
(The Inter-American Press Association) leaves no doubts about it in its
position adopted in Washington a few days ago, during its 57th General
Annual Assembly.  With the United States having taken absolute control
of the information about the war against Afghanistan, it has practically
imposed a denigrating censure on the freedom of the press, turning the
war into a riddle that the U.S.  manipulates as it pleases.  'Many years
ago--Danilo Arbilla, IAPA's president--said it was already proven that
the first casualty of war is the truth.'"

"Restrictions On The Press"

An editorial in leading centrist El Comercio noted (10/19): "It is not a
common fact that a society that always preserved and guaranteed the
freedom of the press, suddenly finds itself among those countries that
have violated that collective right proper of free societies. 
Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) details some emblematic cases,
after the attacks on September 11, serious threats and concerns about
the restriction of the press in the U.S.  were posed....  Department of
State officials tried to press VOA, a government radio, to prevent the
broadcasting of an interview with Mullah Mohammed Omar, Afghanist�n's
Taliban leader, interfering in this way with its editorial independence. 
IAPA's strong condemnation against terrorism--the enemy on which the
United States has concentrated its efforts--contained in another
document, did not prevent it from criticizing the government of the
country that has always preserved the freedom of the press.  At the
beginning of the so-called war against terrorism, it is clear that IAPA
has chosen the right path.  Congratulations."

"Who Is Winning The War?"

Center-right opposition Expreso asserted (10/19): "When National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell
requested U.S.  media and the Arab network Al Jazeera to cease
broadcasting...the messages of their enemy Usama bin Laden, they gave
the first sounding to the worldwide public opinion about who was winning
the war....  Because when the leaders of a nation recognize that one man
can frighten and paralyze with terror the most powerful country by only
appearing on TV and threatening to destroy them, the moral weakness of
those frightened becomes obvious....  The request (to cease
broadcasting) is based on the same logic as that argued by totalitarians
of all stripes, that the people cannot evaluate information...and the
state must protect them by curtailing information....  No one in the
United States was seized with terror because of Hitler's speeches or
Goebbles threats....  There was no need to censor them, because the
American people did it by themselves, sure of their victory....  But it
seems that for Condoleezza and Colin, Americans don't have (that
certainty) anymore.  If that is so, we have no doubt of who will win the
war, because a nation without commitment can be conquered by a single
man who has it."

HONDURAS: "Euphemisms"

Horacio H.  Medina, writing in liberal Tiempo (10/20): "It's a euphemism
to say 'collateral damage' in an effort to avoid calling murder, the
assassination of innocent citizens of all ages in a war declared against
no country nor government.  Other damaging and dangerous euphemisms are
now in vogue...such as calling 'smart bombs' bombs manufactured by
people who lack intelligence.  These manufactures are as intelligent as
the people who sell lethal chemicals and those who throw them at
defenseless people."

NICARAGUA: "Peace: Our March"

 Leftist El Nuevo Diario published an opinion article by Frei Betto
(10/19): The hateful attack of September 11 has been beneficial only to
a sector of society: the extreme right....  Humiliated in its
vulnerability, the White House has reacted paying back with the same
'currency', choosing the law of retaliation.  But in the
'eye-for-an-eye-' war both contestants end up blind.  And, for the first
time in history, an empire gets into war against a sole man, without
paying attention to the damages inflicted in the Afghan people.  The
United States has learned nothing from its own history....  The march
for peace is a call for active non-violence, a pressure so diplomacy
prevail over warlike furor, dialog over hate, negotiations over
attacks."

                                AFRICA

 SOUTH AFRICA: "War On Terrorism A Question Of Civil Liberties"

In the conservative Citizen David Kramer information officer of the SA
Zionist Federation, wrote (10/23): "Along with the very serious fight
against terrorism comes a substantial intrusion into the lives of those
who live under a regime or in an area that fits the description.  A
concept which is completely contradictory to the tenets of democracy.... 
Thus we have a democratic dilemma: If they do not fight with the means
available to them, they endanger their citizenry; if they do, they
appear to endanger the very freedoms which they are charged to
protect....  South Africa should be no exception.  We have seen the
potential in this country to unleash harm upon innocent civilians.... 
If our moment of truth has not yet been delivered, we should all be
asking when.  Two internationally recognized terrorist organizations
operate in this country and we have massive communities that openly
declare support against America."

"Censorship No Answer"

The liberal, pro-government Star wrote (10/22): "September 11 happened
and the attacks in the United States showed us that the democracies of
the West...may not be the safe havens of media freedom we assume.... 
Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting tapes of the U.S.  bombardments and
televised statements by Usama bin Laden, thus scooping the flag-waving
CNN....  While we support a war on terrorism, media restrictions smack
of a cover-up.  That's why Al-Jazeera's contribution is so necessary."

"Intellectual Debate On War Is Suppressed"

Filing this opinion piece from Amsterdam in Cape Town-based,
Afrikaans-language Die Berger, Gawie Keyser commented (10/22): "In times
of war democratic nations can lie without blushing....  The lack of
objective information from Afghanistan now also results in a lack of
intellectual debate....  The serious result of this is that
different-minded views are suppressed at the same time...those who are
opposed to the battle on grounds of political or cultural beliefs now
bear the mark 'terrorists' on their foreheads....  A clever move by the
American propaganda machine has just surfaced....  The Pentagon has
spent millions of dollars to prevent Western media from obtaining
detailed photographs of the attacks, which is provided by civilian
satellites....  Fearful of freedom of speech issues it was rather
decided to buy all the pictures before it is released to the world... 
Added to this is the friendly but urgent request by Bush to media
organizations not to air bin Laden videos....  This can all be related
back to original warning by Bush: 'Those who are not for us, are against
us.'...  Hence at present no debate is possible re advantages or
otherwise of the war in Afghanistan....  The lack of objective, reliable
information from the war zone does not facilitate a balanced debate
either....  The propaganda of the anti-terror coalition is so loud that
thousands of refugees in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan
may yet become the forgotten victims of war....  It stands to reason
that the safety of its troops weigh far more heavily with America than
Afghan children who are starving to death....  During war time clear
thinking is not an option....  Realpolitic is."

"The Wild, Wild West"

Columnist Justice Malala wrote in his weekly column for the Sunday Times
(10/21): "The reason the United States and Britain are infinitely better
places than almost all of the Muslim world is that the freedoms to
assemble, to speak and to move as one wishes are enriched in
constitutions and practiced and protected vigorously....  But the war on
terrorism has raised a new specter as freedoms are curtailed and
security agencies are given astonishing powers to follow and arrest
suspects on the flimsiest evidence....  In its war against terrorism,
the West is eroding the very qualities that made it great and becoming
more like the enemies it deplores."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Can.Congress.Convene.Online?]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Take.stand.against.smear.campaign,.Abdullah.tells.media]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:57 PST