Venda do Novo Banco pode representar 8% do M&A na banca europeia este ano

[Dwer]

Excelente artigo do João Diniz de Sousa e boa réplica do Incognitus.

Parabéns,

[Incognitus]

Muitos pontos são válidos, outros, mostram a inclinação para achar pontos que reforçem a tua opinião pré-estabelecida...

Antes de tudo, eu também concordo que algumas estações (CNN, Sky, etc) não estão a ser isentas, mas acho que foste longe demais nos argumentos.

Por exemplo:

1) Não podes esperar exposições longas (lenghty) na TV. Ninguém lhes liga. E aliás, argumentações demasiado longas geralmente não são muito fortes - pois denunciam a falta de razões fortes (qualidade) ao apostar na quantidade;

2) O Facto de se estarem a encontrar muitas PROTECÇÕES químicas entre as forças Iraquianas, denuncia a provável existência de capacidades químicas. As armas químicas são indiscriminadas, e geralmente o agressor também se protege dos seus efeitos;

3) A violação de Genebra sobre apresentar POWs foi infeliz (até porque os US fizeram o mesmo), mas OUTRAS violações são mesmo MUITO relevantes (combater com roupas civis, utilizar civis como escudo, lutar a partir de Hospitais, falsos "surrender", etc).

4) É de esperar que os Iraquianos mais favoráveis aos US sejam os mais pobres, e os que mais se lhe oponham sejam os mais "ricos". Isto porque naturalmente quem mais tinha a perder com a queda do regime, é quem o apoia, e quem o apoia é por ele beneficiado, logo sendo mais "rico" que a média;

5) No caso do Marine que fez o atentado às suas próprias forças, a sua oposição à guerra não é uma explicação aceitável. O seu NOME (Asam Akbar?) é uma explicação muito mais provável...

6) No Barhein não se tratou de um acidente. Foi uma bilha de gás que foi propositadamente explodida ... em resultado de manifestações anti-guerra;

7) Sobre utilizarem focas, bem, os US utilizam focas E golfinhos para identificar Minas. Ainda agora enviaram golfinhos para tentar desminar o porto de Umm Qsar.

8) A Destruição do palácio no centro de Bagdad teve claramente como objectivo mostrar o poderio bélico em Bagdad inflingindo o mínimo de baixas civis. É natural que escolhessem o palácio pela sua área e simbolismo. Era o único sítio onde podiam fazer aquela "demonstração". O outro objectivo que mencionaste tb se aplica (somos contra Saddam, não o povo).

9) As tácticas usadas pelos Iraquianos, amorais como dizes, são de facto AMORAIS. Isto porque ao combaterem com roupas civis, fazendo falsos "surrenders" ou combatendo a partir de hospitais, vão estar a colocar em risco CIVIS REAIS, SURRENDERS REAIS E HOSPITAIS REAIS. Aliás, tenho a certeza que qualquer grupo grande de (somente) homens neste momento é um alvo justo no Iraque, devido à aplicação dessas tácticas.

10) Sobre mísseis cairem no Irão ou na Turquia, é necessário entender que os mísseis são máquinas, também avariam, e possuem muito menos sistemas redundantes que os aviões (pois n estão vidas de pilotos em jogo). Naturalmente, ao utilizarem-se milhares de mísseis e bombas, vais ter uma % de erro (que nas bombas pode ir até 7-10%!). Ou seja, não procures "intenções" em situações que são de esperar estatisticamente. De resto, os mísseis no Irão até podem ser iraquianos. E mais, os mísseis terra-ar e as DCC vão para cima, e se não atingem nada, "voltam para baixo".

11) O uso de armas nucleares seria certamente feito se fosse utilizadas armas nucleares contra a coligação. Senão, realmente não seriam (a menos que um ataque químico/biológico tivesse mesmo MUITO sucesso). Existem armas nucleares tácticas.

[amsf]

A melhor arma contra a desinformação é o conhecimento prévio das questões pois a informação difundida durante os conflitos é maioritáriamente propaganda como bem o demonstrou o nosso amigo.

Alguns dos pontos mencionados não são intencionais mas devido à complexidade da mente humana hajem da forma acima explicita sobre a nossa forma de raciocinar...

[João Dinis de Sousa]

Meus amigos, aqui está a cópia de um email que enviei à minha amiga americana Dorothy Tennov àcerca da incrível manipulação que os media têm feito sobre a guerra, de forma a aumentar a sua aceitação junto do público, especialmente junto da maioria de imbecis que compõe qualquer população. Claro que não espero que estas coisas que aqui descrevo sejam grandes descobertas minhas. Provavelmente, muitos de vocês já detectaram estes e outros casos.

Hello Dorothy,

Hereby I send you an array of tricks used by the mainstream media that help to make up more acceptance of the war by the American masses and to serve other strategic purposes. I am in a relatively priviledged point since I have access to several US and European TVs. I can tell the difference between all of them. British SkyNews and American CNN are the most one-sided, by obvious reasons. British BBC World is admirable by its equilibrium. French, German, Portuguese, and other TVs are also relatively balanced.


Part I - Obvious manipulative techniques to promote acceptance
--------------------------------------------------------------

- Civilian Iraqi casualties are seldom focused, and if they are mentioned, it is quickly, without images; if some images are shown, they are from AlJazeera or Iraqi TV, which associates these images to the one-sidedness of Arab TVs

- Great emphasis in forthcoming humanitarian aid by the coalition

- Coalition casualties are minimized, first described as 'missing' during days, after, confirmation of death doesn't come for all that were missing; this lowers the perception of number of casualties in the earlier phase of the conflict

- Emphasis in heroism of 'our' troops; this is ironic, since the ground troops *almost never really combat*; when they encounter resistance they stop outside enemy fire range, wait patiently, until overwhelming firepower (bombs, missiles, etc) helped by a perfect information system, anihilate that enemy position; that is the policy of nearly zero casualties

- No mention of Iraqis' heroism (it is 100 times greater than the heroism of coalition troops, by obvious reasons)

- Demonization of Saddam, mentioning his self-interest ('only wants to remain in power') or his wickedness ('he is making more atrocities against his people'), and omitting his political objectives, ideals, and patriotism (of course, I agree that whathever these ones, his atrocities were real and unacceptable)

- Almost total absence of profound and lengthy intellectual debate in TV with different opinions about the war, with *intelligent* opponents of this war expressing themselves; if some opinions are shown, they last for 10 seconds, so they can't articulate lengthy arguments

- Total absence of Arab *intellectuals* explaning, lenghtly and detailedly their points of view

- Worldwide manifestations against the war are shown, but lengthy and powerful arguments against the war are not, thus associating the anti-war movement to 'irrationality', 'emotionality', 'mindlessness'

- In some manifestations, the worst aspects of anti-americanism, like burning the American flag, are focused more time, causing the impression that those who oppose the war are necessarily enemies of America

- Large time dedicated to the description and images of weaponry in action, reducing the time available to human aspects, which shifts the attention away from the human drama

- Emphasis on funerals of coalition casualties, which gathers a lot of sympathy for the cause; additionaly, relatives are shown crying, which gives the impression that 'we' are humane, 'we' mourn our death (as if the Iraqis didn't), so 'we' are morally better even in this regard; additionally, this reinforces the portrayal of our troops as heroes

- Continuous emphasis on the danger of Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons, even if the real threat is very low (for example, a lot of journalists are shown with gas masks, following an alert); the real danger is low (for example, Iraqi missiles have a total lack of accuracy), but this reminds the public of the alleged justification for the war, and contributes to the demonization of the enemy

- Dismissal of French and German views about this crisis, omitting their good arguments, reducing their views to truncated and sterotyped versions, that last 10 seconds in the screen; emphasis on 'French economic interests', 'French lack of historical gratitude to the US', etc, instead of focus on actual and detailed reasons for their opposition to the US position

- A strong emphasis on news, and a notorious lack of political debate

- Great emphasis on the Iraqis who applaud the arrival of the coalition forces; it is not clear whether they are majoritary, even in southern shiite regions, but the ones who cheer the coalition forces in groups of 10 or 20 are given great focus

- Great emphasis in Iraqi violation of Geneva convention, by showing the faces of POWs in TV; Iraqi POWs were also shown on TV, and some images were hightly humilliating too, but this is not said, the only wrongdoing is placed on the other side

(Of course, this list is not exhaustive; many more things could be found; please, send me more you have seen!)


Part II - Not so obvious manipulative techniques to promote acceptance
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- In anti-war manifestations shown, great focus is put in banners saying 'No blood for oil'; this is convenient, because the argument that war is for oil is silly, easy to refute, and hides the real causes of war

- In Arab manifestations shown, they burn Israeli flags as much as American flags, but the latter are given much greater focus to cause the impression that their anger is just 'anti-American', which diverts public attention from the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and American unconditional support of Israel

- The poorest and more desperate of southern Iraqi civilians are the ones approaching coalition forces in search of food; food is given to them, and this is shown; so giving the impression of 'inferior' peoples, governed by basic needs, poor, dark, speaking no English; for the common American they seem barbaric, so 'we' are bringing them the light of civilization, so our cause is just

- When an American (probably a Muslim) man blew 2 grenades against fellow Americans, this act was motivated by his opposition to war; in earlier reports, he was portrayed as mentally disturbed, 'weird behaviour'; only later this interpretation was corrected, but half the American public may have catch only the first explanation, which was, obviously, more convenient

- An explosion occured in Bahrein, near American installations; it was likely a terrorist act, since explosions are rare and American installations occupy a small part of Bahrein; however, it was said that it was an accident; this is convenient, to keep public attention away from the danger of a wave of outrage in Arab countries in the wake of Iraq's war, thus hiding the risks of this war

- Before the war, it was said that snakes and scorpions in the Iraqi desert would be a significant danger to coalition troops; this is likely untrue, but it produced an instantaneous association in millions of American minds: snakes and scorpions (which are repugnant in all cultures, symbols of evil, poisonous) became associated with Iraq, the Iraqis, Saddam ('look the enemies we are facing')

- A naval technique of training seals to defend war vessels was shown; it is unlikely that seals play any relevant role in the protection of modern aircraft carriers; however, this produced an instantaneous positive association between 'our' forces, and seals (which are mammals, nice, admired by humans, play with children in zoos)

- Operation 'Decapitation Strike' was launched in the first hours, trying to kill Saddam; probably he was not hit, and the probability of success was likely low; however, it reinforced the (true) paradigm: we are targetting the Iraqi leadership, not the Iraqi people; so the operation would pay even with a 0% probability of success

- Same applies to the destruction of Saddam's palaces; it was useless, because nobody was already there; but it was filmed by TVs (well placed in an hotel from where filming would produce a nice firework effect, with apocalyptic aspect), and reinforced two ideas: 'War is against Saddam, not the people' and 'Our power is overwheliming'

- Ambushes made by Iraqi troops are referred as one of their main tactics, and presented in a negative way, almost implying they are unfair game; as if ambushes were not used in virtually all wars (for example, didn't the Americans use ambushes in their independence war?)

- Generally speaking, very high moral standards are routinely demanded from Iraqi forces (accused of combating in civilian clothes, faking surrender before attacking, etc), without a bit of comprehension for their difficult situation, facing an overwhelmingly superior force, with their country invaded, their cities bombed, the almost certain death of anyone who fight; is it so expectable that those who face these situations, dangers, and military inferiority must behave so morally and nicely? Again this reinforces the paradigm: we are moral, they are inherently immoral, so we must remind them in TV on an hourly basis of their moral duties... Put this to the extreme, one day they will be told that the only acceptable military tactic for them is to show up in very visible places, waiting for bombs...

- Omission of Christian Iraqis (who oppose the war as much as Muslims), to preclude the American public of thinking or even knowing that Christians are also suffering there; probably half of the American public doesn't even know that there are Christians in Iraq


Part III - Informative tricks with strategic objectives
-------------------------------------------------------

- A banquet with lobster was made by coalition forces in the desert, and this was shown; this could have been felt by the entire Arab world as offensive and humilliating: 'they are even making bankets while they invade and kill us'; this humilliation may be strategic: Arab leaders will think twice before embarking in anti-American policies (like supporting Al-Qaeda); however, if this was really a strategic move, it is not certain it will succeed, because anger can be stronger than reason

- Iraqi POWs were shown in a submissive position, agglomerated like sheep; a coalition soldier shouted: 'What do they want to do? To pray? Or to urinate?'; this association between 'pray' and 'urinate' (praying is something 'instinctual' in them, it is at the same level of a basic need like urinate) was felt as offensive and humilliating by the entire Arab world, so it may have served the same strategic purpose described above

- Missiles fell in Iran; official version is that it was by error; this is dubious, given the accuracy of missiles; it might have been a warning to Iran: 'Don't oppose us; don't support terrorists; don't build nuclear weapons; we are willing to defeat you too by force, if necessary'; so it was a strategic signal of *willingness to use force against Iran if necessary*, well understood by Iranian strategists but not by the masses

- Missiles fell in Turkey; official version is that it was by error; again this might have been a strategic signal to Turkey: 'We are angry because your lack of support during this crisis, and we show this with these missiles; remember, despite being an old US allie, now you really count nothing for us; and don't even think in sending your troops to Northern Iraq and playing any role in the pos-war political process'; again, the signal is understood by Turkish strategists but not by the public

- The two events mentioned above, function strategically as a signal to the entire Arab world too, understood by strategists, but not by most Arab public opinion, so they do not inflamme Arab hatred, but have a preventive effect in Arab policies

- Before the war, declarations were made by US and UK officials, saying that the use of nuclear weapon in this war was not out of question; this was an implicit warning to Saddam not to use his chemical weapons (but I doubt that the implicit threat would ever be executed)