December 19, 2004
Shifting Realities in Fallujah
Sometimes I think that I am living in "The Twilight Zone." The reporting on Fallujah is an excellent example. From basic data about Fallujah to implementation of actions in Fallujah, so many questions, and so many challenges of reality emerge.
I have gotten accustomed to the estimate of the pre-attack population of Fallujah being given as 300,000. This (until recently) has been the most reported population figure. Prior to the most recent invasion, it was broadly reported that approximately 300,000 lived in Fallujah, and the all but about 50,000 to 60,000 had left the city (for example: Escape from Fallujah: refugees flood nearby towns, The US Media and Fallujah). Given this commonly accepted figure of 300,000, I have been concerned about a growing shift in the reporting on the population which to 250,000 (Fallujans to Begin Returning Home).
What happened to those who stayed in Fallujah? Is it just coincidental that Fallujah had an estimated population of 300,000 and all but 50-60,000 left prior to the invasion, and that the new estimates so closely match the original estimates minus those who remained behind? Is the Fallujan death toll 50,000 people?
While this is a frightening transformation of numbers (reality being re-written before our eyes), it totally ignores that some estimates of the population were as high as 500,000 (Fallujah: A multilayered picture emerges). So we have 500,000 to 300,000 to 250,000.
This coincides with another shift - the reporting shift from Fallujah to Anbar Province.
Of course, also in the news blackout is the use of prohibited weapons during the most recent fighting - namely, napalm and poison gas.
The sense of unreality increases as the plans for letting folks back into Fallujah emerges. These plans are detailed in articles from the Washington Post, such as Fallujans to Begin Returning Home, and Asia Times' The failed US face of Fallujah.
Given the security measures for readmitting Fallujans to their homes, one has to wonder if a Fallujah is a testing ground for control and tracking of large populations with biometric identification techniques (Marine Corps deploys Fallujah biometric ID scheme). Is this similar to the plan within the new Intelligence Reform bill just signed by Bush which requires security baselines for driver's licenses? These baselines will create a national commonality of identification (including biometric data) for the licenses issued by all states (Drivers licenses changes).
What seems abundantly clear, even through the whitewash and silence of the US corporate press is that Fallujah is a massive disaster on the human front (Fallujah - Off the Front Pages but Hell Rages On.
Much has been written about the Orwellian nature of our times. I see that clearly with the "reporting" on Fallujah as history gets "massaged" to fit the current "story." I have to wonder how many people are even aware that this is happening. Has the media bombardment so numbed the brains of the population that inconsistencies and shifting reports go totally unnoticed? I fear that is indeed the case. Fallujah is not the only example of this revisionism, but it is a remarkable one.
Orwell in Fallujah: << The world's most lethal killing machine >> december 19, 2004
(Orwell a Falloudja : << La plus grande machine de mort du monde >>)
American soldier:Everything is destroyed chief. Dead everywhere. We can send the natives for the cleaning and the rebuilding
Iraqi worker: If that is their democracy, I prefer dictatorship.
On the sleeve: magnetic ID card
This manipulation of words invented and implemented with the prime goal being deception of the general public is terribly disturbing. Why are the "insurgents" called that instead of "rebels" or even "freedom fighters," a term that Reagan used proudly to define the contras who used very similar tactics to produce civil unrest in Nicaragua?
Anyone who has ever studied language and/or culture, knows how powerful subtleties of words can be. The despicable contras who were no more than a band of US-supported thugs were called "freedom fighters." Today, the rebellious activities in Iraq are never deemed as such, but rather referred to as "insurgent" activities, as if they've decended on the country from some unnamable, unknowable place, and have no base of support. We know, we must recognize,that this is not true.
The redefinition and "renaming" of things so that they sit better in the stomachs of the American consumer is a btoad-based tactic that I'm glad you are exposing here. It is used constantly in nothing less than an attempt to mislead.
Posted by: Pamela at December 20, 2004 12:02 PM