• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Evolution of IED's a Four Part Series from the Washington Post

Dear Mr. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post.

Please choke on your own dick and die.


Thanks.

So I take it you've just never read any of this works? I found the link to be interesting and informative. Maybe I shouldn't place so much of my trust with Pulitzer winners.
 
From a guy that is over here in the fight, the piece was VERY well written and he did quite a bit of research. Maybe if you were over here, then you'd have a differing opinion as well. 'nuff said.
-ea6bflyr
 
I have no doubt it's accurate. But do we really need to know this at this point in time?
 
My earlier post was meant to define the context of propaganda, not start a tangential discussion about it. That being said, I was not calling the article propaganda nor saying that it was not propaganda; I was merely trying to define what propaganda is in the context it was used previously in the thread and trying to establish that the truth can be propaganda, if used as such.

Further, it is true that every op-ed piece is propaganda, so long as it attempts to make a point (which is the only type of op-ed worth publishing). It is also true that the truth can be propaganda, because while truth isn't necessarily subjective, its revelation can be used to change opinions and attitudes towards something--hence the phrase, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist."

Lastly, I did make up that definition. I extrapolated from the definitions provided by reference.dictionary.com.

You have my apologies for the threadjacking.
 
Back
Top