@IceCream
That's good to hear. I apologize if I was a little rude. I've been arguing with people non-stop over the past few days about this, and the responses I have been getting have been just unbelievable. I'm glad to see that people here aren't as stubborn as some of the other places I have been posting. I'm just really annoyed that the media labels anything that goes against what the government says as as 'conspiracy theory.' I'll admit, many conspiracy theories are completely ridiculous. But by belittling any claim against the government as a 'conspiracy theory,' the general masses tend to do the same and disregard those claims as nonsensical without analyzing these things themselves. (Of course, there are exceptions and not all people do this.) It raises questions on just how free our press really is.
Moving on, one thing to remember is that the CIA IS a part of the government. Plenty of non-government individuals have researched and analyzed the CIA's claims regarding bin Laden, and their arguments tend be stronger than than the evidence the CIA puts forth. Here is one example, and note that he cites what he is referring to allowing you to cross check his facts and analysis. This is something you don't see happen in today's government. Also note the CIA's use of generalities that attempt to influence without providing a tangible explanation to what they refer to or evidence to why they believe so.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
I don't believe that Osama was killed this week. Here's some backing evidence that supports the way the government misleads. Even if you take 9/11 out of the picture, we're left with the Iraq War, which has been admitted to haven been started on false pretenses. The war has been largely unpopular, especially recently, so now the government naturally wants to return the focus back to what allowed the war in the first place, Osama.
http://revision3.com/theyoungturks/tyt-55
I think part of the reason why this recent 'Osama' issue makes me as mad as it does is that I was still in high school when 9/11 happened. I was too young to know better, and I, too, bought completely into the war on terror. Now that I have the knowledge base to examine current events through the context of history, I see things much differently. It really angers me that I was taken advantage of. From this perspective, I also understand why education is so important, and it's disturbing that higher education is being cut so that the war can continue. Minnesota, where I live, has proposed a $400+ million cut to higher education. When I did the math, it was equivalent to 22 hours of February's funding to the war in Iraq alone, but it cuts my school's budget by 19%. This is beyond damaging, and it is happening nationwide. It's been progressively getting worse over the years. Over the past few years, I've watched scholarships shrink and disappear. Just last month they cut the one I've been on that has allowed me to go to school.
(Link to news on nationwide cuts)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=...10&aql=&oq=
What does this mean for education in the U.S.? If people only have high school history to base their analysis of current events off of, like I did during 9/11, will more people be more vulnerable to propaganda efforts? When I started studying history in college, I was shocked to find out that a lot of things I thought were true, weren't. It was also shocking to see just how narrow of a focus high school history is taught through. Ever since, I've been trying to put together whether revisionism in high school textbooks plays a role in shaping how we, as Americans, think about the current war. I'm sure everyone on this forum is familiar with textbook revisionism in Japan. It happens here too, but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone.
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=13211149
I've always been interested in WWII, especially since after 9/11. I was trying to figure out why earlier, and I made some interesting connections (at least I thought so). I just typed up an quick analysis for an ongoing research project I'm working on. It's a little long, but I thought I'd post an excerpt of it here anyway and see if anyone would take the time to give their opinion. It's a work in progress though.
High school history books teach WWII through a very narrow narrative that paints Nazi Germany as the villain and the U.S. as the hero, but it's not that clear cut. For one, the Allies were not against the holocaust itself. Despite this, WWII has become almost synonymous with the holocaust. At least that's the impression I have been given. Why might this be highlighted over other aspects of the war, such as the reasons that caused it? One reason might be that it's a disturbing reality that stirs deep emotions of hatred for oppression and a love for freedom. It paints a picture of the U.S. as liberators of foreign countries from oppression rather than presenting the facts without bias. Might this perspective affect how Americans view the current war on terror? By no means do I mean to belittle the holocaust, but there are plenty of other atrocities that are heavily overlooked.
If you have access to JSTOR, here's a very interesting article on American collective memory I just now found.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1908633
What did we learn about Japan's role in WWII during high school? (1) They bombed Pearl Harbor and brought the U.S. into the war. (2) They allied with Germany (the supreme evil). (3) Then we dropped the atomic bomb on them. We learned the horrors of chemical warfare through this context. Why was the focus on Japan only of these three points? It's very likely that this represents revisionism in the immediate post-WWII-era, since the Allies attempts to cover up Japanese war crimes. (It wasn't until 2007 that the bulk of documents at the National Archives regarding Japanese war crimes were declassified. Maybe in 30-60 years we'll learn the realities of the current war on terror in this way as well.)
What did the lessons of WWII teach us, and how might these lessons have been exploited after 9/11? (It sure shaped many American's opinion of the recent Tsunami, which is absolutely disgusting.
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/13/ear...rl-harbor/) (1) We learned that war is just when attacked. (In the context of WWII, I agree.) However, we did not learn the real reasons behind the war. What reasons were given for war following 9/11? We were attacked, and it was time to go kill them. Okay, cool. Let's go do that. ...But how can we measure terrorism? We can't. It's again, another generality that the government throws around while pointing to 9/11 and the Middle East. It's faceless and can be anywhere. That's why it needed someone like Osama. (2) Once the war in the Middle East began, what other generalities were used to justify the occupation? Well, we were there to liberate Afghanistan and later Iraq from oppressive regimes, and we were doing it in the name of freedom and democracy. (3) Lastly, the atomic bomb has taught us to fear chemical and nuclear warfare. (And rightfully so.) Sadly, these fears were exploited to bring war to Iraq.
Quickly, I want to touch on a couple generalities about the Vietnam War where fear was the dominating narrative in high school. It focused on the horrors of the enemy's guerrilla warfare and the horrors of the use of the chemical Agent Orange. More importantly, it was not a popular war, and it turned the American public completely against the draft. The unpopularity of the Vietnam War demonstrates why the government needs to portray the current war on terror as just and necessary. And with the draft gone, is cutting higher education in part geared toward getting young people to enlist? (Think about how enlisting in the military was sold to us in high school. It was a great way to serve the country AND pay for college, which is necessary to get a decent job in anything in today's world.)
Amidst this budget crises, it's too convenient for the government to suddenly capture Osama, kill him and dispose of any tangible evidence. It's a clear attempt to take the focus of the American public away from the budget crises that is directly tied to higher education while also attempting to positively focus the American public on the need for war. It's interesting to see how my friends and family have responded to this incident in relation to their education. Those who have gone to college and studied at least a little history tend to be more skeptical while those who have not tend to be supportive. In this regard, both the lack of knowledge that will inevitably stem from the cuts to higher education and the Osama incident play a role in attempting to bring the American public toward supporting the war. Of course, this is just my analysis. There's no way we can know what the government actually intends to do. Apparently, that's not how the 'democracy' we're supposedly fighting for works.
