This video says about itself:
Corporate media support war crimes?
Dana Loesch, a CNN contributor, has come forward and admitted she’d join the troops to urinate on dead Afghans. Earlier this week a video of US Marines urinating on dead Afghans has gone viral and caused uproar around the world. Other members of the media have come forward and confessed that they don’t see anything wrong with the Marines’ disgraceful acts. Some American war vets disapproved of the actions of the troops. Abby Martin, founder of MediaRoots.Org, joins us to examine the situation.
By Harvey Thompson:
19 September 2012
According to the Taliban, Saturday’s assault on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan was inspired by opposition to the provocative anti-Islamic video concocted by right-wing elements in the US, and the stationing at the base of the third in line to the British throne, Prince Harry.
The response of the British military was a typical mixture of evasion and bluster. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was “entirely predictable” that a claim would be made that Prince Harry was the primary target regardless of whether he was near the point of attack or not.
A senior British Army officer told the Sunday Telegraph: “This was a determined attack which achieved its aim of getting global press coverage…. But they are deluded if they really think they can storm Camp Bastion and kill or seriously injure Prince Harry.”
In reality, the assault on the heavily fortified NATO base has revealed Afghanistan—subject to a bloody 11-year-long US-led occupation-—as a country seething with a popular and increasingly sophisticated insurgency.
NATO forces are increasingly besieged by the hostile population and unable to rely on their Afghan “allies”. Also at the weekend, a series of so-called green-on-blue shootings of NATO troops by NATO-trained Afghan forces left six US and British soldiers dead.
In the person of Prince Harry, the Camp Bastion attack has thrown into sharp relief the unholy nexus between the British royal family, the military and the media.
Harry was first dispatched to Afghanistan’s Helmand province in 2008, after a previous decision to deploy him to Iraq was rejected as too risky.
Censorship over the details of his deployment revealed an unprecedented level of covert collaboration between the MoD and the palace, with media in Britain and internationally—all of whom conspired to deceive the public.
Brokered during three meetings of 30 to 40 media representatives and military top brass between September and December 2007, the media agreed on a collective blackout until Harry’s tour of duty was completed, in return for pre-deployment interviews and several journalists being embedded with his regiment to pool interviews, video footage and photographs. It was even arranged for Harry to be brought home on a Friday for the convenience of the printing schedules of daily and Sunday newspapers.
When the story eventually broke, a statement by General Richard Dannatt, then head of the British Army, praised the British media for their “highly responsible attitude.”
The BBC justified its complicity by saying, “A news blackout is unusual, but not unique” and claimed it was to “minimise the danger” to Harry and other troops fighting alongside him.
But as the World Socialist Web Site wrote at the time, the attempt of the media to rationalise its actions only further exposed the central fiction.
“If the issue was Harry’s safety and that of his fellow soldiers, how was this facilitated by having reporters and cameramen follow him around Helmand, supposedly only hundreds of metres away from the front line?”
The deployment and ensuing press coverage was aimed at serving up raw propaganda in support of US and British-led aggression against the peoples of the Middle East.
A Labour MP was suspended from the Commons yesterday for accusing defence ministers of lying about how British troops were in Afghanistan to protect our national security: here.
Peace campaigners are to target a northern RAF base where a squadron is being deployed to operate deadly drones in Afghanistan: here.