berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) (12/13/84)
>According to an analyst interviewed on last night's news, it seems >very likely that the Iranian troops were faking the assault on the >plane, largely for impact on the world TV audience. He made several >points, but among them are (i) no-one storms a hijacked plane by a >single obvious entrance; (ii) there was no need for smoke, except >to ensure that the TV cameras did not see what was happening; (iii) >there was no need to appear to beat up a hijacker on the tarmac >except for the TV cameras. There were other more technical points, >which I forget. >-- > >Martin Taylor ----------------------------------------- OK folks, now let's pay attention! We are in the MIDST of a classic example of how news gets distorted to serve political interests. This case is a CLASSIC because the distortion is severe: creating a popular impression in the public mind that is close to 180 degrees away from the factual events. The case is a CLASSIC because the interests served are those of the current presidential administration. Hints and inuendos have been dropped, by unnamed "analysts" as well as by State Dept Secretary Schutz himself that the Iranians were in cahoots with the hijackers of that plane. But the two Americans who were tortured and survived militantly deny this. They report the Iranians did indeed save their lives in a brave storming of the plane. Their comments were reported on National Public Radio NPR 12/12/84. They are now in Frankfurt undergoing de-briefing. Will their story change under pressure? Perhaps, but hopefully not. Will the effect of the inuendos remain in the public mind? Unfortunately, probably so. It serves Reagan's foreign policy interests well to continue to see Iran as a devil, a pure evil. But it serves the American people better to deal with facts as they exist and to make balanced foreign policy judgements based on reality, not self-serving myths. This is not a defense of the rotten Khomeni regime, only a defense of the need to deal with events as they happen, not as someone's policy might wish them to have happened. -Andy Berman "...and the truth shall make your free!"
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/15/84)
Did the Iranians fake the assault on the hijacked airliner? Were they
cooperating with the hijackers? The available information boils down to
this:
1. One of the surviving Americans, and a British pilot say they saw no
evidence of cooperation. Two Pakistani passengers say the Iranians
*were* cooperating with the hijackers. I don't imagine that the
passengers were in a good position to judge whether the assault was
faked, and in any case, the passengers disagree.
2. TV coverage of the assault revealed several anomalies. (The use of
smoke *is* unusual, because it blinds both good and bad guys; flash
and concussion grenades are preferred.)
I really can't form a strong opinion on this kind of evidence. Maybe they
faked the attack, and maybe they didn't.
Andy Berman doesn't have any trouble making up his mind about this. He's
certain the Iranians didn't have anything to do with the hijackers, and
furthermore, he's convinced that Reagan is manipulating the news to make
things appear otherwise.
The US government didn't have any trouble arriving at the opposite
conclusion with respect to the Iranians. I haven't heard what the State
Department has concluded about media manipulation yet.
I think both Mr. Berman and the US government are leaping from the evidence
to a conclusion that fills some sort of need. In Berman's case, the
conclusion fills his need to believe that Reagan (or the US, or whatever)
can do no good; likewise the US government needs to believe, or at least to
claim, that Iran works evil.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner