Fake war atrocity reports from past can teach us | Beaufort County Now | Learn from history

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)


Earlier this month, Joe Biden referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “brutal” “war criminal” who should be put on trial for his actions in Ukraine. Biden then used these allegations of war crimes to call on Congress to provide more weapons and money to Ukraine and demand increased sanctions against Russia and its citizens. 

Republicans in Congress have been happy to comply, voting unanimously in the Senate to revive the World War II-era Lend-Lease Program. So far, Congress has approved $14 billion in aid to Ukraine (enough to pay for one complete border wall between the United States and Mexico).

Even President Trump, who should know better than to trust anything coming out of the D.C. swamp—especially when it concerns Russia and Eastern Europe—has seized upon the war crimes language. He has echoed Biden, in fact, calling the Russian war in Ukraine a “genocide.” Trump isn’t nearly as crazed as the leftists, of course. He lacks the requisite bloodlust. 

Still, Trump and his supporters have plenty of reason to be skeptical of claims that the Russians are committing atrocities. We Americans have a long and proud tradition of being lied into war with false and lurid claims of war crimes abroad. We would do well to develop a healthy sense of distrust for anything about which the media, White House, and both parties are in agreement—especially when it comes to American intervention abroad.

Most Americans, at this point, know that the 2003 war in Iraq was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them. The infamous image of Colin Powell holding up a vial of white powder before the United Nations is proof positive of the willful deception engaged in by the Bush Administration to push us into war. 

Less well known is that the first Gulf War was also based on a lie. 

Unpacking the precise nature of that lie is instructive for our contemporary situation. 

On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The immediate response from President George H. W. Bush was to compare Hussein to Adolf Hitler. In an August 8 speech from the Oval Office, Bush argued, “if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930s, we see in Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbors.”


The argument that we have a right and duty to “resist aggression” abroad, even that which has no immediate connection to preserving our rights and liberties, will be familiar to Americans. But, at the time, public opinion polling for U.S. military involvement in the region was firmly divided. 

Most Americans did not care about the geopolitical intrigue between two authoritarian dictatorships on the other side of the world. They would be made to care, however. 

On October 10, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as “Nayirah”—to protect her from reprisals ostensibly—testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus about what she had seen on a recent trip to Kuwait: “I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the children to die on the cold floor. It was horrifying.”

The visceral image of Iraqi troops butchering infants in hospitals seized the political world by storm. More than 30 million Americans saw footage of the testimony that night on ABC’s “Nightly News” and NBC’s “Nightline.” Seven senators cited the killing of infants by Iraqi troops in their speeches in defense of war with Iraq. President Bush referenced Nariyah’s testimony of baby killings more than six times in public speeches about the war. Amnesty International initially supported Nariyah’s testimony. 

It was all a lie. 

A relevant detail from the testimony had been left out—Nariyah’s last name. In a 1992 documentary for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the U.S. media couldn’t be bothered to do real journalism), reporters from the show “The Fifth Estate” investigated Nariyah’s claims. They discovered that her real name was Nariyah Al-Sabah—her father was Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasser Al-Sabah. Both Nasser and Nariyah were members of the Kuwaiti royal family and were part of a coordinated media campaign by the Kuwaiti government to gin up American support for the liberation of Kuwait.

The Sabah family has ruled the small oil-producing kingdom since the late 19th century when Mubarak Al-Sabah murdered his brother and seized power—and brought the small Gulf nation into British orbit. Today, Kuwait is one of the poorest Gulf states and rife with corruption

Kuwait, far from being a beacon of democracy, was and is a repressive neo-feudal fiefdom in the hands of a single family. On their behalf, 149 American troops died in the First Gulf War, and U.S. taxpayers spent $116 billion to take this regime from the hands of Saddam Hussein and return it to the Al-Sabah oligarchs. 

All of this was, in part, because of the skillful propaganda campaign worked by the Kuwaiti government. Citizens for a Free Kuwait, an interest group that received money from the Kuwaiti government, spent $10 million to gin up war fever. They hired the consulting group Hill and Knowlton to help them craft their public relations strategy. It was Hill and Knowlton that zeroed in on the strategy of emphasizing Iraqi war crimes.  

The Human Rights Caucus was a prime target for Kuwaiti propaganda. The caucus’ headquarters were located in the office building that Hill and Knowlton owned. In fact, the caucus got a sweetheart deal on rent from the PR firm. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos, a Hungarian immigrant and Holocaust survivor who was the Democratic co-chairman of the caucus, knew Nariyah’s identity but concealed it from his Republican counterpart, Rep. John Porter of Illinois. Lantos and the caucus appeared to benefit financially from Nariyah’s testimony. They later received a $50,000 donation from Hill and Knowlton. 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how the sausage really gets made in American politics. It isn’t corruption if it’s legal! Put simply, Nariyah’s testimony shows that the American military and members of Congress are for sale to foreign powers—and on the cheap, too!

The Kuwaitis, on the other hand, got a 1 million percent return on their $10 million investment in war fever propaganda. Later investigation by the World Health Organization and Canadian and American journalists discovered that the Iraqi military had not stolen or destroyed a single baby, and no evidence of the intentional killing of Kuwaiti infants in hospitals could be found. Images of mass graves for these children were entirely fabricated. 

But the American public and our politicians never learn. The three decades since the Gulf War have featured lie after lie by our ruling class on every subject under the sun. The COVID hysteria alone is proof of the vicious mendacity of our regime and its apparatchiks. 

Everything our ruling class cares about, it lies about. On that basis alone, Americans should reflexively distrust every claim about “Putin’s war crimes” when those claims come from the mouths of our geriatric oligarchs and their media mouthpieces.

If the fake Nariyah testimony teaches us anything—it is that Americans desperately need, and deserve, to have a real country . . . one that isn’t for sale to the highest bidder.


Go Back


( April 30th, 2022 @ 9:12 am )
One famous disinformation campaign in war still impacts us today, the fake narrative of the "Fort Pillow massacre". The northern media falsely accused General Nathan Bedford Forrest's Confederate cavalry of executing captured black soldiers after capturing Fort Pillow in west Tennessee in 1864. That lie continues to be spread today as fake "history". This was a deliberate media distortion at the time.

What really happened? Fort Pillow had been manned for some time by a regiment of white Tennessee Unionists commanded by a failed lawyer from that area, who had been conducting a reign of terror on local citizens. Many of Forrest's cavalrymen had been recruited from that part of Tennessee so they were well aware of it. The Union command was also aware of it and the bad PR it caused, so they added a second regiment to the fort, a black regiment, which as with all black union regiments had white officers. The white colonel of the black regiment had longer service than the failed lawyer commanding the white Tennessee Unionists, and so was senior officer and able to restrain the Tennessee Unionist reign of terror on civilians.

Early in the battle for Fort Pillow, the senior colonel was killed in action and the failed lawyer resumed command of the fort. He decided that giving whiskey to his troops would have them fight better, so he opened the fort's liquor stores. The officers of the black regiment ordered their own troops not to consumer the liquor, but the white Tennessee Unionists passed around the whiskey among themselves.

Forrest's troops got the upper hand, and it appeared the fort was about to fall. A truce was called to discuss a surrender. A Union gunboat on the river violated the truce by trying to move into a more advantageous position, and a Confederate battery on the river fired a warning shot over its bow to warn it to maintain position. The gunboat stopped trying to violate the truce, but drunk white Tennessee Unionist soldiers hearing the cannon shot decided the battle must be back on and started firing at Confederate soldiers, and the battle resumed.

When General Forrest's troops breached the walls of the Forst on one side, some of its garrison from both regiments tried to flee in the opposite direction, where they ran into more of Forrest's troops. Some groups of drunk white Tennessee Unionists surrendered, then changed their minds and started shooting, causing some Confederate casualties. As a result, Confederate troops became more wary and if there was any ambiguity in an apparent surrender, they did not accept it. While it was the drunk white Tennessee Unionists who most often had an apparent surrender rejected, some of the soldiers from the black regiment also were effected. Given the surrender and then change their minds acts of Union troops, the Confederates were certainly justified in the steps they took in response.

The Union newspaper reporters conveniently failed to mention why this situation occurred and also that most of the Union soldiers whose surrenders were not accepted were white Tennessee Unionists rather than black soldiers. They had a narrative they wanted to present.

The war crimes in Ukraine, on the other hand, are extremely well documented.
( April 29th, 2022 @ 7:46 am )
One account of an atrocity from one person with no real proof may indeed be questionable, but that is NOT what we are seeing in Ukraine. There the evidence is overwhelming of systemic infliction of mass atrocities by Russian forces. Russians / Soviets are in fact known for such brutal assault and looting. In World War II it was officially encouraged right up to Stalin, and it is estimated that Soviet soldiers raped 2 million women in Germany. They were told that German women and private property were booty of war that they could take at will. When I worked in Moldova, I heard numerous times from people there who had heard from older relatives, or in a couple of cases talked to older people who had experienced it, that there was a huge difference in behavior when the German army went through from when the Soviets did. The German soldiers were polite, did not rape or brutalize the locals and if they wanted something they asked for it and paid for it, or at least offered to. In some cases, all they wanted was their rations heated, and in those instances often offered to share their own rations with the locals who helped them heat it. The Soviet soldiers, however, took what they wanted, whether it was food, alcohol, personal valuables, or their wives or daughters, and if there were objections to them taking these things, the objector was likely to be shot.

Given the behavior of Soviet soldiers in World War II, the behavior of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is not at all surprising, and there is very ample evidence of war crimes of both.

CDC, FDA workers say incidents of political interference Rant & Rave, Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics Tillis tries to torpedo GOP in mid-terms with new amnesty bill for illegals


Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Local introvert Esther Leigh surprised her husband of ten years Thursday by sitting him down and explaining that he'd been mispronouncing her name this whole time.
The National Football League (NFL) faced backlash on Wednesday afternoon over a map it published that showed Taiwan belonging to China.
Biden tried to warn us. He's been sounding the alarm for weeks now, desperately trying to alert the nation to a grave threat to our national security: ULTRA MAGA.
U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is running as a Republican in Pennsylvania, was grilled by Fox News “Primetime” host Will Cain on Wednesday on issues that matter most to conservative voters, including guns and abortion.
Tomorrow will mark 75 years since the first race at North Wilkesboro Speedway on May 18, 1947, and on the eve of that historic day, Governor Roy Cooper visited the speedway to highlight the significant investments it will receive for repairs.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas triggered laughs from his audience when he uttered a terse statement regarding the way those in the media do their job.
A tale of two Sandys has come to an end as previous GOP nominee Sandy Smith has won over Rocky Mount Mayor Sandy Roberson in North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District GOP primary race.
Last week, the North Carolina State Board of Education approved a request to begin drafting new science and healthful living standards for public schools.


Back to Top