The real gem here for me when it comes to propoganda is the sentence immediately after the highlighted bit. Check out how by placing it immediately after the sentence about criteria for investigation it's inviting the reader to assume that US war crimes are just misconduct, and allegations of misconduct at that.
But those people who exposed them didn't go through the proper channels you see. If they had done so, the crimes they uncovered would have been investigated. They certainly wouldn't have been found having committed suicide or have died in a very regrettable friendly fire incident.
The real gem here for me when it comes to propoganda is the sentence immediately after the highlighted bit. Check out how by placing it immediately after the sentence about criteria for investigation it's inviting the reader to assume that US war crimes are just misconduct, and allegations of misconduct at that.
Also the gall to make the argument that the US would investigate its war crimes when it brutally hunts down and imprisons people exposing them.
But those people who exposed them didn't go through the proper channels you see. If they had done so, the crimes they uncovered would have been investigated. They certainly wouldn't have been found having committed suicide or have died in a very regrettable friendly fire incident.