Caught Between Two Extremes

Despite the apparent failure of the armed approach taken by Washington in Afghanistan, both presidential candidates and the majority of Congress support not merely continuing this approach but intensifying it. McCain and Obama are not only in agreement that the Pentagon needs to send more troops into Afghanistan, they are also in agreement that it is the war that the US must win. Operating under the pretext that killing more Afghanis is somehow going to end the desire of Washington's Islamist enemies to attack it has not only created the current stalemate in Afghanistan, it has also spread the anti-American resistance into the tribal areas of Pakistan and threatens to engulf the Pakistani city of Peshawar. The recent killings of civilians by US and NATO forces only adds to the resistance, especially when the US denies the killings ever happened. -Why Afghanistan is Not the Good War



Individuals interested in thinking more deeply about the vexing question of whether or not Mr. Obama ought to escalate what has become an ugly guerrilla war in Afghanistan can entertain themselves here with a thought experiment I dreamed up using Colonel John R. Boyd's legendary briefing of the philosophy and conduct of war, Patterns of Conflict. It is designed to let you frame the issues at the heart of a successful counter-guerrilla operation and determine for yourself if adding a small number of boots on the ground in Afghanistan will bring light to the end of a tunnel created by an inept President and incompetent neocon henchmen. The danger of allowing sound-bite politics to define military strategy looms large for Obama and our nation. This bullet train for redeployment would do well to assess whether it's on the right track. -Afghanistan: Good War or Quagmire?

It was less than a month after September 11th, 2001 that the United States launched its attack, Operation Enduring Freedom on Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban. After the bombing expedition, the US refused to allow the expansion of peacekeeping troops from Kabul to the rest of the country, claiming it would interfere with the hunt for Taliban and al-Qaeda. Consequently, it re-empowered misogynist and fundamentalist warlords in the northern part of the country and allowed them to take part in government.



On paper, women are more equal to men than they were before, but in practical terms very little has actually changed in Afghanistan for women. There's increased sexual and domestic violence against women. Women parliamentarians are harassed and threatened.






Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a "war on terror."



Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.



Yes, Al Qaeda - a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics - was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. "We had to do something," you heard people say.



Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 - exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.



Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: "He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner." The doctor attending him said: "The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?" -Howard Zinn



I think even the diehard Obama supporters have come to realize that the US will be leaving troops in Iraq but will shift its attention to Afghanistan (similar in the way the our attentions were shifted away from Afghanistan to Iraq), thus causing the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate.



In my opinion, the deterioration is not due to the lack of "boots on the ground", but the occupation itself. Is it unreasonable of me to wonder if Iraq will suffer a similar fate of deterioration after the redeployment of troops. Considering US troops will remain in Iraq, but our renewed focus on the "War On Terror" will be in Afghanistan once AGAIN?

"The Chronological List of Islamic Terrorists Attacks"-1969

In my last blog, I covered the first event listed on the "Chronological List of Islamic Terrorists Attack" (the Robert Kennedy assassination) and revealed my motives to research the history behind these attacks. A myspacer used this list to justify our pre-emptive U.S. military action in the Middle East and I have recently noticed this list is posted on countless websites for the same purpose.

The second event on this list of chronological fear-mongering propaganda…

"Feb. 18, 1969 - Boeing 707 attacked at Zurich, Switzerland, killing the pilot and 3 passengers."

Hmm…and from Wikipedia…

Palestinians attacked an El Al plane at Zurich Airport killing the copilot and injuring the pilot. One Palestinian attacker was killed and others were convicted but later released.

…which is it then?? I wasn't able to find any details on this crime, other than one of the hijackers name was Amina Dhahbour, the first woman to participate in a foreign operation. Until I can find out more, I reject this as an "Islamic Terrorist Attack".

Next up on the timeline of terror…

"Aug. 29, 1969 - TWA 707 hijacked from Rome to Damascus, released with only wounded."

THE EVENT

Leila Khaled along with Salim Issawi hijacked TWA Flight 840 on its way from Rome to Athens, diverting the Boeing 707 to Damascus. She claims she ordered the pilot to fly over Haifa, so she could see her birthplace, which she could not visit. No one was injured, although the aircraft was blown up.

THE BACKGROUND

Leila Khaled was born in 1944 in Haifa. When the Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan, fighting broke out between the Arabs and Jews. Khaled's family fled to Lebanon in 1948, leaving her father behind until his home and business were seized, and he was deported to Egypt. Khaled recalls, "…a YWCA American girl, Jane Marlowe, came to live at our house in Sour for a week. She was placed in our home because my younger sister Khaledia had some relations with the YWCA and because most of us spoke English at home. Jane was a typical Yankee do-gooder who came to Sour to teach the "refugees" swimming, drawing, fun and games. Jane, like most American missionaries who come to the Arab world-whatever the garb they wear was a "pacifist" who advocated peace among the semitic brothers, thinking there was plenty of room for all of us in the region. We tried to tell her that the issue was not only territory, but imperialism and Zionism and whether the Arab and Jewish masses were going to determine their future for themselves or allow the vampires of American and Zionist high finance to determine it for them. Jane told us that the word "vampire" was a hyperbole and lectured us on the necessity of using analytical language rather than emotion laden-slogans She was not as perceptive and well-informed as she claimed and in a few minutes we discovered where her real, liberal sympathies lay. She referred to Fateh as a terrorist organisation that deliberately mined roads and killed Israeli school children. She showed how colour-blind and profound she was by telling us that Palestinians should live among their brothers in the Arab states and avoid being discriminated against in Israel. We smiled sardonically as Jane revealed her ignorance of the plight of the Palestinians. She was blissfully unaware that she was spouting the Zionist line about the Palestinian problem and advocating the "final solution" that the Zionists proposed for our eternal peace. Jane had read her New York Times well and pontificated "objectively" on the need for "peace and stability" in the area. She was a Catholic girl from the Bronx who knew what was good for Arabs and Jews."

At the age of 15, Khaled became one of the first to join the radical pan-Arab Arab Nationalist Movement, originally started in the late 1940s. The Palestinian branch of this movement became the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine after the 1967 Six-Day War.

Khaled attended the American University of Beruit. She debated her American roommate Judy Sinninger, in 1962, when Kennedy threatened to invade Cuba unless the Soviet missiles were dismantled and removed from Cuba. "…She lectured me on American government, values, and social order, and I lectured her on the Arabs...I explained to Judy that we were not fighting just to expel the colonial and neo-colonial powers from our region only to offer our homeland on a silver platter to a new superpower. Judy was an imperial citizen, however liberal and idealistic she may have been. I was a Palestinian Arab woman without a homeland, living in exile in an American colony in Ras Beirut. She had everything to lose, I had everything to gain. One's social consciousness is indeed determined by one's social conditions."

"In late September, 1963, I departed for Kuwait with mixed feelings and without prospect of employment. For three months I was without work, waiting for a reply to my application from the Kuwait ministry of education…During the intervening three months I thought about the world situation and pondered the meaning of life, especially after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22. I do not know why the Kennedy assassination affected me emotionally. Kennedy was the president of the state that helped perpetuate my exile, a state that maintained and advanced the Zionist cause I hated. Kennedy was a sophisticated patrician, a class enemy, and he had given key posts in his regime to at least three dedicated Zionist Jews. He also approved the invasion of Cuba in April, 1961 by a pack of American-supported mercenaries. Yet I, the hardened Palestinian revolutionary, for some inexplicable reason, cried when I heard the news." "I watched the funeral on TV and saw Americans weep. Until then I had thought of the United States as a nation of monsters and scoundrels capable of perpetrating every conceivable crime…I wept for Kennedy perhaps because I somehow identified with the youth of America that loved and admired him dearly. Perhaps I may have believed, as Arabs did, that Kennedy was indeed going to work for the restoration of Palestinian rights, as the Kennedy Nasser correspondence later illustrated. I suspect that my tears were a natural human reaction, my prejudices couldn't stop them until it was too late. I am not sorry I cried."

After the landing of the high-jacked plane in 1969, Leila delivered this speech to the passengers:

"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention and co-operation during the flight. I am captain Shadiah Abu Ghazalah. That's not my name; my name is Khaleda. Shadiah is an immortal woman who wrote: "Heroes are often forgotten, but their legends and memories are the property and heritage of the people." That is something historians and analysts cannot understand. Shadiah will not be forgotten by the Popular Front and by the generation of revolutionaries she helped mould in the path of revolution. I would like you to know that Shadiah was a Palestinian Arab woman from Nablus; that she was a schoolteacher and a member of the Popular Front underground; that she died in an explosion at her own home at the age of twenty-one on November 21, 1968, while manufacturing hand grenades for the Front. She was the first woman martyr of our revolution. I assumed her name on flight 840 to tell the world about the crimes the Israelis inflict upon our people and to demonstrate to you that they make no distinctions between men, women and children. But for their own propaganda objectives they repeatedly state in your press how we attack their "innocent" women and children and how cruel we are. I want you to know that we love children, too, and we certainly do not aim our guns at them. We diverted flight 840 because TWA is one of the largest American airlines that services the Israeli air routes and, more importantly, because it is an American plane. The American government is Israel's staunchest supporter. It supplies Israel with weapons for our destruction. It gives the Zionists tax-free American dollars. It supports Israel at world conferences. It helps them in every possible way. We are against America because she is an imperialist country. And our unit is called the Che Guevara Commando Unit because we abhor America's assassination of Che and because we are a part of the Third World and the world revolution. Che was an apostle of that revolution. We took the plane to Haifa because Comrade Salim and I come from Haifa. Both of us were evicted in 1948. We took you to Tel Aviv as an act of defiance and challenge to the Israelis and to demonstrate their impotence when the Arabs embark on offensive rather then defensive strategy. We brought you to Damascus because Syria is the pulsating heart of the Arab homeland and because the Syrians are a good and generous people. We hope you will enjoy your stay in Damascus. We hope you will go home and tell your friends not to go to Israel-to the Middle East war zone. Please tell your neighbours that we are a people like you who wish to live in peace and security in our country, governing ourselves. Please tell the Americans that if they hate war and the exploitation of others, they should stop their government from making war on us and helping the Israelis to deprive us of our land. Tell your people that coming to Israel helps her to deny our rights. Revolution and peace. Greetings to all lovers of the oppressed!"

Khaled has said in interviews that she developed a fondness for the United Kingdom when her first visitor in jail, an immigration officer, wanted to know why she had arrived in the country without a valid visa. She also developed a relationship with the two policewomen assigned to guard her in Ealing and later corresponded with them. Khaled continued to return to Britain for speaking engagements until as late as 2002. Khaled has said that she no longer believes in hijacking as a legitimate form of protest, though she is wary of the Arab-Israeli peace process. According to Khaled, "It's not a peace process. It's a political process where the balance of forces is for the Israelis and not for us. They have all the cards to play with and the Palestinians have nothing to depend on, especially when the PLO is not united." She has become involved in politics, becoming a member of the Palestinian National Council and appearing regularly at the World Social Forum.

Letter to the Future President by SUBMEDIA

"I was going to do a totally different remix, but when I was combing through McCain and Obama speeches, they both reminded me of something I have heard before. So I went back to Bush's 2007 State of the Union and BAM! See for yourself. I have yet to hear McCain or Obama talk about public transport, consuming less, bicycles etc. etc. Who you gonna vote for now America?"-The Stimulator

SUBMEDIA

Mythmakers, Ghostwriters, & the Bully Pulpit by Julie Humphress

What matters most in politics is personality. It's not issues; it's not image. ... My job as a pollster is to understand what really matters. Those levers of importance -- sometimes they're called levers; sometimes they're called triggers. What causes people to buy a product? What causes someone to pull a lever and get them to vote? I need to know the specifics of that. And in politics, more often than not, it's about the personality and the character of the individual rather than where they stand, and that's exactly the opposite of what your viewers will think.-Frank Luntz

Frank Lutz is a corporate and political consultant and pollster who has worked most recently with the FOX News Channel running focus groups after presidential debates. Luntz's specialty is "testing language and "finding words" that will help his clients sell their product or "turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. What does any of this have to do with the issues? Nothing. In America, we're all just consumers in the eyes of politicians. And sadly, that's what works to win presidencies.

Words such as "persuade", "manipulate" and "influence" have in common that each conveys (with differing degrees of positive and negative feeling) the sense that one person is affecting another person, either openly or covertly. Most forms of intervention have the potential to influence; it is inherent in any method by which people interact and influence each other.

For example, Newt Gingrich worked with Republican leaders and "conservatives" in the media to frame the word "liberal" as something akin to "traitor," an effort that ultimately led to his infamous "secret" memo to GOP leaders titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." "Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Apply these [words] to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party:"

Decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... 'compassion' is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant... stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage.

On the other hand, Newt suggested that Republicans should also "memorize as many as possible" of the following "Positive Governing Words" to apply to any reference to Republicans or GOP efforts:

Share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... crusade... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide... liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom... peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate.

The result a decade of politicians and talk show hosts memorizing and parroting Newt's word list is that, in much of the public's mind, morality and patriotism are associated with right while the left are thought of in the terms described above.

This is just an example, this technique is also employed against "the right", and even those within the same party in disagreement. Source: FAIR Link

IN THE MEDIA

Political persuasion is harder to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see and hear bits and pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news- incomplete, not sequential, and usually edited by others. And as recievers, we are also biased: everyone comes with their own set of attitudes and ideas, emotions and opinions.

A good analysis of political language is a complex, rational activity. As such, it's in sharp contrast to emotional rantings by demagogues- including talk-show commentators, with their partisan views, attacks, sneers slurs, and slogans.

A good reasoned analysis is also in contrast to the little sound bites of TV news which are the source of most people's information and opinions.

As citizens, we are better served during the heat of an ongoing election campaign by skilled journalists and other writers who are well informed (about politics, history, language, and media techniques), who seek to present a fair assessment.

POLITICAL CANDIDATES

Candidates don't start from zero, thinking up ideas by themselves. They hire PR (public relations) companies with experienced people using the same kind of techniques as advertising agencies do for commercial products.

During the election campaign of 1935, the city of Allentown, Pennsylvania, was divided for experimental purposes. What residents did not know was that they were part of an experiment in political persuasion- seperated into three types of wards:

(1) an "emotional" area in which all the resident adults received leaflets written in vigorous advertising style urging the support of the Socialist ticket.

(2) a "rational" region, in which a more academic type of persuasion was used.

(3) a control district where nothing was distributed.

The increase in the minority party vote was greatest in the emotional wards, next largest in the rational wards, and lowest in the control wards.

The researchers looked at how many voters in the two sections they could persuade to vote for the Socialist Party, rather than the Republicans or Democrats. (The Socialist Party was chosen because it had no chance of winning the elections.)

What the researchers wanted to study was the contrast between rational and emotional appeals in political persuasion. The questionnaire's appeal was rational. It asked people who wanted a more egalitarian society to vote their views on policy matters. The letter's appeal was emotional: "We beg you in the name of those early memories and spring-time hopes to support the Socialist ticket in the coming elections!" it said. When the election was over, the Socialist vote increased by 35 percent over the previous election in the sections of the city that received the rational appeal. In the sections that received the emotional appeal, the Socialist vote increased by 50 percent.

Given the enormous proliferation of policy questions today, surfing the emotional wave nowadays may be even more important than it was in 1935. George E. Marcus, president of the International Society of Political Psychology, said modern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don't have much effect. Voters, he explained, need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention.

The research is of importance to politicians for obvious reasons -- and partly explains the enduring attraction of negative advertising -- but it is also important to voters, because it suggests that the reason candidates seem appealing often has little to do with their ideas. Political campaigns are won and lost at a more emotional and subtle level.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1936 Apr Vol 31(1) 99-114

THE PRESIDENT

Teddy Roosevelt (US President 1901-09) famously coined the term "bully pulpit"- referring to the White House, the presidency, as a great platform or a great place to advocate and to persuade. (At that time, the word "bully" meant excellent, superb, or great.) When TR said this, it was literally true: an audience had to be near the platform, within actual hearing distance of the spoken voice. Since then, the bully pulpit has been extended by new inventions- loudspeakers, radio, TV, internet and worldwide satellite systems. Today, national leaders have instant, direct access to millions of people -- most without any training analyzing sophisticated persuasion techniques -- an imbalance in concentration of power relatively new in human history.

What all citizens should know about the persuasion power of a President:

♠ A Presidents speech is written by someone trained in linguistics and persuasion called ghostwriters.

♠ Presidents often use teleprompters (one way glass, invisible to onlookers) to give the illusion they are speaking effortlessly and intelligently without notes (not simply reading lines written by others).

♠ Presidents have a huge staff and budget for PR including not only for the White House, but also for every subdivision within the Executive Branch. For example: whitehouse.gov, usa.gov, fedword.gov, defenselink.mil, dvidshub.net.

♠ Presidents often identify their own plans and their own Administration with the nation. Thus, any criticism, dissent, or disagreement with the President --or the current Administration's policy -- is often attacked as being "unpatriotic", as being disloyal to the country.

♠ Presidents are in control of the interviews, the Q & A sessions, and of granting access to the press.

The White House Press Corps is a very small group of approved reporters, with limited access time. Reporters who ask tough questions are unlikely to be called often; friendly reporters often ask easy questions which allow the President to talk about policies favored. Presidents often use the press simply as "message multipiers" - to repeat PR versions from the White House writers.

PERSUASION OF A CAUSE
Source: gsunow@govst.edu

Cause Groups are those which seek committed collective action. The persuasion of any cause group can be analyzed with this predictable four-part pattern of the "Pep Talk," a useful structural framework to identify and to sort out parts of complex, emotional controversies. If you know this pattern, then it helps you to see or to infer the rest of the overall picture whenever you encounter bits and fragments of this kind of emotional argument.

1. Threat ----- 2. Bonding ----- 3. Cause ----- 4. Response

1. The Threat
Persuaders are problem-makers who intensify a threat by using words (warnings, name-calling, horror stories) and images (atrocities pictures) to intensify the threat to the group and the evil of the leader of the Other. Persuaders know that people have predictable fears, summed up here in one sentence: "We fear that someone stronger (DOMINANCE) will take away our life (DEATH), our possessions (DESTRUCTION), our territory (INVASION), our freedom (RESTRICTION); or that someone else has more (INJUSTICE); or that a human system will break down (CHAOS).

2. Bonding
No matter what threats or causes are involved, the three basic themes in bonding actions are the same, involving: Unity ("united we stand"), Loyalty ("be true to your . . . "), and Pride ("we're number one . . ."). Bonding activites, relating to both the present and the past, involves many kinds of organized group activities (teams, parades, picketing, chanting, singing, wearing uniforms).Such activities are important not only for gathering the group together, but also for keeping it together, ready for action. Once a group is bonded, a structure and organization comes into being. Individuals often gain self-esteem from joining such groups. People, especially leaders, have roles to play and jobs to protect. So, bonded groups need a sense of movement and progress, often obtained by introducing new threats and new causes.

3. The Causes
A cause involves a sense of duty to defend someone from a threat and gain a benefit. People working for a cause often increase their own self-mage and have a sense of moral superiority, self-righteousness. ("We are informed and good; they are ignorant and evil.") Causes often conflict, sometimes directly, more often indirectly. Opponents often disagree on what is the main issue. Dominance, or power, is sometimes the "hidden agenda." Related causes often cluster, so group-bonding attempts often overlap. Cause rhetoric can sometimes be controlled, like a thermostat, by organized groups, but sometimes gets out of control, like a wildfire, because individuals may internalize a strange mix of messages and respond in violent ways.

4. The Response
Effective cause group rhetoric usually identifies specific actions to be taken by the receptive audience. Often, an urgency plea is used, together with some common triggering words.

Analysis of these patterns of persuasion has limited value: it doesn't tell us which side is "right," what charges are true, what supporting evidence is reliable, or what to do.

But, such analysis does help us to sort out some very complex emotional arguments, to identify the examples, and to define the key issues.

As average citizens, neither you nor I will ever have access to the inner circles of power in politics, governments, or among the professional persuaders of the many organized cause groups which target us as receivers of the messages. But, we can prepare ourselves by learning some of the basics used by all.

Our understanding of predictable patterns may help us defend ourselves from being deceived or exploited by others, or from being self-righteous or narrow-minded ourselves. From our understanding of how others also see their roles, we may gain tolerance, perhaps compassion.

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (1966), on the need to recognize the pattern of "militant enthusiasm": "The first prerequisite for rational control of an instinctive behavior pattern is the knowledge of the stimulus situation which releases it. Militant enthusiasm can be elicited with the predictability of a reflex when the following environmental situations arise.

First of all, a social unit with which the subject identifies himself must appear to be threatened by some danger from the outside.... A second key stimulus which contributes enormously to the releasing of intense militant enthusiasm is the presence of a hated enemy from whom the threat to the above "values" emanates.... A third factor contributing to the environmental situation eliciting the response is an inspiring leader figure.... A fourth, and perhaps the most important, prerequisite for the full eliciting of militant enthusiasm is the presence of many other individuals, all agitated by the same emotion...." (Italics mine. I treat his first two points in "Threat"; the second two in "Bonding.")

THE "SO-CALLED POLITICAL DIVIDE"
Source: gsunow@govst.edu

Expect people (e.g Left and Right) to have very different worldviews and assumptions. In conflicts, expect persuaders to attack, and to emphasize their differences in kind, degree, and focus.

Expect the basic content of negative charges about the other candidates to be: "They are incompetent and untrustworthy; from them you'll get more "bad" and less "good."

Expect some political persuasion targeted at one's own group ("under the radar" - using very selected computer address lists, etc.) seeking collective committed action (join, donate, vote) to use the pattern of a "pep talk". Persuaders use words to resolve the will, to stir the feelings (often fear and anger), and to trigger action: basically, what to believe, to feel, to do.

Expect people often to act, not only in their own self-interest but also to have "Righteous anger" against the Other, as being harmful, unjust, unfair, or unreasonable: intentionally evil or unintentionally duped.

Expect the frequent repetition of negatives, sometimes by direct, explicit charges, but more often a single image or phrase to be used as shorthand, as a "condensation" symbol, to suggest a cluster of negative associations linked with "bad" things which people already feared or disliked.

Expect verbal aggression to stir the emotions: fear, anger, resentment, disgust. Expect name-calling (attack words, explicit charges); "horror stories" (narratives - including rumors) and "atrocity pictures" (nonverbal images) to demonize the Other.

Expect everyone to have predictable fears (e.g. about death, destruction, loss of possessions, freedom, territory; humiliation and injustice). Expect persuaders to know this and how to use it in stirring up "hot button" and "wedge" issues.

Expect warnings about the urgency and danger to be intensified by using the language of extremes -- if the Other wins. The greater the problem, the greater the need for a solution.

Expect persuaders to be problem makers, intensifying existing fears in order to excite, bond, and direct their own group to an action response (save, defend, fight, stop, change).

Expect omission to be the primary way people downplay their own "bad." People can suppress, conceal, hide, cover-up their "bad" (errors, crimes, problems, weaknesses, any unfavorable information) by means of secrecy. Governments, administrations often can use censorship, controls to ban the press or internal critics; silencing, eliminating, or "disappearing" the opposition.

Expect denials ("saying it isn't so") to include deliberate lying to others and self deception. For example, denying that something is, or is bad, or is not that bad, or denying responsibility ("I didn't do it") or intent ("I didn't mean it"). Wishful thinking, alibis, excuses, and "plausible deniability" are also common ways people deny reality, deceive themselves, downplay their own "bad."

Expect euphemisms to downplay one's own "bad" by using softer words to minimize, understate, sweeten, blur or obscure the "bad."

Expect diversions as a very common defense, to distract focus away from main issues, to focus on side-issues, to counter-attack others. Traditional names include diversionary attacks against the person (ad hominem); stirring up people's emotions or fears (ad populum); sympathy appeals (ad misericordium); "attacking a straw man"; "red herrings"; "bread and circuses"; "pointing to another wrong"; dismissals ("it's all politics"): "poisoning the well" (the media is biased); or any evasions, or stalling to avoid substantive issues.

Expect confusion to mask or hide problems, a "smokescreen" effect. Confusion can be accidental (carelessness, errors); but, language can also deliberately be used to create confusion by means of ambiguity, vagueness, unfamiliar words, jargon, contradictions, circumlocutions, circular definitions. In a wider context, confusion can be caused by frequent changes or variations, or anything to overload the audience.

Expect neglect to be the primary way people downplay others' "good." Such neglect is passive aggression. Many people are egocentric and ethnocentric: they simply disregard, ignore, or lack concern for other groups, strangers, or foreigners. In war, for example, people often know very little about their opponents' culture, history, customs, beliefs, family life, or any favorable aspect of opponents.

Expect intolerance. People often deny (block out, won't listen to) any contrary ideas, opinions, or beliefs. Often people "frame an issue" in one way, then later reject any facts which contradict their pre-conceptions.People often won't consider the possible "rightness" of their opponents' Cause, of their opponents' legitimate needs and wants, of their opponents' genuine fears and grievances.

Expect disrepect Words and attitudes are often used which are patronizing, or condescending toward others, humiliating others, treating others as less than equal, or less than human. Humor (mockery, sarcasm, satire) is used to belittle, degrade, insult, or ridicule others.

Expect the more that language is abstract and general (including labels, numbers, statistics, charts, polls, body counts), the less that people are able to "see" ( to comprehend) the specific individuals of the Other. In domestic politics, for example, it's easier to hate someone who is abstractly labeled a "Liberal" or "Conservative" than it is to understand a real person -- a friend or a neighbor -- whose worldviews and assumptions are different.

In war, it's easier to kill "things" than to kill human beings (mothers, fathers, children). We often do need to generalize, but remember abstract language dehumanizes.

Since ignorance and apathy are dangerous to a democratic society, citizens need to give more attention to a greater understanding of political rhetoric. They need to become more aware of the significant changes recently in persuasion, and the growing imbalance between the professional persuader and the average person.

Every government, every political party, every religious group, and every "cause" group now has this ability to combine sophisticated techniques, psychological insights, and the new technology to target people untrained in persuasion.

The party in power will say "Keep the Good" | The party seeking power will say "Change the Bad".

Two common reactions to political lies are vague indignation ("something ought to be done") and cynical resignation ("nothing can be done").

Both extremes can be avoided. Deception, like violence, has always been a part of the human history. To recognize this does not endorse deception, nor justify inaction. We do take action to control violence, to reduce the degree, to limit the kinds, to reduce the causes and ameliorate the effects.

VIDEOS

Frontline: The Persuaders <-----DON'T MISS THE CHAPTERS: GIVING US WHAT WE WANT and THE NARROWCASTING FUTURE!!!

Manufacturing Consent: Necessary Illusions

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media pt. 2

The Century of the Self pt. 1 pt. 2 pt. 3 pt. 4

"The Chronological List of Islamic Terrorists Attacks"-1968

I visited a blog the other day and the topic of discussion was Islamophobia. One of the commentors copied and pasted a list titled, "The Chronological List of Islamic Terrorists Attacks".

The list accompanied this statement:

"In the past 35 years are so there have been enough terrorist attacks to warrant concern and as a matter of fact, ACTION! What would you like us to do? Ignore the problem and just have peace marches? Interesting, but not all that effective. You don't want to hear that we are fighting terrorist over there so that we don't have to fight them here, but we have not been attacked since 9/11 on our soil. We are not in Iraq just to fight terrorists, but if we had just left Iraq a conquered nation, it would have been the terrorists favorite place. Here are just a few Islamic Terrorist Attacks that should raise some eyebrows. Quite honestly, I see reason for concern and drastic measures. I am not fond of being a target".

And just for fun, I picked another comment from a different blog:

"It comes down to this basic simple fact: People hate a winner. They hate the United States because we are great. Events and National Inquirer Facts are created in an attempt to harm the United States and its interests while others forget that we are the most free nation in the world. Some people equate leftism with freedom but that is false and I'm not going to walk down that road in order to stay in line with this blog.
I have not read or seen anything positive about Islam - unless the truth was distorted. It is the most dangerous religion in the world. It is a nihilistic religion which seems to be placing many of our liberal politicians in their back pocket. Why? I don't know, Islam kills everyone, even the people who support it.
Now I keep hearing about the radical Christian groups and such but I fail to see them on my television. I never even see them acting out on some of the more liberal news programs. Whoever says Fascist Islam is not more violent than the Christian groups has obviously disassociated themselves from reality.
Its hard to take a lot of people seriously. I've never seen so many people choose to be so blind".

Back to that chronological list of "leftist" enlightenment ;)..I'd seen that list before, it's posted on a government website (if I remember correctly). I was skeptical of it because the Torrejon, Spain bombing is listed but with inaccurate information. This fella is trying to use the list to prove that we belong in Iraq and the "War On Terror" is real. The list contains ~157 "ISLAMIC Terrorists Attacks", starting in 1968 ending in 2004. This list is nothing more than a list of attacks and bombings (inaccurate at best), without any history behind it to back it up. As a simple list of attacks, of course it looks terrifying! I personally see this list as a list of consequences...which led to crimes.

I've decided to give a little history behind these crimes. I'll start with the first one on the list:

"June 5, 1968 - U.S. presidential candidate Robert Kennedy murdered by Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, in Los Angeles, which causes further terrorist attacks, as Arab terrorist groups demanded his release."

THE EVENT:

On June 4, 1968, Robert Kennedy won the California primary. He addressed his supporters on June 5, 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Sirhan Sirhan, a 24 yr.old Palestinian, fired with a .22 caliber revolver and shot Kennedy in the head.

THE BACKGROUND:

In 1948, Zionists attacked a village called Deir Yassin and massacred 250 people, including women, children, and the elderly. With the official declaration of Israeli independence, it led the Sirhans, along with many other terrified Arabs to flee their homes.

James W. Clarke, author of "American Assassins"stated, "A young Sirhan found the shot body of an Arab neighbor drenched in fresh blood. The entire Sirhan family saw a British soldier's body freshly mangled by a bomb and discovered his finger in their yard....he recounted seeing an explosion resulting in "a little girls's leg blown off, and the blood spurting from below the knee as though from a faucet."

Clarke noted that Sirhan was only 4 years old when he witnessed a bomb explode and saw "the street strewn with bloody, mutilated bodies of Arab victims." A worse trauma soon followed, "Sirhan and an older brother were playing in the street. Gunfire broke out and a Zionist truck swerved straight into one of Sirhan's brothers crushing the child."

The Sirhans hoped an Arab military victory would restore their lives to normalcy, When that hope faded, the Surhans, a CHRISTIAN Arab family, immigrated to the United States in 1956 when Surhan was 12 yrs old.

Sirhan had always been angry over Israeli's creation in 1948, during which Palestinians fled or were driven out. Sirhan supposedly believed he was deliberately betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in June 1967 Six-Day War.

Grant Cooper, Sirhan's defense attorney, asked during testimony, how he felt toward his victims older brother, President John Kennedy. The witness replied, "I loved him, sir, more than any American would have." Cooper asked him to explain.."Because just a few weeks before his assassination he was working, sir, with the leaders of the Arab government, the Arab countries, to bring a solution, sir, to the Palestinian refugees problem, and he promised these Arab leaders that he would do his utmost and his best to force or to put some pressure on Israel, sir, to comply with the 1948 United Nations Resolution, sir, to either repatriate those Arab refugees or give them back, give them the right to return to their homes. And when he was killed, sir, that never happenend."

John Weidner, employer, "...he hated the Jews because of their power and their material wealth, they had taken his country who were now refugees. Because of Israel, he said, his family had become refugees, and he described to my wife how he himself had seen a Jewish soldier cutting the breast off an Arab woman in Jerusalem. "He told Weidner, "There is no God. Look at what God has done for the Arabs! And for the Palestinians. How can we believe in God?"

Sirhan's father, Bishara, said, "I can say that I do not regret his death as Kennedy the American politician who attempted to gain the presidential election by his aggressive propaganda against the Arab people of Palestine...Kennedy was promising the Zionists to supply them with arms and aircraft...and thus provoke the sensitive feelings of Sirhan who had suffered so much from the Jews...It is not fair to accuse my son without examination of Zionists atrocities against the Arabs-those atrocities which received the support and blessings of Robert Kennedy."

Al Anwar, an Arab newspaper commented on June 10, 1968, "...regardless of everything, Sirhan's blood-stained bullets have carried Palestine into every American home. The act may be illegal, the price high, and the assassination unethical...But American deafness to the cause of the Palestinian people is also illegal, unethical and carries a high price."

Sirhan is confined at the California State Prison.

He is no longer a threat.

Dreamland Security

I Confess, I sleep with a copy of the Patriot Act under my pillow. It protects me from my nightmares of da bogeymans who scream "DIE INFIDEL!!!" and the lizard alien men in business suits.