Let's get something straight here. Spain, Aznar, terrorism, Iraq.

[Robin Hood]

We have to turn the current trend around. The media is taking off with Rove's talking point memo which said that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama. Or a vote for the socialist party was a victory for Al Qaeda.

The truth of the matter is that Al Qaeda won long ago. They won when our so called terrorism president failed to go after Al Qaeda and instead went into Iraq, which was no threat to anyone and a complete distraction from a war on Al Qaeda. This bolstered Al Qaedas ranks by the hundreds of thousands.

Al Qaeda won when the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. What the Spanish people did by ousting Bush's little kitty(Aznar), was redirect the focus on the war on terror, the true war on terror. Meanwhile we are stuck in a slog in Iraq with no real capacity for fighting the true war on terror. George Bush blew the war on terror, and it's not like he wasn't warned by the worlds (focus groups).

We need to change the current dialog to the truth or we will be screwed. E-mail, snail mail, call your news media, congress people etc..

[SoCalDem]

1. Wat we need.. is for people from Spain to start speaking out

BUT.. would our press even report if they DID..??

I am afraid that * was handed another giftwrapped present from Osama..

Maybe the spin we should use is that Osama WANTS * to be pres because he knows that Bush is ineffective and dumb :)

[Robin Hood]

2. Nice, very nice.

That works just as well. It appears that Osama does want Bush to be in power, that makes absolute sense.

[stevedeshazer]

8. Here's a Spaniard who spoke out....

liberal72 posted this in another thread:

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_03_14.html#001398

[Robin Hood]

10. great piece

well worth the read. Thank you.

[XNASA]

3. Another example of an Al Queda victory over the Bushies......

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/

U.S. to move operations from Saudi base

---"Exiled Saudi Osama bin Laden has cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a core grievance in his self-proclaimed holy war against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. government."---

[Robin Hood]

6. Good point.

Why didn't the fascist media say that us pulling out of Saudi Arabia was a victory for Osama? We know why.

American media can NOT BE TRUSTED.

[Fovea]

4. I don't know if we will be screwed or not.

But I think that when we say that the election results worked out well for al Qaeda we need to add that while it accomplished the strategic goal of removing more Christian soldiers from the Middle East, it accomplished a more important goal for freedom, which is the nullification of a stupid, brutal, and illegal policy by lawful means.

[rucky]

5. Leaders who try to use terrorist attacks for political gain

deserve to be voted out.

That's our message.

[Robin Hood]

7. Ohhh nice..

I like that take. That is exactly what happened.

[BootinUp]

9. Exactly Liberal_Guerilla

I e-mailed Nightline yesterday, but we need a huge movement, or we need more elected Democrats talking about this. Last night Wes Clark hit it out of the park, but only six people were watching Scarborough.

[Robin Hood]

14. Sorry that I missed Wes Clark last night.

But I can't stand scarborough.

[Fenris]

11. Consider that the overall message of the Bush campaign against terrorism

Is that it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists. Therefore, to the Administration, and to an American public spoon-fed news by the corporate behemoths of CNN and FOX, any response to terrorism that is not by military force or some equivalent is seen as giving into terrorism. Thus, the defeat of the Popular Party and the victory of the Socialists after the bombings in Madrid demonstrate that the Spaniards and the Europeans want to give into the demands of the terrorists, which is unacceptable, because negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable.

The problem with this mindset and the theory that underlies it is that not only is it possible to negotiate with terrorists, it might very well be the best option. The general consensus is that Spain was targeted by Muslim terrorists possibly linked to al Qaeda because the government of Jose Maria Aznar and his Popular Party backed the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, despite the fact that, according to some polls, 90% of the Spanish people opposed the war. The Socialists ran on a platform whose foreign policy was far less lock-step with the United States as Aznar's was. If elected, the Socialists promised to end their support for the invasion of Iraq and withdraw the Spanish troops Aznar sent there, unless the United States handed over control to the United Nations. Prior to the Madrid attacks, the Popular Party led the Socialists by a comfortable margin; on the first Sunday after the attacks, the Spanish people elected the Socialists. Seeing the horror and devastation in Madrid, the citizens became painfully aware of the fact that Aznar's support for the war in order to protect Spain and the world from danger might very well have had the opposite effect, and chose to replace his government with one that took a different approach to terrorism.

Certainly, this will not guarantee an end to terrorism on Spanish soil; the persistence of ETA virtually guarantees it will continue. However, the removal of Aznar and the Popular Party could make Spain less of a target for outside terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. That is the art of negotiation: give the terrorists something they want and perhaps you might be safer. The United States is too far gone to realize this. The ideas that fuel Islamic terrorism cannot be killed. You can stack up the bodies of dead al Qaeda members as high as you like and hang Osama bin Laden from the highest tree, but terrorism will continue. The best bet is to let law enforcement deal with it, and, above all, listen to them, as that is what they want. Open negotiation could lead to a peaceful solution and a sort of ceasefire between the Western democracies and the Middle Eastern terror organizations. It is admittedly a gamble, but at this point, it's the best bet.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. I perceive they are succeeding in changing the perceptions of the people

I cannot believe it--this only happens in places like Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia. They lie totally and everyone, and I mean everyone somehow gets the talking points memorized. I don't know if it is because no one on the other side is speaking out, or if they are just not being covered. We cannot blame the media if no one is speaking. They lie--they are winning the war of the lies--absolutley, imo. People who should know better, who seem intelligent are absolutely buying it that we did good to slaughter the Iraqis on lies. That it was worth it -- that Saddam was evil and Bush is a great leader for lying to us , invading that pathetic place, killing ten thousand of their people, losing us 560 of our own, but it was "worth it"

[SoCalDem]

13. Here's how they do it.. It's a time-tested method..and it works

Watch any speech or ad, after you have read this piece.. Things will JUMP out at you.. We are (and have been for a long time) being played.



http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a360d496e0c97.htm
Propaganda Techniques

http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html , various







PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES
"Propaganda Techniques" is based upon "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques" from "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, in Washington DC, on 31 August 1979
(from http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html)
Knowledge of propaganda techniques is necessary to improve one's own propaganda and to uncover enemy PSYOP stratagems. Techniques, however, are not substitutes for the procedures in PSYOP planning, development, or dissemination.
Techniques may be categorized as:
Characteristics of the content self-evident. additional information is required to recognize the characteristics of this type of propaganda. "Name calling" and the use of slogans are techniques of this nature.
Additional information required to be recognized. Additional information is required by the target or analyst for the use of this technique to be recognized. "Lying" is an example of this technique. The audience or analyst must have additional information in order to know whether a lie is being told.
Evident only after extended output. "Change of pace" is an example of this technique. Neither the audience nor the analyst can know that a change of pace has taken place until various amounts of propaganda have been brought into focus.
Nature of the arguments used. An argument is a reason, or a series of reasons, offered as to why the audience should behave, believe, or think in a certain manner. An argument is expressed or implied.
Inferred intent of the originator. This technique refers to the effect the propagandist wishes to achieve on the target audience. "Divisive" and "unifying" propaganda fall within this technique. It might also be classified on the basis of the effect it has on an audience.
SELF-EVIDENT TECHNIQUE


Appeal to Authority. Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Assertion. Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true.

Bandwagon and Inevitable Victory. Bandwagon-and-inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take a course of action "everyone else is taking." "Join the crowd." This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their interest to join. "Inevitable victory" invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or partially, on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is the best course of action.



Obtain Disapproval. This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position.



Glittering Generalities. Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."
Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.

Vagueness. Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.



Rationalization. Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.



Simplification. Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.


Much more........................