Weekly Standard:the vehicle that made Iraq war possible

[Qandalawi]

It is the Weekly Standard, the magazine that drives the pro-Israel neo-conservative movement. The manual that convinced the policy makers and the public to rush to war.

That makes it precise short and clear, Thanks Ducaqabe you possess that talent I must say Castro lacks it.

[Castro]

^ Atheer Tukaale, no offence intended but you disrespect the topic, the poster of the topic and everyone participating in the discussion when you walk in announcing you've read none of it but want an executive briefing. Do your homework first then ask questions or give us your two cents. We are what we read, saaxib, and I wouldn't want my brother to be referred to as Joe Sixpack.

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Clearly though these men have shown shrewdness in framing their message and tuning it so that it is consumable for the large public. I personally would not mind if dislodging Saudi monarchy and giving people their country and resources back could be achieved through peaceful means. Remember it was

Khumaini who taught us how taping and recording political messages and distributing them could expose and highlight the injustices committed by the Persian monarchy. And in the end, that simple medium made possible the downfall of Shah.

 

Think, good

Castro

, what it takes to reverse clannish politics and apprehend thugs in our beloved land without resorting to full conflict with them!

In order for the consumption of propaganda to occur you would have to tailor the information to pluck a chord within the hearts of those you wish to spring into action. What rings more true in a decimated land other than the object that caused the division? Mighty interesting what kind of propaganda that might procure.

 

Or do what US did Unite all under one banner against ONE enemy. Where one goes all follow

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Baashi:

This is a good one Xiin.

 

This does not surprise me a bit. It's how democracy works. Neocons are within their rights to advocate for their values and believes. Blame it on voter ignorance and the rise and power of interest groups.

Odayga, are you sure you were not suprised? Sure Neo-cons have the right to advocate however disproportionate their control of the media and corporate sponsorship might be. Nonetheless, bbbbbeople like Baashi also have the choice to vote for these neo-cons as he had done in 2000

[Cara.]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Calypso

,

neacons

don’t necessarily share conservative values (social ones) you just listed. Theirs is an ad hoc conservatism that’s intended to expediently deliver foreign policy objectives. Muslims support for

Bush

in 2000 had to do more with the fact that

Al Gore

chose a Jew as a running-mate than falling for conservative propaganda, I think.

No doubt. But the message was coached in terms of the un-Islamic nature of the Democratic candidates' position (at least in my neck of the woods), and I find it hard to believe that this was not at least partly sincere.

 

It doesn't matter if the neocons are faking social mores they don't share with the Religious Right, all that matters is that is that they deliver, no? From appointing conservative Supreme Court judges to siding with the ****** who want Creationism taught in Science classes, so long as the Neocons feel it necessary to occasionally appease their chosen electorate, what matters their real beliefs? They are politicians, aren't they?

 

But you’re right the fact we Muslims are Republican by values (social value, not all of the ones they sell to us though) while we vote Democrat by default poses a challenging political dilemma.

Muslims are a special interest group much like any other. They will vote for whomever they think will best serve their interests. In 2000, this seemed to be Bush-Cheney, because neither was a Jew and because they seemed to advocate "family values" that were more in sync with popular Muslim sentiment (such as a distaste for gay rights and abortion). In 2004 I'm sure more Muslims voted for Kerry-Edwards than not because neither was a Jew and because they weren't advocating waging war on Muslim countries.

 

For instance, last election I settled for the convenience of less-than-two-evils proposition and voted for

Kerry

!

An informal poll indicates that that is what most Muslims did. Those that bothered to vote, anyway. I find few who voted for the incumbent.

 

I even ignored the

fatwa

from my Shiekh!

My Sheikh was suitably chagrined over the bad political advice he gave in 2000. He was not so foolish as to repeat the same mistake and involve himself in Kafir political machinations.

[Cara.]

Incidentally, I have been reading with some amusement how this discussion went from discussing neocon media savvy to addressing the problem of the shadowy Jewish cabal that has apparently controlled all of human history. This extremely cohesive group has helmed such seemingly disparate movements as Communism and Capitalism, Anarchism and Fascism, Secularism andTheocracy. And then someone clinched the whole deal by providing a link to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

 

Gee, to think: The Jews forced Gore to partner with Joe Lieberman, a Jew, knowing he'll lose to Bush-Cheney, who were in fact controlled by Jews!

 

It's like fractals, isn't it?