Article..

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

from [Marc Abrams (2001.1012.1600)]

While the US points it's military might at the mass murdering scum

terrorists

it should also be turning it's mightiest weapon of all -- Hollywood -- on

the

barely educated masses who rally to the miserable message of the

terrorists.

I think the skilled communicators in the media industry could produce an
extremely attractive alternative to the terrorist message that takes into
account the needs and wants of the Islamic audience (the market).

Great idea, Try getting it broadcast. No western views allowed.

Marc

2

From[ Marc Abrams (2001.1012.1630) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1345)]

For better or worse, the US will be judged by what it does, not by what it

says.

You mean like our support for the Afgan people. Or our support of the
moslems in Somolia or the Balkans or Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I don't think so Bruce. I agree with you that it's more a matter of
perception then fact but perceptions are shaped largely by the media.

Marc

3

from [ Marc Abrams (2001.1012.1710) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1740)]

The Afghani people are simple folk. They don't realize that the bombs
falling on their country are "support."

How about the _food_ we have been sending the last few _years_ or the food
we are currently air dropping

Our support may go to Somolia, the Balkans, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but
our dollars go to Israel and Egypt.

Really. Our dollars didn't go to save moslems in the Balkans ( Serbia ) or
saving both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iraqi aggression we also lost 342
men. Throw in Somalia where Clinton didn't have the stomach to finish the
job. All of these efforts cost plenty of dollars and American lives as well.

Just to refresh your history.

In 1948 the UN partitioned the state of Palestine (then under British
colonial rule) into 3 sectors. One Arab, One Jewish, and one was to be an
independendent UN controlled parcel. The same UN that in 1947 pushed all the
hindu's out of what was part of India and made the moslem state of Pakistan.
The day the UN passed the resolution The Jews declared the state of Israel
( which the orinally did over 2,000 years ago ) The next day five arab
armies ( Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordon ) invaded Israel. No Bill,
Israel was not a major military power. But they won that war and when the
armistace was signed, modern Israel's borders were established. After the
war where were the Arab states in supporting the Palestanian people? How
have they helped the palestenians move out of poverty with all that oil
money?

Yhey have attacked Israel 5 times and 5times they got their collective Butt
kicked.

Besides existing what has Israel done to warrant the killing of innocent
civilians?

Don't take my word for it. Look at the
budget yourself. You might find it an eye-opening experience. I know I

did.

Exactly what did you find eye-opening?

I doubt that all the nomads are watching satellite television in their
tents, but that may be a limitation on my part.

I don't think the nomads are the ones we need to reach.

Marc

4

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1540)

Absolutely SUPERB article, darling. I'm forwarding it to my Control Theory
Group.

Love

Daddy

Lise Marken wrote:

···

Hi my loved ones,

Although I spend every moment that I am at work engaged in highly productive
work-related endeavors, I somehow managed to run across this article. I
found it interesting enough to merit distribution. If anyone knows the
whitehouse's website and wants to send it to me, I'll pass it on to them,
too.

Love you all,

me

http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/01-10-10_117144.asp

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

5

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.2030)]

Rick Marken (2001.10.11.1540)

Absolutely SUPERB article, darling. I'm forwarding it to my Control Theory
Group.

You clearly have a much higher opinion of Bush's credibility in and ability
to sway, the Moslem world than I do.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

6

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.12.0900)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.2030)

You clearly have a much higher opinion of Bush's credibility in and ability
to sway, the Moslem world than I do.

What I liked about the article was it's call on Bush (in the form of his
extremely articulate speech writers, I would think) to answer Bin Laden's
message about America's ostensible human rights transgressions in the Middle
East. Here's what I thought was the meat of the article:

"There's a strong, substantive case to be made against Bin Laden's message,
and Bush isn't making it. Bush could explain that the sanctions on Iraq allow
Saddam Hussein to buy food and medicine but that Saddam chooses to let Iraqi
children starve. He could point out that Israeli-Palestinian violence is
mutual, that the United States has criticized transgressions on both sides,
and that murdering American civilians antagonizes the only country capable of
persuading Israel to accept a Palestinian state. He could acknowledge the
misfortunes of many Muslims while explaining that they don't justify the
deliberate killing of civilians. He could outline important differences
between the context of Sept. 11 and the context of the atomic bombs that ended
World War II".

I think we could also point out that it isn't America that carries out (or
even supports) the settlement activity in the occupied territories of Israel.
In fact, America (in the form of the Mitchell Committee) recommended ending
settlement activity as a precursor to peace talks. We could also point out
that we give quite a bit of monetary aid to the Palestinean refugees, much
(most) of which is taken as graft by the Palestinian leadership before it
reaches any of the people who were jumping up and down, celebrating the mass
murder of their would-be American benefactors.

I just heard this morning about a large Arabic satellite news station that
operates out of Qatar or something. We should broadcast an articulate,
measured reply to the Bin Laden dung on this station. Indeed, the message
should be given not only by Bush himself but by Moslem leaders in this country
and in the Middle East.

I think this is important because this is largely a war of ideas. The leaders
of this terrorist "revolution" in the Middle East are not the "oppressed
masses". They are very well heeled lunatics who are possessed of a terrible
religious ideology and are trying to legitimatize that ideology by pointing
to real or imagined transgressions by a state (the US) that represents a
competing ideology (secularism). This war of ideas is being fought using the
media; indeed, that's why terrorism is an effective weapon in this war. I
think the great insight of the article my daughter found is that we have to
fight back in the media, too. We may have to make some actual policy
adjustments. But we have to communicate a convincing image of what good things
we are doing -- or trying to do -- in the Middle East.

While the US points it's military might at the mass murdering scum terrorists
it should also be turning it's mightiest weapon of all -- Hollywood -- on the
barely educated masses who rally to the miserable message of the terrorists.
I think the skilled communicators in the media industry could produce an
extremely attractive alternative to the terrorist message that takes into
account the needs and wants of the Islamic audience (the market).

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1345)]

Rick Marken (2001.10.12.0900)

> Bruce Gregory (2001.1011.2030)
>
> You clearly have a much higher opinion of Bush's credibility in and ability
> to sway, the Moslem world than I do.

What I liked about the article was it's call on Bush (in the form of his
extremely articulate speech writers, I would think) to answer Bin Laden's
message about America's ostensible human rights transgressions in the Middle
East.

You and I look at this somewhat differently. The facts are much less
important than the perception as far as I can tell. Many Moslems perceive
Osama Bin Laden as defender of what they hold dear. We cannot win that
game. I think there is much merit to Disraeli's admonition, "Never
complain. Never explain." For better or worse, the US will be judged by
what it does, not by what it says.

8

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.1430)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1345)

You and I look at this somewhat differently. The facts are much less
important than the perception as far as I can tell.

The facts _are_ perception (as is everything else), from my perspective.

Many Moslems perceive
Osama Bin Laden as defender of what they hold dear. We cannot win that
game. I think there is much merit to Disraeli's admonition, "Never
complain. Never explain." For better or worse, the US will be judged by
what it does, not by what it says.

But what the US says is one of the things it does. I agree that the US will be
judged by what it does. But I think we can use words to point to some aspects of
what we do that might be more appealing than others. The negative perceptions
some Moslems have of the US are being created, in large measure, through the use
of words. The US is certainly not perfect but it's not evil in the way that Nazi
Germany was or in the way Serbia was (indeed, the US went to war with Serbia to
_save_ Moslems from Christian genocide).

Bin Laden and his disgusting ilk are using words to emphasize the negative US role
in certain tragic situations in the Middle East (where no one is the "good guy" or
the "bad guy") in order to rally people (apparently very successfully) to his
cause. I think the US could do a much better job of providing his audience with
an alternative point of view. I'd rather try that then just sit back and let waves
of thugs kill us for sport.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

9

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1740)]

Marc Abrams (2001.1012.1630)

> [From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1345)]

>For better or worse, the US will be judged by what it does, not by what it
says.

You mean like our support for the Afgan people.

The Afghani people are simple folk. They don't realize that the bombs
falling on their country are "support."

Or our support of the
moslems in Somolia or the Balkans or Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Our support may go to Somolia, the Balkans, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but
our dollars go to Israel and Egypt. Don't take my word for it. Look at the
budget yourself. You might find it an eye-opening experience. I know I did.
(Do you really think we are sending money to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Can
you imagine Jesse Helms supporting this? I has succeeded in reducing aid to
Egypt, however.)

I don't think so Bruce. I agree with you that it's more a matter of
perception then fact but perceptions are shaped largely by the media.

I doubt that all the nomads are watching satellite television in their
tents, but that may be a limitation on my part.

10

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1748)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.12.1430)

> Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1345)
>
> You and I look at this somewhat differently. The facts are much less
> important than the perception as far as I can tell.

The facts _are_ perception (as is everything else), from my perspective.

I thought we had agreed to distinguish between perception and perceptual
variables.

Bin Laden and his disgusting ilk are using words to emphasize the negative
US role
in certain tragic situations in the Middle East (where no one is the "good
guy" or
the "bad guy")

I doubt that those involved would agree with your assessment. I suspect
that they are quite convinced that there are good guys and bad guys.

in order to rally people (apparently very successfully) to his
cause. I think the US could do a much better job of providing his
audience with
an alternative point of view. I'd rather try that then just sit back and
let waves
of thugs kill us for sport.

The U.S. might start by hiring some folks who speak Arabic.

11

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.12.1515)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.1748)]

>The facts _are_ perception (as is everything else), from my perspective.

I thought we had agreed to distinguish between perception and perceptual
variables.

I think of a fact as the state of a perceptual variable. The color of my desk
is brown. That is what I would call a "fact". I would also call it a
"perception" or "the state of a perceptual variable" (the variable is color).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

12

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.2032)]

Marc Abrams (2001.1012.1710)

Besides existing what has Israel done to warrant the killing of innocent
civilians?

Obviously I have touched a nerve. I withdraw.

> I doubt that all the nomads are watching satellite television in their
> tents, but that may be a limitation on my part.

I don't think the nomads are the ones we need to reach.

I'm afraid I lost track. Exactly who do we need to reach?

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

13

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.2140)]

There seems to be some confusion about my position on this question. On the
off chance that someone might be interested, I'll state it as succinctly as
I can. Israel is surrounded by enemies. If I were a betting man, I'd bet
that it will always be surrounded by enemies. There is nothing I can
envision the Israelis doing that will change this state of affairs.
Continuing to build settlements that violate international law seems
unlikely to improve the status quo, but they seem determined to continue
down this path.

The United States has often declared itself to be a close ally of Israel.
In this case, the United States puts its money where its mouth is. The
states that are hostile toward Israel are therefore likely to be hostile
toward the United States as well. Favors done by the United States are
likely to be quickly forgotten. Explaining why the United States is really
a good guy is unlikely to be successful in changing many minds.

The United States was attacked without provocation. The attacks were
completely unwarranted. The United States can and will retaliate. The
problem the United States has is that the form its retaliation is taking
may well lead to increased hostility toward the United States and will make
it easier to recruit more suicide pilots and bombers. I think this is
undesirable. I would prefer to see the United States deal with Bin Laden
covertly. However the United States has never been very successful at cloak
and dagger operations. The United States' intelligence system since the end
of the cold war leaves a lot to be desired. The United States probably has
no alternative to the war it is now conducting. I am not sanguine about the
outcome.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

14

[From Rick Marken (2001.10.13.1000)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1012.2140)]

The United States has often declared itself to be a close
ally of Israel...The states that are hostile toward Israel
are therefore likely to be hostile toward the United States
as well.

...

The United States was attacked without provocation.

It sounds to me like these two statements are somewhat contradictory.
First you imply that US declarations of support for Israel provoke
states that are hostile toward Israel to be hostile toward the US. Then
you say that the US was attacked without provocation.

After the discussions on CSGNet I have come around to the view that the
attacks were indeed provoked and that the US bears some responsibility
for the provocation (since we knew our support of Israel was pissing off
Arabs).

I certainly agree with you about one thing: the attacks were completely unwarranted.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

15

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1013.1528)]

Rick Marken (2001.10.13.1000)

I certainly agree with you about one thing: the attacks were completely
unwarranted.

Point taken.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.