Reframe Wisely: Being Smart on Terrorism.

[usregimechange]

As a therapist I often utilize reframes as a powerful technique in cognitive therapy. As you are aware, this technique is being used in the political arena.

The reframe of the GOP frame that Dems are weak on terrorism should not be that we are strong on terrorism like (the perception of) the GOP. It should be that we are smart on terrorism.

Being smart on terrorism fits well with the continuity of the public perception about Dems (it does not ask them to reverse their perception but to alter it) and it would serve as a way to create the perception that the GOP is stupid on terrorism, which of course is the truth. Having our people say that collectively a million times with large microphones in front of them would turn that GOP spin weapon into our hands, as well as the other two branches of the federal government.

Editorial Example

Allen Shirley (Globe, July 14) objected to and misrepresented an argument made by some who oppose the war in Iraq.

He states that he disagrees with the idea that “by fighting terrorism, we are just creating more terrorists.”

Only a lack of awareness about the practice of distorting the arguments of others would give the impression that his logic is compelling.

The truth is that Iraq provided no assistance whatsoever to the terrorist activities of al-Qaida. The 911 commission found no evidence of a “collaborative operational relationship.”

The commission found that efforts by al-Qaida to obtain assistance from Iraq in 1994 were not responded to.

Let’s be clear: The war in Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, although that is the dishonest conflation that had helped sell the war to the public.

It is also clear, based on data from the U.S. State Department that worldwide terrorism has increased, even if you subtract every single terrorist attack in post-invasion Iraq.

In fact, the total number of terrorist attacks increased by 25 percent. How would you appraise the utility of the war? In the desire to be strong on terrorism, we needn’t sacrifice being smart on terrorism.

http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_201234241.html

[MidnightRyder]

1. ding ding we have a winner!

I changing brands is the way out of the mess Bush/GOP/Rove has created. People are much more likely to gently alter their perceptions than to shift 180 degrees so what we need to do is be smart in changing these brands. People are fed up with Bush and his war so are ready to latch on to new brands as long as they don't directly contradict the ones they already ascribe too.

Many people don't even realize they adopt what brand is repeated or emotionally portrayed on the news and they don't have to know for us to gradually shift their perception. I am busy searching for a new brand that accesses the fear and anger buttons of lots of people that Rove has control of right now. He has people by the balls.

[bobthedrummer]

2. "Reframing Perception-Space (P-space): A Quick Overview of a Unifying Concept"

by Col. Michael McKim USAFR (ret)
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/reframing-p-space.htm

Not therapy, but easily recognized today. Came out of psychological operations and the First Earth Battalion cult, used as a tactic by many. It doesn't work against the truth, and those of US that get it.


:)

[BlooInBloo]

3. Not contradicting them is cowardly and stupid, imo. And "smart" doesn't contradict "weak"...

... Reframe if you like using useless words, but contradiction *must* be involved at some point.

[bobthedrummer]

4. You NOTUS eom.

:+

[BlooInBloo]

6. Eh?

[usregimechange]

16. We should make a DU acronym dictionary. Thought I was in the know

[bobthedrummer]

17. It's merely an example taken from the link in post 2

[usregimechange]

18. I see said the blind man.

[sandnsea]

5. SMART Security

A Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism

http://www.oregonpeaceworks.org/site/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=988&Itemid=82

[bobthedrummer]

7. "Reality vs. perception management: the tinfoil controversy" (archived from 1-6-2006)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919

[ljm2002]

8. I like it...

...it redirects the discourse, and sets up a different either/or: instead of "strong" (explicit -- them) vs. "weak" (implied -- us), it becomes "smart" (explicit -- us) vs. "dumb" (implied -- them).

I would suggest:

"We cannot be strong on terror without being smart on terror." (embracing and extending the "strong" meme, if you will... :-) )

Followed by,

"And right now, we are not being as smart on terror as we need to be." (opening up the discussion to criticism of current situation)

I think it's a great reframe.

[MatrixEscape]

9. This seems like a rediculous non sequitur to me!

Since the so-called "war on terror" (or war on drugs, etc.) is a manufactured reality that serves the primary function of social engineering, is it not logical to conclude that one is colluding with a false premise by giving any credence to a blanket term that has become a name brand item for pushing other, more insidiously terrifying agendas down the throats of the peoples of America and other countries?

Terrorism has become a ubiquitous, non-specific, and ultra-simplistic term that appears to be applied, as needed by governments that consider any violent opposition to their doctrines, laws, and military escapades, as only criminal in nature.

I think most of us know that what we are calling terrorism today depends on a host of factors that require some careful discernment before we hastily make a judgment call. Historically, we can see many instances of violence enacted against empires and Kingdoms that are celebrated today as noble victories for freedom fighters and also as inspirations to stand up against and throw of tyranny by what ever means are possible.

But that is not what is happening today. The word terror, (and since nobody wants to be in terror or terrorized it is a perfect buzz-word to spread about) it can be seen, is used by parties on both sides of the Word. The people who commit the acts have various reasons to do so, from freedom fighting, to getting their cause or name onto the global MSM. The governments and people who represent the threat that encourages the action and then apply military, (and internal, political reformations that can be forced on their own people) also have so much to gain that terrorism is both a political and financial cash cow that can easily be sold and would make Zig Zagler drool.

And the larger bulk of regular, everyday people are only caught in the fray of this interchange and the salvos of power plays that are brought on by the imperialistic, exploitive actions of powerful players who boldly and proudly step on the toes of others and pretend that there is not going to be any natural, instinctive reprisal and potentially violent results down the line. Yeah, right. One can assume that malignant and intrusive foreign policies do not go forward without a good estimation of the potential results as in benefits versus risks. The benefits are assigned to the intruding power and the risks get handed over to the common people on each side. We pay for it, (like Americans and Iraqis) while they play for it and reap huge rewards for their malevolent schemes.

So now, we see another huge and persistent, operation mindfuck. Let's get in bed with that misused, highly subject and manipulative buzz-word by acknowledging its factuality and validity and reframing it. That is not a victory. That is a cow-tow to infamy and propaganda in a big way.

If you wanted to reframe the situation, you would have to have the intelligence and balls to get right down to the real nitty-gritty and expose the very use of the word as an ambiguous, blanket term. You have to go for the heart of this horrible, consumptive, profitable beast, not feed it treats to keep it at bay.

The only realistic, powerful, and necessarily bold way to deal with the prevalent misuse of the words "terror" and "terroism" is to put them in historical perspective and distill their use down to definitive terminology that clearly indicates whose terrorism for what reason against what power and why. Period. Anything else is a form of timid capitulation and a form of submissive pandering.

[usregimechange]

10. Ok.

[EFerrari]

11. The Thuggery is doing its best to blur this distinction.

And since they own the media, they may well get away with it for now.

[usregimechange]

12. Which is why we should fight back and use the best strategies

[EFerrari]

14. Agreed. n/t

[alfredo]

13. We need to constantly challenge DU and other Democrats to find

new powerful framing for the issues confronting us.

We've always had great ideas, but failed in the marketing of the ideas.

[bobthedrummer]

15. kick