Poll shows more Americans think Obama is a Muslim

[scipio337]

Yes I did give evidence of that. Read:

Which explains how:

CBS:

Critics have said…

Critics, like you. Unfortunately, the substansive proof was lacking.

we ended up from only 3% of Americans thinking Iraq was involved soon after the attacks, to 45% in March 2003 and then 70% in September 2003

People think weird things, as the poll for this topic shows.

There’s even ones like 50% of Saudi Arabians support bin Laden’s views, or that in 2008, 40% of Egyptians and 31% of Jordanians believed Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks on the US

But what people believe isn’t proof of a subversive government conspiracy.

 

[Kadaveri]

…and I’m still missing where it was the “British/US propoganda” that “won them the war.”

Fail, again.

Read what I quoted again and pay attention:
Mein Kampf:

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound. For instance,** it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did…**

By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound…

the German war propaganda offered an unparalleled example of an ‘enlightenment’ service working in reverse, since any correct psychology was totally lacking…

What our authorities least of all understood was the very first axiom of all propagandist activity: to wit, the basically subjective and one-sided attitude it must take toward every question it deals with. In this connection, from the very beginning of the War and from top to bottom, such sins were committed that we were entitled to doubt whether so much absurdity could really be attributed to pure stupidity alone…
**
It need not surprise us that our propaganda did not enjoy this success**. In its inner ambiguity alone, it bore the germ of ineffectualness…

And in England they understood one more thing: that this spiritual weapon can succeed only if it is applied on a tremendous scale, but that success amply covers all costs. There, propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, while in our country it was the last resort of unemployed politicians and a comfortable haven for slackers. And, as was to be expected, **its results all in all were zero. **

I really can’t understand what you’re finding difficult to understand. I said Hitler was impressed by the British/American propaganda system and he considered it to be a factor in Germany’s defeat. Do you really not see that this is what he’s saying in the passages I quoted?

Yes the sentence when he said the exact words ‘big lie’ he did accuse the Jews. But he’s talking about the exact same topic here “in England they understood one more thing: that this spiritual weapon can succeed only if it is applied on a tremendous scale”, which I hope you can understand is exactly the same idea as the ‘big lie’ theory although he didn’t use the exact words ‘big lie’ in this instance. Also Hitler believed the Jews controlled Britain so any distinction is meaningless.

 

[MJE]

Maybe our president is philosophically aligned w/ Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Remember, Pres. Obama’s minister, “like an uncle” Rev. Wright awarded Farrakhan some kind of life time achievment award about 2-3 yrs ago. .

 

[scipio337]

Read what I quoted again and pay attention:

I really can’t understand what you’re finding difficult to understand. I said Hitler was impressed by the British/American propaganda system and he considered it to be a factor in Germany’s defeat. Do you really not see that this is what he’s saying in the passages I quoted?

Yes the sentence when he said the words ‘big lie’ he did accuse the Jews. But he’s talking about the exact same topic here “in England they understood one more thing: that this spiritual weapon can succeed only if it is applied on a tremendous scale”, the same principle as the ‘big lie’ theory. Also Hitler believed the Jews controlled Britain so and distinction is meaningless.

No, you said Hitler’s “Big Lie” was describing the propaganda systems in the US and Britain (and as my quotes show, it was in fact about Jews)…

which he thought won them the war

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6969756&postcount=73

See the difference? One says “won them the war”, and now the goalposts have been moved to “a factor in Germany’s defeat”

 

[Kadaveri]

Nevermind. There’s no point trying to explain anything to such deliberately obtuse people like you. Go waste someone else’s time.

 

[scipio337]

Nevermind. It’s a waste of time trying to talk to people like you.

I have three different translations of Mein Kampf, and can point out other passages that outline Hitler blaming the loss on Jews, if you like.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Nevermind. There’s no point trying to explain anything to such deliberately obtuse people like you. Go waste someone else’s time.

Translation: You’ve proven me wrong and I can no longer think of any defense to my position.

 

[estesbob]

Translation: You’ve proven me wrong and I can no longer think of any defense to my position.

Happens a lot around here

 

[Kadaveri]

Translation: You’ve proven me wrong and I can no longer think of any defense to my position.

Do you have arguments against my positions that:

1. A good example illustrating “how public perceptions can be so easily shaped simply by repeating a message over and over, even when obviously false.” (from the OP) is how the amount of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks rose from 3% soon after the attacks to 70% two years later?
2. That Hitler thought Britain and the United States’ far more sophisicated propaganda machine was instrumental in their victory in WWI? And that he thought their’s were so successful because they told big lies rather than only little lies (as Germany and Austria’s did)?

 

[estesbob]

Do you have arguments against my positions that:

1. A good example illustrating “how public perceptions can be so easily shaped simply by repeating a message over and over, even when obviously false.” (from the OP) is how the amount of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks rose from 3% soon after the attacks to 70% two years later? {/quote]

You have not shown that it went from 3% to 70% nor have you shown any evidence that anyone was pushing this proposition.

1. That Hitler thought Britain and the United States’ far more sophisicated propaganda machine was instrumental in their victory in WWI? And that he thought their’s were so successful because they told big lies rather than only little lies (as Germany and Austria’s did)?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I do not rely on polls to form an opinion, but after watching our president in action and learning what he has actually done and said since taking office, his “official” claim of being a Christian is not suported by his actions. He has consistently removed any protections for the unborn put in place by Executive order, he touts freedom to choose abortion including for his own hypothetical grandchild in the womb. These are his actions and statements, not any “big lies”. He did attend a Muslim school in his formative years and routinely refers to the contributions made by muslims to American society. He did not attent the National Prayer Day in DC but has attended a similar event held by the muslims. Perhaps this is what is forming the opinion of the average American, not any big lies!

He did not attend the National Prayer Day probably because the founders of this event werre creating somewhat of a scandal. These are the people called the “family” and which are a K street lobby organization They were part of the scandal involving Senetor Ensin and Mr. Coburn ( I don’t know if he’s a congressman or senator) This group has an extemely strange view on Christianity.

 

[scipio337]

Do you have arguments against my positions that:

1. A good example illustrating “how public perceptions can be so easily shaped simply by repeating a message over and over, even when obviously false.” (from the OP) is how the amount of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks rose from 3% soon after the attacks to 70% two years later?

You provided one quote (non-repetitive) in support, and several denials that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I wouldn’t call that very effective “propoganda”. You then made a false conclusion, linking the poll to the one quote, along with the caveat “without directly saying the lie itself” on the part of the deniers. Is denying a link between 9/11 and Saddam a type of reverse psychology, which does in fact, bring the “Big Lie” theory into play? I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

2. That Hitler thought Britain and the United States’ far more sophisicated propaganda machine was instrumental in their victory in WWI? And that he thought their’s were so successful because they told big lies rather than only little lies (as Germany and Austria’s did)?

So, we’ve gone from “won them the war” to “contributed to Germany’s loss” now to “instrumental in their victory”? German propoganda was less effective not because it told “Big Lies”, (whose exact wording was previously linked to Jews, a subject you seem to avoid), but because it wasn’t as pointed, direct, or effective, that German and Austrian leadership didn’t take it seriously, and that it was handled by buffoons (in Hitler’s mind, anyway).

it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did…There, propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, while in our country it was the last resort of unemployed politicians and a comfortable haven for slackers

Maybe, in a sort of confirmation bias, you’re convinced of these things, but why isn’t anyone else buying it?

And again, see my previously posted polls on the kind of crazy ideas that hold popular support. It can be the result of a “herd behavior” or “group mind”, but you didn’t supply any causative proof.

 

[Darryl1958]

Obama’s experience of Christianity is that of Black Liberation theology. As such, it is very compliable with the Nation of Islam of the racist Farrakan.

Very much, Obama’s mentor, the racist Reverend Wright along with the Muslim Louis Farrakhan, and Catholic priest Michael Pfleger get their theology from the exact same playbook.It is Muslim like nation of Islam is Muslim, and Farrakhan is Christian like Wright, Pfleger and Obama are Christian.
They are peas in a pod. There is perfect harmony between their preachings. Their theology is for all practical purposes indistinguishable. Christ is the victim, the powerless, black lesbian, woman etc, and salvation for society comes from the powerful—that is men, whites, WASPS, who must give all that they have to the blacks and the third world in order to be saved.

Call it what you will, Islam, Christianity, Church of the Left… It is Black Liberation theology, and that supercedes anything that a more traditional Christian or Muslim might think is the message of their religions.

Obama may have thrown Jeremiah Wright under the bus in order to get re-elected—as Wright acknowledged, that is what politicians do—, but his certainly did not throw the theology of his mentor under the bus. Understand black liberation theology, and you understand exactly where Obama is coming from and where he is going to.

 

[Kadaveri]

You have not shown that it went from 3% to 70% nor have you shown any evidence that anyone was pushing this proposition.

I shown that several times in this thread already including in posts addressed to you directly. Again:

3%

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.

70% (or 69%) by September 2003.

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

On creating the impression of such a link:

Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam’s involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years,** but most especially on 9-11**.”

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC’s “Nightline,” White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged.”

In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

“No, I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection,” he replied.

A previous article:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.

The closest a member of the Bush Administration came to directly accusing Saddam Hussein of involvement (that I know of) is at 17:15 in THIS documentary Richard Pearle says:

What hasn’t been established is a direct link between Saddam’s intelligence and the 9/11 plotters although even there there is evidence that suggests very possibly facilitation and assistance to the 9/11 hijackers… There really is evidence."

And there were also the claims that Saddam Hussein’s intelligence officers met with the leader of the 9/11 hijackers shortly before 9/11. Remember that? Or the constant false claims of co-operation between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

Again, nowhere did I accuse anyone from the Bush Administration of explicitly accusing Saddam Hussein of being involved with 9/11, what they did was constantly mention Saddam Hussein and 9/11 together (as well as making false claims of a Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection) in such a way so as to create the impression that there was a connection. This explains why in that period the percentage of Americans believing Saddam Hussein to be personally involved in the 9/11 attack rose from 3% to 70%, an amazing achievement for any propaganda system.

 

[Kadaveri]

Estesbob:

Again you have produced no evidence of this.

I produced the evidence HERE: Read it. See how Hitler asks “Did we have anything you could call propaganda? I regret that I must answer in the negative. Everything that actually was done in this field was so inadequate and wrong. From the very start that it certainly did no good and sometimes did actual harm.” and that “For what we failed to do, the enemy did, with amazing skill and really brilliant calculation. I, myself, learned enormously from this enemy war propaganda.”.

He said "The German nation was engaged in a struggle for a human existence, and the purpose of war propaganda should have been to support this struggle; its aim to help bring about victory." He says this is important, because “When the nations on this planet fight for existence… then all considerations of humanitarianism or aesthetics crumble into nothingness”, so it doesn’t matter if the propaganda itself is actually true, because Germany was ‘fighting for its very existence’ so normal humanitarianism and aesthetics (like telling the truth) don’t apply because “they might paralyze a struggling nation’s power of selfpreservation. And that has always been their only visible result…and since these criteria of humanitarianism and beauty must be eliminated from the struggle, they are also inapplicable to propaganda… This was the only possible attitude toward war propaganda in a life-and-death struggle like ours”

But, he says, Germany didn’t understand that propaganda should be used in such a way. “If the so-called responsible authorities had been clear on this point, they would never have fallen into such uncertainty over the form and application of this weapon” Since “The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities… The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc… The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.”

So what was wrong with German propaganda? Hitler says it tried too hard to appear reasonable. “It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction”, i.e. by making lots of little lies. Rather “all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”, that is, a few big lies. "our authorities least of all understood was the very first axiom of all propagandist activity: to wit, the basically subjective and one-sided attitude it must take toward every question it deals with". The British and the Americans used big lies, depicting Germans as a nation of bloodthirsty savages who were solely responsible for the war and whose soldiers did things like bayonet Belgian babies and roast them.

*“By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound. By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns… After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government’s assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy For the cruel effects of the weapon, whose use by the enemy he now came to know, gradually came to confirm for him the ‘Hunnish’ brutality of the barbarous enemy, which he had heard all about; and it never dawned on him for a moment that his own weapons possibly, if not probably, might be even more terrible in their effects.” *

 

[Kadaveri]

German propaganda however was not so fanatically anti-British, but just biased towards Germany, there was even some discussion on mistakes Germany made (whereas Britain never allowed any hint of their being in any way in the wrong). This is because the Germans thought if they made their propaganda too obviously biased their people would recognise it as lies, so better only to make little lies, which Hitler thought was a serious mistake because:

What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as ‘good’? We would only shake our heads. Exactly the same applies to political advertising.…

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.
It was absolutely wrong to discuss war-guilt from the standpoint that Germany alone could not be held responsible for the outbreak of the catastrophe;* it would have been correct to load every bit of the blame on the shoulders of the enemy, even if this had not really corresponded to the true facts**…
As soon as our own propaganda admits so much as a glimmer of right on the other side, the foundation for doubt in our own right has been laid. The masses are then in no position to distinguish where foreign injustice ends and our own begins. In such a case they become uncertain and suspicious,** especially if the enemy refrains from going in for the same nonsense, but unloads every bit of blame on his adversary**. Isn’t it perfectly understandable that the whole country ends up by lending more credence to enemy propaganda, which is more unified and coherent, than to its own?*

So German propaganda would have been more effective had it followed the British/American example, fanatically depicting the enemy as totally evil and presenting their own side as totally benevolent. Because big lies are more effective than little ones, because little ones (like presenting Germany as merely more in the right than Britain, who might have a point) create doubt amongst the public, whereas big lies create totally certain.

English propagandists understood all this most brilliantly-and acted accordingly. They made no half statements that might have given rise to doubts. Their brilliant knowledge of the primitive sentiments of the broad masses is shown by their atrocity propaganda, which was adapted to this condition. As ruthless as it was brilliant, it created the preconditions for moral steadfastness at the front, even in the face of the greatest actual defeats, and just as strikingly it pilloried the German enemy as the sole guilty party for the outbreak of the War: the rabid, impudent bias and persistence with which this lie was expressed took into account the emotional, always extreme, attitude of the great masses and for this reason was believed.
How effective this type of propaganda was is most strikingly shown by the fact that after four years of war it not only enabled the enemy to stick to its guns, but even began to nibble at our own people.

 

[tjm190]

I shown that several times in this thread already including in posts addressed to you directly. Again:

3%


70% (or 69%) by September 2003.

These are not the same question- one is open ended, where those being surveyed provide any answer they see fit, presumably naming what they perceived to be a primary cause.

Comparable situation- “Who do you believe regularly makes significant misuse of statistics on CAF”. Some people might say “Kadaveri.” However, if at a different point in time it was asked “Do you believe Kadaveri regularly misuses statistics on CAF”, and the “yes”'s were significantly higher that would not show that public perception has changed.

Bottom line, you and I have no idea what percentage of Americans thought Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks at the time, only those who would blurt his name out when asked.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Although, you know, the question for me is: Does any of this matter? I don’t really care if he is Muslim or not, at this point. He’s been elected, and now he should get busy doing his job properly. That’s what I care about most, that he’s flitting around instead of buckling down and being serious. I mean, almost 22% of Americans are unemployed and he’s off on vacation. Again.

This is all that matters right now:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Sherry_G]

Of course not.

But it would bother many Americans, unfortunately. This is clearly an attempt to portray Obama in a false and negative light in order to hurt him and his party.

Obama portrays himself in a negative light by his own actions regarding removing any and all protections of life for the unborn. No one needs to attempt to portray him negatively at all as he is completely capable of accomplishing this all on his own.

 

[Roy5]

Critics of Obama re his religion should read “Dreams of My Fathers”. He is quite open in his discussion of his religion and his personal struggle with matters of faith. He describes in some detail his acceptance of Christ.

I am beginning to worry about my beloved country. It seems that enormous hatred and distrust is being directed at Obama, much of it on the basis of scurrilous lies. I may or not vote for Obama in 2012 if he runs again, but I want him to be a good president, just as I wanted George W. to be good president. I am convinced that Obama is a genuine idealist who voices many of my ideals, too - many Christian ideals - but people like Emanuel and Exelrod trouble me. Can he supercede that Chicago crowd that I distrust? 

On the abortion issue, which seems to be the litmus test for most CAFers, how can we disagree with Obama when he says that abortion should be as rare and as safe as possible? While I am against abortion, I recall the hutchering that went on when they were illegal. I am acquainted with ine situation where the mother died when she decided that she could not provide for another child. She may have been wrong, but she didn't desrve to die.

And as with nearly everything else there may be some exceptions. In that situation where the nun was excommunicated, for example. If it is to save the life of the mother it may be the lesser evil. I am familiar with one situation where a faithful Catholic woman became pregnant and was warned by her doctor that another birth probably would mean her death and that of her baby. She had six young children already. Now, she decided not to have an abortion to 'prove her faith and her trust in God' - her sad husband explained later. Both she and the baby died, leaving six motherless children. 

 Now, some of you may salute her for her courage and all that. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the grieving husband and the six children she has left behind.

 Personally, I view Obama haters as unAmerican, people who are unwittingly weakening our nation and playing into the hands of our country's enemies.