Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Did ISIS Quote US President?
There are no news reports of Christians or Jews strapping themselves with bombs and killing civilians in the name of their Deity, but there has been a steady stream of videos, not shown by mainstream media, showing Muslim violence, particularly against women. There are both reports and video that indicates execution for "apostasy from Islam", or propagating the education of women. The New York Times blamed American troops for "inciting" Afghani men by advocating women' rights and attempting to report the pedophilia of the Muslim men (they were forbidden to speak to journalists) who kept "boy slaves" in their caves. The New York Times referenced this as "cultural" issue rather than directly calling it pedophilia.
After the latest Muslim violence in the news, the Prime Minister of Israel has made a call for all Jews in France to leave and immigrate to Israel. France has towns where Sharia law is imposed and French citizens do not enter.
The Obama Administration announced today that it was allowing a large immigration from Syria. Critics said that this is to import ISIS since the federal government does not have the resources to do proper background checks, while still others say that jobs must go to US citizens first.
But what of the President's language? What did he employ to make the change?
a. Context Changed.
b. Introduction of new topics
c. Introduction of deliberately emotional words
It is a clever form of propaganda, oft used in newsreels by Josef Goebbels in the 1930's until 1945 in Germany.
It has been used ever since.
Parents of teenagers know how quickly a guilty party will attempt to 'water down' and 'share guilt' by diversionary language.
Investigators know how quickly a guilty subject will introduce another issue.
Politicians are known for introduction of incendiary language to elicit an emotional reaction. This is often parodied by "Yes, but who will save the children?" in comedy.
When President Obama was addressing the recent spate of Muslim violence, he introduced a different religion and introduced the emotionally charged language of slavery. In essence, he took the focus off the current murderous streaks of Islam, and turned the attention towards Christianity. The pool of guilt is therefore widened, and the unveiled appeal towards one race, unmistakable.
It was clever, in contrast to the deliberate blunt display of former President George W. Bush's 911 statement that "terrorists hijacked a peaceful religion" while knowing the teaching of the Koran is "order" by coercion.