PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Fliegenmong 8th Mar 2012 08:53

"Absolutely not true, that theory totally refuted by the interim Libyan government."

Ah well, take it as gospel then............Like Tony said "Malcolm has my 100% support"

Frank Arouet 8th Mar 2012 09:22


Ironically, Hamilton and co were able to use national broadcasting
Strange how the ABC has become the propaganda arm of The Australian Labor Party today. I guess Abbott will go through them like a dose of salts when he gets the reigns.


Silencing Dissent
From the J Gillard little red book.

Disinformation, Propaganda, Paid Trolls, and Control of Information.

Interesting! This was posted earlieron the D&G forum.:

25 Rules of Disinformation


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

((The above article appears on over 50 different websites, and according to at least one site has been floating on the Net since at least the late '90s. I do not know where the original came from.))

RJM 8th Mar 2012 10:36

It reads like a media training session.

A couple of my favourite "politicians' ploys" are:

- if the question involves any element of the future, eg 'Would you support...?'

Answer: 'Look, I'm not going to indulge in hypothetical...' or 'Look, I'm not going to speculate...'

- if the question requires information about past events, eg 'Did you...?'

Answer: 'Look, I'm not going to give a blow by blow...'

Every time you state something improbable or unclear, precede it with 'Clearly...'

If you are Penny Wong and are asked a simple direct question:

Answer: 'Could I just step back a bit...' then present your own unrelated question and answer it at length. Remember at the end of the interview to say 'Good to be with you' though it's clear it wasn't.

parabellum 8th Mar 2012 20:47


Ah well, take it as gospel then............
The point being, Fliegs, the idea it was anything to do with burning the Koran would have given the Libyans the perfect 'out', we are well accustomed now to gross over reaction by Muslim groups to anything they see as 'anti-Muslim', they chose not to take it and instead are blaming it on a hooligan element and have issued a public apology.

Andu 8th Mar 2012 21:02

Not unrelated to the last couple of posts.


snopes.com: Professor Indrek Wichman E-mail

Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country. Professor Indred Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.' In his e-mail, he said the following:


Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I.S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
Had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

Solid Rust Twotter 9th Mar 2012 06:17

Seems to me those students are more in need of diversity training than the good prof, unwilling as they are to bend from their rigid demands as to how others should act.

MTOW 9th Mar 2012 20:57

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


EARLY last month a revealing document written by Australia's Border Protection Command was quietly released under Freedom of Information laws.

Marked "Secret", it was a draft study of the implications for Australia of adopting a policy of turning back asylum-seeker boats: an issue that has become a flashpoint of difference between the Gillard government and Tony Abbott's Coalition.

Although written shortly before the 2010 election, it offers a rare insight into the candid views of defence and Customs officials into the controversial turnaround policy now being advocated by the Coalition.

The report neither endorses nor rebuts the Abbott proposal but instead lays out a daunting list of practical, legal and diplomatic obstacles to a policy of turning asylum-seeker boats from Australian waters.

Customs states the report is still in draft form and, as such, it "does not reflect official guidance". But it does reflect the honest views of those within Border Protection Command.

The timing of the report's release is awkward, given that in late January Abbott told The Weekend Australian's Paul Kelly the Coalition was committed to a "core policy" of turning back asylum-seeker boats.

This was a clear step-up in rhetoric from Abbott, designed to portray him as tougher on border protection than the government.

But the practicalities of the Abbott proposal have been subject to little public scrutiny.

The Border Protection Command report argues such a policy would risk virtual hand-to-hand combat on the high seas between Australian navy sailors and asylum-seekers. "(Asylum-seekers) will exhibit non-compliant behaviour once they suspect/confirm they will be returned to their point of origin," the report says. "It is highly likely therefore that Australian Defence Force personnel tasked to implement this policy proposal will be exposed to additional hazards.

"Past experiences indicate this could include deliberately lit fires, improvised weapons, potential physical assault and increased risks to the safety of personnel required to rescue (asylum-seekers) who jump overboard.

"The impact of morale of Defence will suffer and ... possible consequences will be greater incidents of post-traumatic stress disorder."

Abbott accepts that navy personnel would bear the brunt of his new policy and that there would be brutal aspects to it. But he maintains that is a price the nation must pay to help stop the flow of asylum-seekers to Australia.

"This is a test of wills and Australia has lost," says Abbott. "What counts is what the Australian government does, not what it says. It is time for Australia to adopt turning the boats as its core policy."
It would seem Tony Abbott might have more than a little difficulty implementing his 'talk tough' policy in illegal boat arrivals should he ever find himself in a position to act on it.

Also interesting that the last boat to arrive didn't even rate a mention on any of the MSM evening news broadcasts.

parabellum 9th Mar 2012 23:49


Also interesting that the last boat to arrive didn't even rate a mention on any of the MSM evening news broadcasts.
Hasn't Gillard issued a blanket suppresion order on news of arriving boats and asylum seekers in general?

Rather than turn the boats around Abbott would be better off trying to stop them leaving Indonesia in the first place, that will involve more bribes for the police but be altogether a safer way to go.

Frank Arouet 10th Mar 2012 04:18

I would think the Typhoon Mk 25 would give cause for alarm if it were directed near one of these illegal boats. (stabilised 25mmx 200 RPM naval equipment that appears to be under utilised).

bob johns 10th Mar 2012 05:15

bob johns
 
Sink the first one after a published date then see how many more would like to have a go! Oh yes, and get rid of the UN.

Andu 10th Mar 2012 08:11

I think a better option would be to have the Navy have a refurbished asylum seeker boat (with a working engine) accompany each "interception" vessel.

When the (misnamed) asylum seekers sabotage their boat (as they surely will after sighting the RAN vessel), simply transfer them to the refurbished boat (with an armed Navy crew to stop them doing the same to the refurbished boat), advise the Indonesians that a boat has been intercepted in their area of SAR responsibility, (preferably just after 5.00pm when everyone in Jakarta has gone home for the night), set out towards Java, when close in to Java, hand over to the Indonesian crew with a course to steer and advise the captain that he just enough fuel to get back to his port of departure. If necessary, bind the hands of every "asylum seeker" and leave it to the Indonesian crew to cut their securistraps after the RAN have left the scene.

Navy steers a southerly course with sabotaged boat in tow to be repaired and used next time.

Terramakasi and marsalama habibi.

Frank Arouet 11th Mar 2012 03:29

Latest figures show an increase in unemployment and a decrease in GDP. Swan has been living the lie for one month on incorrect jobs figures. But it's now all OK after his spindoctors went to work on ABC this morning.

Andu, good suggestion, but I like the direct approach of the Typhoon Mk 25.

And yes, we should get out of The UN. (but I bet we won't).

sisemen 11th Mar 2012 05:05


Swan has been living the lie for one month
Whaddya mean: Swan has been living the lie??

The whole bunch of them have been living the lie ever since Krudd started going crook (and that was about 2 weeks after the 2007 election).

It's time. :E

Slasher 11th Mar 2012 05:19


It's time. :E
Wrong jingle Sise - used before to promote uncle Gough.



sisemen 11th Mar 2012 05:35

Hence the "evil" smiley. Chuck it back at 'em :}

Frank Arouet 11th Mar 2012 06:54

Yes, the times, they are a changing.;)

heated ice detector 11th Mar 2012 09:33

This thread getting a tad racist wot wot!

Frank Arouet 11th Mar 2012 10:37

Where, pray tell?

RJM 11th Mar 2012 14:14

On a slightly different topic: In the Queensland election, we see the modern 'hollow' Labor Party in action. Ruthless in campaigning, useless in governing.

Bligh is now attempting to demolish Campbell Newman. No presentation of her own plans, or statement of Labor's achievements - just a tear-down of the opposition intended to leave Bligh bloodied, reviled, but still in office.

Worrals in the wilds 11th Mar 2012 15:54


No presentation of her own plans, or statement of Labor's achievements -
That would be a really short speech as far as the current Qld Labor government is concerned.

Of course last election there was no presentation of her plans either, probably because they involved selling off everything that wasn't nailed down a week after victory, then atttempting to silence people who had the gall to protest that this was 1. a bit anti Labor and 2. not mentioned at any time during the campaign by throwing them out of the party. :yuk:

No doubt she and Fraser are hoping that people have forgotten about that. Guess what; they haven't.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:21.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.