Spread this around...Let's use their "mushroom cloud" imagery against them

[marmar]

New Flyer to Print and Post Everywhere
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2006-04-18 18:07. Flyers and Posters


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=daiflyer

[Ian David]

1. Listing a "socialist" organization costs credibility in some circles

I don't necessarily have anything against socialists personally.

But if we want to attract mainstream America, "International Socialist Organization" equals "The Red Menace" in the minds of many old-school cold-war-era Americans.

Citizens for Legitimate Government has their own problems, though I still admire much of what that group does.

[marmar]

2. But there are quite a few "mainstream" sponsors on it to allay those fears

But I agree that some people will see the word socialist and their eyes will glaze over.

[Ian David]

4. Huh? what...

Oh, yeah.

[ret5hd]

3. Listing a "democratic" organization costs credibility in some circles

Listing a "environmental" organization costs credibility in some circles
Listing a "peace" organization costs credibility in some circles

[bananas]

5. And no tie-dye t-shirts!

"Tie-dye t-shirts" equals "Commie Hippie Freak" in the minds of many old-school cold-war-era Americans!

[Ian David]

7. A March To Irrelevance

A March To Irrelevance
By Matt Taibbi, New York Press. Posted September 11, 2004.

What positive effect did the protests during the Republican convention really have?

Hey, you assholes: The ‘60s are over!

<snip>


We are raising a group of people whose only ideas about protest and opposition come from televised images of 40 years ago, when large public demonstrations could shake the foundations of society. There has been no organized effort of any kind to recognize that we now live in a completely different era, operating according to a completely different political dynamic. What worked then not only doesn't work now, it doesn't even make superficial sense now.

Let's just start with a simple, seemingly inconsequential facet of the protests: appearance. If you read the bulletins by United for Peace and Justice ahead of the protests, you knew that the marchers were encouraged to "show their creativity" and dress outlandishly. The marchers complied, turning 7th Ave. into a lake of midriffs, Billabong, bandanas and "Buck Fush" t-shirts. There were facial studs and funny hair and man-sandals and papier-mache masks and plenty of chicks in their skivvies all jousting to be the next young Heather Taylor inspiring the next Jimi Hendrix to write the next "Foxy Lady."

<snip>

In the conformist atmosphere of the late '50s and early '60s, the individual was a threat. Like communist Russia, the system then was so weak that it was actually threatened by a single person standing up and saying, "This is bullshit!"

That is not the case anymore. This current American juggernaut is the mightiest empire the world has ever seen, and it is absolutely immune to the individual. Short of violent crime, it has assimilated the individual's every conceivable political action into mainstream commercial activity. It fears only one thing: organization.

That's why the one thing that would have really shaken Middle America last week wasn't "creativity." It was something else: uniforms. Three hundred thousand people banging bongos and dressed like extras in an Oliver Stone movie scares no one in America. But 300,000 people in slacks and white button-down shirts, marching mute and angry in the direction of Your Town, would have instantly necessitated a new cabinet-level domestic security agency.

Why? Because 300,000 people who are capable of showing the unity and discipline to dress alike are also capable of doing more than just march. Which is important, because marching, as we have seen in the last few years, has been rendered basically useless. Before the war, Washington and New York saw the largest protests this country has seen since the '60s – and this not only did not stop the war, it didn't even motivate the opposition political party to nominate an anti-war candidate.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/19840/

[KakistocracyHater]

10. finally

at last someone is noticing that this is another era & it's time to do things differently.

[bananas]

13. That guys an idiot

"But 300,000 people in slacks and white button-down shirts, marching mute and angry in the direction of Your Town, would have instantly necessitated a new cabinet-level domestic security agency."

In other words, he's saying that if we wore suits,
Bush would've created a KGB to spy on us,
and then he would've invaded Iraq anyway.
What a moron.

[KakistocracyHater]

14. No, that part doesn't matter

what matters is the people should get together & sign recalls by state rep/zip code or SOMETHING. Don't just get together for an emotional venting rally because eventually burnout happens because nothing got accomplished. It would be (hopefully) far better to go to each state capitol & use the law-laws HAVE been broken & action SHOULD be taken. Where & when are the judges going to issue arrest warrants? Legislators seem to feel they are above the law & are systematically ignoring their constituents, passing laws which are detrimental to the very people they claim to represent. Instead they constantly hear from monied interests; if justice is only for the wealthy then justice is dead. I'd like for it to be the law that reps MUST spend a minimal amount of time in the district they represent & must listen to the people in their district. This seems for now to be out of reach.

[kineneb]

17. Instead of suits, a suggestion

how about everyone dressed in black, holding one red rose, deadly (no pun intended) silent, marching down the streets? That might just at least merit some attention from the media.

[KakistocracyHater]

20. whatever

nt

[Ian David]

24. The key is to demonstrate conformity and organization

Whether it be grey suits or black hoodsies or big yellow chicken suits.

[katinmn]

27. or brown shirts

[Ian David]

28. Brown shirts belong to the OTHER side. n/t

[katinmn]

29. So does the idea of conformity

[Terran1212]

6. I thought about that too but then i decided the TRUTH is more important

I think its important for all citizens to speak out for their beliefs without being scared. The more people do it, the less bad it is for some to do it. There will be less stigma with socialism if people started speaking out in favor of it as they want to.

I agree we should adjust our PR some for the mainstream, but at the same time stand up for what we believe in.

[rucky]

22. Just print the freaking flier or don't print it.

But do not undermine this effort with your fears - especially when even you disagree with what you're afraid people will say/think.

Happens every time a DU-er tries to spur action. every single time.

sorry to pick on you. I'm just sick of seeing the million reasons why something won't work.

[Ian David]

30. That's because I hate freedom.

Sorry, I've just been having a hard time staying positive lately.

[katinmn]

25. It's time to change that thinking! Flaunt it, don't hide it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. You're right.

Almost as counter-productive as the Mexican-Americans who waved Mexican flags and demanded to be recognized as Americans.

[calimary]

8. K&R - this is well worth considering!

ANYTHING that turns their shit back on them is worthwhile.

[DanCa]

9. K&R - This has definite possibilities. (nt)

[jean]

11. "The mushroom cloud will become the smoking gun" I thought you

were going to use that phrase.

[Pryderi]

15. That's what I was thinking.

[rustydog]

12. So, what if the President of Iran is telling his people

that they don't want proof that America is an imminent threat in the form of a Mushroom cloud.

Would they be justified to launch preemptive strikes to prevent the utter destruction of their nation?
would they be justified to strike first since Bush has refused to take nuclear weapons off the table?

When does sanity take over and we stop Bush from bringing about the Armageddon he seems to so willingly be trying to jump-start?

Where is the threat? Where is the danger (I don't mean danger to republicans hold on Congress.)?

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. Please recommend this page NOW!! Please forward to everyone you know NOW!

My thanks to the OP.



Sign the petition at this website:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

those familiar with the Bush Administration are familiar with their kind of bravado.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Chief of State and Supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamanei who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929


snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientist and the hope of its children. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Swamp Rat]

18. Here's mine:

:hide:

[cry baby]

19. That is the pic in my nightmares!

really scary!!

[EFerrari]

21. Off to the Greatest.

:kick:

[Senator]

23. They TERRORIZED the American People with the "mushroom cloud" bomb threat

That's how to use it against them.

The way to stop the next crime is to punish the last one.

Like it or not, "Violence" is the answer.

--
www.january6th.org