Al-Qaeda Group Launching “Media Jihad“

[HayesStreet]

In light of some of the recent debates about dissent I thought this was interesting. Personally, I agree with those who think dissent can be patriotic and that its a great freedom in the US. I do wonder if there is a point of dissent at which you do move from being constructive to aiding the enemy. While you don't want the coalition to pullout rashly and Iraq to collapse into civil war, your dissent at home is possibly pushing that outcome(I'm not saying anyone is posting gruesome pics though).

Al-Qaeda Group Launching “Media Jihad“

DUBAI, UAE, Aug. 19--An Al-Qaeda linked-group has launched what it calls a media jihad, or holy war, to “terrorize“ US-led forces in Iraq and their families by bombarding them with emails and by posting gruesome photos online, AFP reported.
The group, calling itself the “Brigade of Media Jihad,“ called on its militants to “post terrifying pictures on the Internet... in order to terrorize the enemy,“ said a statement on an Islamist website whose authenticity could not be verified.
“Our objective is to undermine the morale of our enemies, dash their hopes and dreams and reveal the truth of what is happening in Iraq. The media war is an integral part of the war on the ground,“ said the statement.
The group said it has launched its media offensive in several languages “on hundreds of Internet forums and through horrific emails sent to enemy soldiers and their families in order to terrorize them and break their morale.“
“We have succeeded in attacking 1,600 forums and electronic addresses through which our messages have reached 60,000 people, including soldiers, their families and other public figures,“ it said.
The relatives of US soldiers are being shown “the reality that their sons are living“ in Iraq, the group boasted.
The statement accused “Crusaders“ of controlling the mainstream media “and so we decided to use an important outlet, the Internet, that they cannot control.“
Islamist groups, including those linked to Al-Qaeda, have posted hundreds of statements on the Internet over the past two years to claim attacks on US-led forces in Iraq and Iraqis and others who work for them.
The online statements are often accompanied by video to provide proof of bombings, kidnappings and killings.
The brigade claims to be part of the “World Islamic Media Front,“ which has uploaded on to Internet sites footage of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where Islamist militants operate.

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2354/html/politic.htm#s85158

[FranchiseBlade]

I wouldn't want to see any of those websites, and I can't imagine others would either. I would also be careful not to open mail from strangers in e-mail.

I guess they are entitled to post what they want. It is shameful, and doesn't seem effective to do it, or like it would be too easy to avoid.

[HayesStreet]

I wouldn't want to see any of those websites, and I can't imagine others would either. I would also be careful not to open mail from strangers in e-mail.

I guess they are entitled to post what they want. It is shameful, and doesn't seem effective to do it, or like it would be too easy to avoid.

Why do you think its ineffective if they target the audience and images do cause more dissent?

[vwiggin]

In light of some of the recent debates about dissent I thought this was interesting. Personally, I agree with those who think dissent can be patriotic and that its a great freedom in the US. I do wonder if there is a point of dissent at which you do move from being constructive to aiding the enemy. While you don't want the coalition to pullout rashly and Iraq to collapse into civil war, your dissent at home is possibly pushing that outcome(I'm not saying anyone is posting gruesome pics though).

My dissent is based on observation of the facts and analysis of the president's words and actions. I will continue speaking my mind regardless of whatever spin campaign the Al Qaeda intends to unleash on the Internet.

You can find gruesome pictures for ANY war. I know and appreciate the human cost of this war. But if other Americans are somehow swayed by these pictures, then I question their maturity. Everyone should have known that war cause suffering and loss without having a picture to remind them of such basic truths.

If these pictures change your mind about the war, then you have never carefully considered the consequences of the war before you supported it.

Be swayed by reason, logic, and facts, not pictures.

[glynch]

Why do you think its ineffective if they target the audience and images do cause more dissent?

Actually it might very well do you, Hayes, some good if somehow some images can get through to you so that you won't be so bound by your arid abstract reasoning combined with excessive parsing of phrases.

Hayes: "Sadam is almost infinitely bad, like Stalin of my father's youth, therefore this third world dictator, must be "contained"at all costs-- human and economic. Hundreds of thousands of Iraq kids done in by sanctions or war ? Worth it. 2,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands wounded? Worth it $300 billion and growing? worth it. Double or triple all those costs? worth it. The fate of Western Civilization (I kid you not!) is at stake.

[FranchiseBlade]

Why do you think its ineffective if they target the audience and images do cause more dissent?
It won't be effective because the images will be easily avoided. I also think the source might cause some resistence from those it is intended to affect.

If people see images of the war and decide that the reasons they were given for this particular war isn't worth fighting, then I don't have a problem with that.

[bigtexxx]

Gruesome pictures aside, how is this different that what the left-leaners on this board do every day? By exclusively focusing on the negatives in their posts, how does that not serve to weaken the morale of the troops/America? I'm dead serious. This is why I have such a problem with the left-leaners who post nothing but negative news on here. Their eagerness to post this negative news is also troubling.

[Baqui99]

Gruesome pictures aside, how is this different that what the left-leaners on this board do every day? By exclusively focusing on the negatives in their posts, how does that not serve to weaken the morale of the troops/America? I'm dead serious. This is why I have such a problem with the left-leaners who post nothing but negative news on here. Their eagerness to post this negative news is also troubling.

Your eagerness to ignore negative news is even more troubling.

[thacabbage]

Gruesome pictures aside, how is this different that what the left-leaners on this board do every day? By exclusively focusing on the negatives in their posts, how does that not serve to weaken the morale of the troops/America? I'm dead serious. This is why I have such a problem with the left-leaners who post nothing but negative news on here. Their eagerness to post this negative news is also troubling.
Ironic coming from the same guy who posted graphic pics of 9/11 (and later ignominiously took them down) just to make a political point in favor of the Bush administration.

[bigtexxx]

Ironic coming from the same guy who posted graphic pics of 9/11 (and later ignominiously took them down) just to make a political point in favor of the Bush administration.

You totally missed the point of those pictures. The point was to show that lightly tossing out the, "9/11 changed everything card", then smugly chuckling, is absolutely disrespectful to everybody involved.

Wow, you've been striking out quite a bit recently. LOL

[DaDakota]

Great,

We can track their IP addresses and nail their A$$ !

[thacabbage]

You totally missed the point of those pictures. The point was to show that lightly tossing out the, "9/11 changed everything card", then smugly chuckling, is absolutely disrespectful to everybody involved.

Wow, you've been striking out quite a bit recently. LOL
Hmm, Al-Qaeda will resort to posting and emailing gruesome photos to demoralize the enemy.
Bigtexxx resorted to posting gruesome images of 9/11 to get his point across.

I think I got the point alright.

[HayesStreet]

Actually it might very well do you, Hayes, some good if somehow some images can get through to you so that you won't be so bound by your arid abstract reasoning combined with excessive parsing of phrases.

Hayes: "Sadam is almost infinitely bad, like Stalin of my father's youth, therefore this third world dictator, must be "contained"at all costs-- human and economic. Hundreds of thousands of Iraq kids done in by sanctions or war ? Worth it. 2,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands wounded? Worth it $300 billion and growing? worth it. Double or triple all those costs? worth it. The fate of Western Civilization (I kid you not!) is at stake.

Glynch: 'Is that a crisis? QUICK! to the Canada-mobile!'

It won't be effective because the images will be easily avoided.

They indicated they would be posting in forums targeting specific people, so I don't think its easily avoided.

I also think the source might cause some resistence from those it is intended to affect.

So you don't think gruesome images, or a deluge of negativity about the intervention will have any effect on public opinioon and then on policy?

If people see images of the war and decide that the reasons they were given for this particular war isn't worth fighting, then I don't have a problem with that.

Hard to argue against that really, just seems wrong to contribute to a bad outcome (if negativity does speedup withdraw - which is its goal).

My dissent...If these pictures change your mind about the war, then you have never carefully considered the consequences of the war before you supported it....Be swayed by reason, logic, and facts, not pictures.

Not sure what any of this is relevant. Sure, you can do whatever you want. The public may be immature. And? If through logic you can see that dissent can have a deleterious effect on the outcome in Iraq, then it would seem to be something a logical person would consider.

[Saint Louis]

Great,

We can track their IP addresses and nail their A$$ !

I'm sure they'll just outsource the job to India.

[vwiggin]

Not sure what any of this is relevant. Sure, you can do whatever you want. The public may be immature. And? If through logic you can see that dissent can have a deleterious effect on the outcome in Iraq, then it would seem to be something a logical person would consider.

You are equating dissent with a call for a withdraw from Iraq. They are not the same things. :)

Sure, some dissent may have a negative effect on the outcome in Iraq. But leaving this administration to its own devices will probably be even worse.

I'm a bit curious about the connection you are trying to draw between your opening remarks and the article you posted. Are you saying that by speaking up, dissenters of the war are no better than terrorists?

[HayesStreet]

You are equating dissent with a call for a withdraw from Iraq. They are not the same things. :)

Hmmm, not every dissenting voice is calling for the same outcome - agreed. But when dissent on balance scores higher than support that can affect policy.

Sure, some dissent may have a negative effect on the outcome in Iraq. But leaving this administration to its own devices will probably be even worse.

If the worst outcome is premature withdraw, then they can't do any worse.

I'm a bit curious about the connection you are trying to draw between your opening remarks and the article you posted. Are you saying that by speaking up, dissenters of the war are no better than terrorists?

No. I am saying that if dissent causes early withdraw, which is what AQ is working toward with their media movement, then we should consider whether the dissent's benefits outweigh its costs. Just as you did above (meaning you answered the question IYO) - better dissent and early withdraw or no dissent and stay longer. The article just trigger that in my head and thought I'd see what the dissenters think (since this is primarily a left leaning board).

[vwiggin]

Hmmm, not every dissenting voice is calling for the same outcome - agreed. But when dissent on balance scores higher than support that can affect policy.

I do think leaving Iraq is the dumbest thing we can do right now. So we do agree on that.

But I do respect people who have always been opposed to the war and are now still opposed to it. It is arguable that many of their views turned out to be correct--no WMDs, a much longer war than expected, body count rising, etc. These dissenters serve as an important counterpoint to our secretive and unresponsive administration.

The only dissenters I have little respect for are the people who supported the war and are now asking for a retreat. People like them got us into the war, and they better ride it out with the rest of us. :mad:

If the worst outcome is premature withdraw, then they can't do any worse.

Premature withdraw is really, really bad. But turning our nation into a place where people are afraid to voice their honest opinions against the government? Even worse.

since this is primarily a left leaning board

I'm new to the D&D side of the board, but I did notice a lot of liberal posters here. I'm a bit surprised given that this is a board supporting a team in Texas.

[vlaurelio]

I'm new to the D&D side of the board, but I did notice a lot of liberal posters here. I'm a bit surprised given that this is a board supporting a team in Texas.

its pretty safe to say that majority of houstonians are smart and progressive..

[tigermission1]

Well, the 'dissenters' now are, Hayes, those STILL supporting the war; those are the people in the 'minority', so to speak.

So it's a reach to try and label liberals as the 'dissenters' and try to make it look like as if they held a minority view of the war. Surely you don't think there are 60%+ 'liberals' in this country, do you? I mean, last time I checked ALL branches of government are Republican dominated.

You know my stance on the Iraq war. But I wouldn't question whether or not dissent is hurting this country's war efforts, because if you don't appreciate this most basic of our 'freedoms' as citizens, then it means that you don't appreciate democracy to begin with, and we can't be preaching democracy worldwide if we ourselves aren't hardcore 'democrats' (not the party, obviously ;) ).

Anyways, I personally think it's lame to try and turn around and blame 'dissenters' (not you personally) for us struggling militarily with the insurgents. I think it's a lame attempt by Bush-loyalists to try and take the blame AWAY from the President, and shift it to someone else; this is rather a normal tactic that is usually used by the party in 'trouble' when looking to place the blame for failure (or prepare to place the upcoming blame for failure) on the 'other' side. It's really lame, but nevertheless very much a predictable and often-used tactic. More than anything else, however, it troubles me, because it sounds like the Republicans are preparing the ground to blame the whole Iraq mess on 'liberals' because THEY themselves are lacking confidence in the mission.

Anyways, that's just my view...

[Deckard]

...........
If the worst outcome is premature withdraw, then they can't do any worse.
...........

Hayes... you've got to treat your significant other better than that!



Keep D&D... uh, whatever!!

[HayesStreet]

Premature withdraw is really, really bad. But turning our nation into a place where people are afraid to voice their honest opinions against the government? Even worse.

I'm not talking about being afraid to voice an opinion. I'm talking about people not voicing those opinions because the best thing for our country and Iraq right now is not to prematurely withdraw.

Well, the 'dissenters' now are, Hayes, those STILL supporting the war; those are the people in the 'minority', so to speak.

So it's a reach to try and label liberals as the 'dissenters' and try to make it look like as if they held a minority view of the war. Surely you don't think there are 60%+ 'liberals' in this country, do you? I mean, last time I checked ALL branches of government are Republican dominated....

Yes, and? I said it was a left leaning board.

You know my stance on the Iraq war. But I wouldn't question whether or not dissent is hurting this country's war efforts, because if you don't appreciate this most basic of our 'freedoms' as citizens, then it means that you don't appreciate democracy to begin with, and we can't be preaching democracy worldwide if we ourselves aren't hardcore 'democrats' (not the party, obviously ;) )....

As I said above: I'm not talking about being afraid to voice an opinion. I'm talking about people not voicing those opinions because the best thing for our country and Iraq right now is not to prematurely withdraw.

Anyways, I personally think it's lame to try and turn around and blame 'dissenters' (not you personally) for us struggling militarily with the insurgents. I think it's a lame attempt by Bush-loyalists to try and take the blame AWAY from the President, and shift it to someone else; this is rather a normal tactic that is usually used by the party in 'trouble' when looking to place the blame for failure (or prepare to place the upcoming blame for failure) on the 'other' side. It's really lame, but nevertheless very much a predictable and often-used tactic. More than anything else, however, it troubles me, because it sounds like the Republicans are preparing the ground to blame the whole Iraq mess on 'liberals' because THEY themselves are lacking confidence in the mission.

Anyways, that's just my view...

Interesting that you think its just a Bush Aministration red herring. That's why the article at the beginning of this thread is relevant. Al Queda is devoting resources to this. They just announced it. Its not an idea that has no basis in fact. Or at least no one seems to dispute that more dissent puts more pressure for withdraw. Its why anti-war people express dissent, right?

Hayes... you've got to treat your significant other better than that!



Keep D&D... uh, whatever!!

What the hell happened to 'be civil?'

[Saint Louis]

its pretty safe to say that majority of houstonians are smart and progressive..

No! Houston's secret is out! :D

[glynch]

I'm not talking about being afraid to voice an opinion. I'm talking about people not voicing those opinions because the best thing for our country and Iraq right now is not to prematurely withdraw.



So now it is best in your vision of America for the majority to just shut up and let the President and the government fight a war that a majority are against as they do not see it as necessary for the defense of the country?

What a bizarre idea. I doubt the Founders had this in mind. You are sacrificing the very idea of democracy and America on behalf of your obsessive support of this war.

By the way are you one of those people who doesn't think the war is worthwhile, but is not voicing this opinion?

[don grahamleone]

I thought Al-Queda lived in caves. Where are all these computers coming from?

Maybe it's not Al Queda?

[vwiggin]

Batman lives in a cave and I bet he has at least a 386.

[HayesStreet]

So now it is best in your vision of America for the majority to just shut up and let the President and the government fight a war that a majority are against as they do not see it as necessary for the defense of the country?

What a bizarre idea. I doubt the Founders had this in mind. You are sacrificing the very idea of democracy and America on behalf of your obsessive support of this war.

By the way are you one of those people who doesn't think the war is worthwhile, but is not voicing this opinion?

Hmmm, i don't know if my vision includes EVERYONE shutting up...although a name or two comes to mind :D .

Democracy is about HAVING the choice. If we recognize that open dissent on the war issue is worse than not - we can CHOOSE not to. That's not some chilling of democracy - it IS democracy.

I thought Al-Queda lived in caves. Where are all these computers coming from?

They probably buy online from Dell. :)

[tigermission1]

So, how much do you think an Al-Qaida computer specialist is getting paid? Are they too affected by the outsourcing phenomenon?

[Sishir Chang]

Democracy is about HAVING the choice. If we recognize that open dissent on the war issue is worse than not - we can CHOOSE not to. That's not some chilling of democracy - it IS democracy.


But what you're advocating then is self-censorship and I would go even further and say hypocrasy.

The nature of democracy is that if there is enough dissent then policy is affected. What you're saying is that people who believe that a policy is wrong they should keep quiet because even though you recognize they might make some good points is that overall the policy is good. The problem is that they don't believe the policy is good at all and under a democracy they have the right to speak out.

In a democratic system silence does mean consent.

[HayesStreet]

The nature of democracy is that if there is enough dissent then policy is affected. What you're saying is that people who believe that a policy is wrong they should keep quiet because even though you recognize they might make some good points is that overall the policy is good. The problem is that they don't believe the policy is good at all and under a democracy they have the right to speak out. In a democratic system silence does mean consent.

What I'm saying is that the people who are against (insert here - Bush, the original justifications for the war, the actual intervention etc) but realize that RIGHT NOW a rapid pullout is the worst outcome - should consider whether or not their dissent is worth it AT THIS TIME. There is nothing anti-democratic about that. It seems like you and others assume that because you HAVE a choice in a democracy to dissent, you should necessarily do so on every issue at every turn or be a hypocrite. I think that's silly. CHOICE is the key in democracy.

[Sishir Chang]

Sorry Hayes I wasn't calling you a hypocrite just saying that I believe in a democracy if someone doesn't agree with a policy but remains silent they are essentially consenting which IMO is hypocrisy since even though you oppose the policy you are doing nothing to address it.

Again I think I follow what you're saying but I respectfully disagree. You're correct that the nature of democracy is choice but what empowers democracy is the ability to make a choice to dissent against the accepted policy of the government. To the point that the government says, "I know you don't like this but go along with it because by speaking out against it is hurting our cause" Is a choice but its one where you've voluntarily surrendered the right to dissent. That is hypocrisy because the nature of democracy is that the government governs by the consent of the people. If you don't consent to what the government is doing I would say its your imperative to let them know. Especially in times of great trial because that is the only way that democracy can be tested about its ideals.

In regard to the specific situation. I'm one of those I think you are referring to. I disagreed with going to Iraq but feel that a rapid haphazard withdrawl is a terrible idea. In that respect I'm not silencing myself because I think my dissent will harm the cause. I agree, to an extant, with staying the course and will say so. That doesn't mean that I won't say that I think the Admin could be doing a much better job. That just means that I agree we shouldn't quickly withdraw.

For people who disagree with that position I wouldn't ask them to silence themselves because that is what they believe and they don't accept that they are hurting the cause in the first place. I would rather work to convince them why the cause, in this case not withdrawing from Iraq, is a good idea than just expect them to accept that just because we say it is so it is so.

Its a matter of trying to win people over than just telling them to be quiet.