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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glynch: 'Is that a crisis? QUICK! to the Canada-mobile!' They indicated they would be posting in forums targeting specific people, so I don't think its easily avoided. 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? Hard to argue against that really, just seems wrong to contribute to a bad outcome (if negativity does speedup withdraw - which is its goal). 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?
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. If the worst outcome is premature withdraw, then they can't do any worse. 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).
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. 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 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.
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...
