You are 'paraphrasing' to suit your argument. Saying that people might adopt an 'all is lost' attitude is in no way proof of your position and in no way contrary to my position. He thinks the world is x, if people don't get the word about the way it is they may believe all is lost. That is completely consistent.
Yes, again notice the phrasing used in the memo: 'risks falling prey to' indicating he clearly believes that is not the truth but a misperception he needs to act out against. There is nothing here, FB. Out of thousands of memos this is the best of them? It's a joke. Your position makes no sense when looking at what he actually wrote.
I wasn't saying that he believed all was lost. Though he did believe in order to achieve victory we had to move the goal posts. I mentioned that he was afraid people would adopt that attitude. I was never saying he believed that.
when you lie, mislead and propagandize to spread fear to influence or coerce a group of people (in this case, americans) to achieve your goals that would seem to be, by definition, terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism ter·ror·ism 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Fine, but that is part of his job. Propaganda is part of war. In that case, every war ever fought by the U.S. has been terrorism against U.S. citizens. The only disconcerning part of his actions, is misrepresenting reality. He probably believed everything he said, which is why we need a competent commander in chief to reel him in. Unfortunately, we had a fool both in the White House AND SecDef. When things are bad, our government has a responsibility to tell us the truth, so the people can have a say in what transpires. It's admitedly a fine line to walk... which makes the job that much more difficult. Congress should be a check to their rhetoric, but they have been mostly spineless, and the American people have an appropriately low opinion of them for it.
I would prefer for the propaganda to be directed at those with which we are at war instead of the American people that are paying the price of war. It's this kind of blind reasoning - the twisting and selection of truth to suit your actions - that has us in this mess in the first place. Instead, grow some balls and give it to me straight (and my eyesight isn't so good so giving me the straight dope in the form of taxpayer paid bumper sticker slogans isn't best for me personally). Best Regards, Brock
Not really. In WWII they weren't saying that one party really wanted to ally themselves with the Japanese and Germans, and that if vote for them they will allow the enemy to move in on the U.S. They knew it was a United nation against the enemy that would work the best. They told people to be vigilant, but they weren't peddling fear.
i dont think lying and fear-mongering to the american people to get your agenda through is part of the job of secretary of defense. this administration is either totally incompetent or totally criminal. sounds like you are going the incompetent route? i, on the other hand, believe these criminals know exactly what they are doing. bush being the exception - he is a puppet - he is what he always has been...a male cheerleader and nothing more.
That definition doesn't do anything for your argument. Rumsfeld wasn't using violence against nor making threats against the public. Now you're just being dumb and trying to warp this generic definition. There is a difference between making a threat and notifying someone of a threat. In your interpretation saying 'hey, there is someone outside your window with a gun' would qualify as terrorism the same way 'if you don't release x prisoners we will kill the hostages' does. That's silly.
You really need to read up on the propaganda in WWII because you aren't representing reality very well. There were many people who did want to ally themselves with Germany, at least, during that time and it was an open debate. Further, saying the government didn't spread fear is wholly inaccurate (see Loose Lips Sink Ships, 5th Column hysteria etc). Portraying Japanese as subhuman and devils, etc certainly would be considered inaccurate, right? However, none of your argument replicated what we've seen quoted from Rumsfeld. Not even close.
on the contrary, that definition does plenty for my argument. he was attempting to play up threats against the american people in order to intimidate or coerce us to go along with the administrations agenda. he was attempting to incite fear in order to get the american public to submit to their agenda. another word for it would be 'fear-mongering' and it is a tactic this administration has used over and over again. well i think you are a doo-doo head! no, im just citing the definition given by dictionary.com and noticing how what rumsfeld did seems to fit that definition to a 'T'. never said there wasnt. but rummy wasnt trying to notify someone of a threat. he was attempting to exaggerate or create a threat in order to get the american people to submit, which brings me back to my initial statement that by definition, what he engaged in was terrorism. silly like a strawman argument!
Anyone ever see this? A painting entitled 'Picnic' by artist Muayad Muhsin, who was both inspired and enraged by a photo of Donald H. Rumsfeld slumped on an airplane seat with his army boots up in front of him, is displayed in Baghdad, Iraq Monday, June 5, 2006. The painting, which is expected to be unveiled at an exhibition in Baghdad next week, illustrates the simmering anger of Iraqis with the United States three years after it rid them of Saddam Hussein, whose ouster has been followed by an enduring wave of violence, sectarian tensions and crime. (AP Photo/Samir Mizban)
No, your making the same mistake FB made which is not supported by his actual words. When he writes about making the public realize x he is not talking about making something up. His words simply don't support your interpretation. See above ("realize"). Nothing in the memo quotes released so far support your interpretation. That is the crux of this debate - his words simply do not support your interpretation. Aside from that you don't seem to understand there is a difference between persuasion and coercion. Rumsfeld isn't threatening the US public (ie coercion), he is talking about informing them of the threat posed by someone else. Nothing silly about the tactical use of a strawman. If it isn't a strawman then the analogy shows how silly your argument is in application. If it was a strawman then your arguments gets even weaker - since then you're agreeing informing someone of a threat is not the same as threatening someone. You just can't show anything from his memo's about threatening the US public so your argument is toast.
he is playing up and exaggerating a threat to achieve a political goal. you can spin however you like, but that is what he was trying to do. that is your opinion and i disagree. no, he is talking about playing up and exaggerating a threat for the purpose of building support for the administrations foreign policy. i disagree. now you are strawmaning a strawman. creating a false argument w/in the false argument - cant say ive ever seen that before - well played! again, i never said that rummy was informing someone of a threat or threatening anyone - he was playing up and exaggerating a threat in order to achieve a polictical goal.
The problem is that you are basing your opinion on your general opinion of the administration, not on the content of the memos. I make a specific argument that the language in the memo does not support your interpretation (see 'realize') and you don't have a answer for that other than you 'disagree.' If you wanted to make someone take a particular view that was not true (or at least that you thought was not true) you would say 'make them believe x' not 'make them realize x.' That is not 'spin' that is analyzing his language. Compare that to your argument which is that you somehow know 'what he was trying to do' and your point comes up short. This part of the debate is irrelevant unless you can answer the above portion anyway, but exaggerating a threat doesn't meet the definition of terrorism. When it says the 'use of violence or threats' it means you are using violence or threatening someone, not that you are using someone else's threat to achieve a political goal. Again you are warping the definition which brings us back to the original 'strawman' (or not) argument.
