Harvard Study: The media's Anti-War stories "embolden" Iraqi insurgents

Disagree.

If AQ is in a country, but not doing anything, why encourage them to take action?


I don't like bees, but I don't go around swatting nests just so I can fight them.

Bees will leave you alone if you don't bother them.

Al-Qaida is bothered by our existence.

Bothered? Probably.

But the Al-Qaida in Iraq didn't seem to be killing many Americans before America invaded Iraq.

Well, if you're going to play "let's pretend" what if Superman came down and singlehandedly kicked Osama Bin Laden's ass?

The overwhelming evidence indicates that al Qaeda is losing in Iraq. They've been driven out of Falluja and the Anbar province, they've been run out of Baghdad, and now they're being methodically wiped out in Mosul(?), their last stronghold. It has come down to the point where they are using women and children as suicide bombers, and pretty much all Iraqis--even the fundie Shiites--have turned against them.

To be fair, there weren't many Americans in the immediate area for them to try to kill. (Although the International Institute for Strategic Studies did conclude that the Iraq war gave a nice boost to AQ's recruitment efforts.)

If our fighting creates AQ, how did they ever come to exist in the first place? And how come so much of AQ in Iraq comes from outside the country? Wouldn't you expect that--if your "fighting AQ is what creates it" theory is true--Iraqis would be much more represented among their ranks? Hmmm?

AQ doesn't think Iraq is a poorly chosen front. By their leaders' own words they are facing a desperate battle in Iraq. AQ considers Iraq a very crucial battlefield, even if you or Barack Obama don't.

And why would Afghanistan be a "badly picked front?" The Taliban regime gave AQ the cover to plan and launch their attacks on 9/11.

What "front" would you have chosen?

I used bothered as an extreme understatement. Al-Qaida is opposed to our very existence. You often hear such simple phrases as "Them Al-Qaidies hate us for our freedomz!!1!" but, you know what? They actually do hate us for our freedom. They are violently opposed to just about everything we consider fundamental values.

The German Army didn't kill many Americans until America invaded North Africa, Italy, and France, either. Would the world have been better off had America avoided those casualties?

In any event, they're not killing American civilians---they're killing American soldiers, which should be an indicator of how well armed, trained, and equipped they are. And if young men are willing to travel to Iraq for jihad, they could as easily travel to other places.

Which is why they've repeatedly attacked Canada, France, Germany, and other "free" countries, right?

No. They "hate us" for complex historical and geopolitical reasons, and sometimes just because the west makes a good scapegoat.

as if you had to point that out...

We aren't a bee's raison d'etre.

Of course, anything the US has done over the past 30 years has been turned to benefit recruiting efforts.

Build schools and hospitals? THE INFIDELS!
Basically ignore the Barracks bombing? THE AMERICANS ARE WEAK! WE CAN DEFEAT THEM!
Leave a muslim country? THE AMERICANS ARE WEAK! WE ARE WINNING!

Nah, whatever way you twist it, I'm not going to accept the equating of dissent with treason as anything other than wannabe totalitarianism.

All criticism is legitimate at all times - before, during, and after war is declared.

Its what I said all along. The Anti war crowd boosts the morale of the enemy while hurting the morale of our own troops in any war anywhere.

Why should they? Those countries are sitting on the sidelines in the Iraq War. AQ did attack the U.K. and Spain, though, didn't they? Considering that some people don't consider Iraq a front (or, in Dan's case, a well-chosen front) in the War on the Terror, Al-Qaida sure seems to have a lot vested in it...

They hate us because our influence brings modernity and they reject that in all its forms. They have their 7th Century book and their 7th Century beliefs and anything that stands against either is not only an opponent, but Satanic.

They hate you because of your meddling in the middle east. And they wouldn't have any support if it wasn't for that.
They've also said as much.

I never said it was treason. But I do say that if your dissent is such that it serves mainly to undermine the war effort or give support to the enemy, then it's unpatriotic.

Lawful. Not legitimate, because not all criticism is legitimate.

We have the right to pursue our interests anywhere, including the Middle East.

They hate an infidel so much as setting foot on Arabian soil.

Characterising dissent during wartime as "aiding the enemy" is pretty damn close to declaring it treason.

You'd like to see everyone including those who condemned the war beforehand marching lockstep behind the government differing only on the tactical matter of how to "win". This is required not to offend the sacred ideal of patriotism.

Pretty fucking scary. And all this without any proper basis, just some dodgy paper from a student.

So it's clear that the only course of action is to revoke freedom of the press and close the media down! DeRR!

A complete non-sequitor, regardless of its truth value.
Your claim was that Al Qaeda "hate America" because of western values. The reality is that this is not the primary reason.

A Briton has no right what so ever to get onto America for meddling in the Middle East. Your country set up most of those countries over there, including Iraq/ Kuwait.

I am neither "a Briton" nor would I be responsible for the historical policy decisions of my country if I were.

Yes, but the point is that many of the countries that espouse terorrism today or had it in the recent past(eh hem emerald isle) were meddled with by the British long before America ever got into the picture. Sorry for that slight, I don't like being called a yank.

No worries - yet the British fucking things up at one point doesn't mean the Americans can't do so again.

Just a point of order here... what fucking difference does it make if Johnny Taliban or Big Al Qaeda is feeling "bold" or not the day we put a bullet through his skull? We stop doing or saying certain things out of fear of making some swarthy bloke with a towel on his head feel a bit full of himself, and we HAVE let him win.

That is the reason. Our so-called "meddling" is despised because of the modern influences that come with it. Al-Qaida fears nothing so much as a Muslem population that embraces western values.

But I think you're missing the point. It isn't just a matter of what the bad guys think, it's what they DO. If killing American soldiers gives ammunition to those vocal critics who want to quit, and America quitting is the only way to win, then the bad guys' best strategy is to...

(a) ...offer to debate the matter at a special UN gathering.
(b) ...invite the West to a winner-take-all game of Texas Hold 'Em.
(c) ...stake the matter on a coin toss.
(d) ...kill American soldiers.

It's simple: the bad guys know some of us want to quit. So they do whatever makes the case for quitting more persuasive. It's EXACTLY the tactic AQ used against Spain (where it worked) and against Britain (where it didn't).

And when the things being said not only give Bombing Babaganoosh a little hope AND demoralizes your own troops?