Does the enemy watch the American news?

I left this comment to this post on Hollywood, Interrupted.

It's racism you know. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq can't possibly be sophisticated enough to make decisions according to their perception of the US will to fight as portrayed by the US media. Sure, maybe *we'd* be smart enough to do that, but them? What a farce! What a pile of balony! It is to laugh. Ha!

Yet as long ago as Sun-tzu people who wage war have known that military might is only a part of it and not even the largest. Sun-tzu, in fact, goes on and on about evaulating the enemy's will to fight.

The only people who don't seem to think that this matters is the media. They exist in a special place, it seems, where encouraging the enemy doesn't make them culpable for the sustained fighting that results, or the deaths.

If you peaceniks want our troops to stop dying, make our media end their encouragment of the people killing them.

Update: I knew I followed the link to Hollywood, Interrupted from one of the milblogs I read regularly but I couldn't find the link back. Well, duh, it was from Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette.

Comments

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog