Sgt AssHead said:
I ask this because I saw a local news story on this concept.
As Bill O'Reilley said on his own show
"I submit to you and everybody watching tonight, that after 10 years we got it. We know the difference between peace-abiding Muslims and people who make war under the banner of Islam. But here's the question: Did we say in World War II, we were attacked by Japanese extremists or German extremists? Did we do that? No we said we were attacked by the Japanese. We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."
I know that not all Muslims are terrorists, and I also know that not all terrorists are Muslim, but the fact is that Muslim terrorists did attack America on 9/11.
So, is it racist or biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the United States?
It's important to understand something about World War II, and that is that during that conflict the US actually went to war. Meaning we declared martial law, and the goverment invoked War Powers. Despite using the terminology "war" we haven't actually been to war since.
One of the things those War Powers did was let the goverment take control over all of the information, and effectively engage in a propaganda campaign. All of the pro-nazi (yes there was a lot of it), anti-war, peace at any price, and isolationist stuff was basically gagged by the goverment. It was basically illegal to use the media to undermine war efforts. The Smithosonian has an entire section dedicated to World War II Propaganda, and trust me there is a reason why you had all of those pictures of smiling housewives making cuts to give her all for Uncle Sam, and none of the anti-war criticism you see now. Those sentiments existed, they were just surpressed and were quelled by propaganda and very careful control of the information.
Right now the anti-war elements are able to speak freely, and wars, especially long wars, are NEVER popular with the people. Few people want to go to war and get shot, or see that happen to their kids. Not many people (excepting psychotics) are all that keen on slaughtering other people as well.
One of the ways to derail a war is of course to humanize the enemy, and that is one of the reasons why you see so much flak about how we treat Muslims, what labels are used, and people trying to claim that we're dealing with a tiny group of extremists rather than the entire culture.
In comparison one of the ways to get a people focused on a war is to demonize the enemy. Point out how the common people support a war effort and the idealogy even if they aren't actually fighting (the same can incidently be said about your own people), then of course show them at their worst, while only showing yourselves at your best. A few lies to stretch the truth like oh say "Nazis make lampshades out of human skin" complete with a few fake ones being produced as proof can along with other things whip people up into a pro-war frenzy. This is the kind of thing an anti-war movement when not quahsed is of course afraid of.
On an even footing anti-war sentiments are always going to be stronger than pro-war sentiments due to what people want instinctively (to be left alone, and to be safe). Hence why with things on an even keel right now as far as who controls information the anti-war movements (however they define themselves) have a lot more steam.
The bit about Muslim extremists is propaganda on the level of the human flesh lampshades, albiet in reverse. Both the Nazis, and Muslim culture are similar in that they controlled/control the overwhelming majority of their people. While not all Muslims run out and engage in active warfare, any more than all Germans were wearing uniforms during that war, it's actually only a tiny minority who are against what is going on with the US and the rest of the world because of how they have been brought up and conditioned. A Muslim who isn't fighting WILL shelter insurgents, and even act to hamper retaliation by exploiting our morality by doing things like closing ranks around an ambusher who fired an RPG into a convoy to prevent retaliation given our enegagement policies. You see it all the time.
It's sort of like how people rarely bother to think about what the US is like when it's seriously rallied for a war (which has happened rarely) and what it would take to beat us in that state. We wouldn't all lay down and surrender to the nazis if they were to rise again for example and martial law was declared. To defeat the US they would have to invade American Soil and pretty much decimate our population to prevent the constant insurgency. When we beat Germany during World War II we saw the same thing in fighting The Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, and the general rank and file civilians. People know that in the final days a lot of the fighting in the final days was a bloody building to building affair, but few bother to really think about what those words mean. The same basic thing is nessicary against the Muslims, we are at war with their culture as much as any specific nation, just as during World War II we were at war with the Nazi idealogy (which was based in Germany but international, Hitler was a man of the year don't forget) and pretty much had to wipe that entire culture out to the point where Nazis are a tiny fringe element.
Of course people WANT to hear that things are differant, they want to hear it's only a small group we're fighting, we don't have to get our hands dirty, we can just go home and live peacefully and the problem will go away since it's a tiny fringe that can't do anything more than it already has. People are always going to listen to what they want to hear and that is pretty much what Bill O'Reilly is pointing out, though I do think the answer to his rhetorical question (about the differances between how we viewed Japan and Germany and the current enemy) isn't quite that clear cut since it has a lot to do with the goverment actually going to war.
It should also be noted that in closing that there is a differance between "anti-war" and "peace at any price" sentiment. The big differant being (for those that hear the terms) is that the latter will actually lie about the factions involved/enemy and cover up a lot of what they do (or misrepresent it) in order to prevent a war. Their attitude being that covering up, redefining, or changing the details of how a massacre happens or whatever is BETTER than actually going to war over it for example. The same can be said for demonizing their own troops and so on. To their way of thinking nothing is worse than a war and massive groups of fighters going at it, and preventing them or hampering them justifies any actions no matter how underhanded, treasonous, or wrong (since to them it's about degrees of wrong).
One of the problems is that by not invoking Martial Law, the US's own population of "peace at any price" believers effectively engage in reverse propaganda. This being differant from someone who just believes war is wrong, but holds to the general facts. Those with "peace at any price" type sentiments oftentimes tend to pretend they merely dislike war.
A lot of people don't understand the differance I think, and the actual accusations leveled at certain media groups and even politicians in this regard. The people engaging in this kind of thing tend to believe they are serving the greater good, which is one of the big problems in dealing with it.
At any rate, my attitude is of course one where I feel wars are a last resort (that is however not to be confused with something to be avoided at all costs, or not engaged in at all), however once a war happens the kid gloves come off, there are no rules in destroying the enemy, and part of fighting a war has always been about propaganda and information control and that the goverment needs to have a stranglehold in order to rally the people. That kind of thing blows chips on a lot of levels, but it's nssicary, and why war sucks.
I think conflicts like the current one, and this paticular point being made by Mr. O'Reilly, are good examples of exactly why we should not be sending the military in wartime force without actually going onto a full wartime footing/martial law in order to support that action.
