"...so we don't have to fight 'em over here."
Hmmm....that's a tough one. Both of those lines are just so...oh, I don't know....STUPID.
2007-12-13 23:41:06 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are both just as misleading.
"They hate us for our freedoms."
This is probably the most silly of all the cliches being repeated by politicians and pundits alike. If this were the case, Scandanavia and the Benelux would have been obliterated ages ago as they seem to enjoy more personal freedoms (legally) than Americans do. Even the terrorists themselves point this out.
No, the primary reason for their attacks on the US and Britian is for their history of interference with the domestic affairs of Middle Eastern nations, along with their support for brutal dictators that oppress their own people (Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Saudi royal family).
"We'll fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here."
This would only be feasible if the US were to actually have a clear plan to make quick work of its enemy. However, this surely is not the case as the US is stuck in a quagmire with no clear end in sight and fighting in relatively unfamiliar territory. The insurgents and terrorist operatives, on the other hand, are fighting a primarily defensive battle, which usually gives them far more motivation to keep fighting. A longer, dragged out war campaign works more in their favor as the "invaders" become more and more demoralized and the locals become resentful of the foreign presense and will inevitably "aid the enemy" instead of the "liberators." Plus, the true enemy is not even a government nor a declared rebel faction. This enemy is a faceless and fragmented one that has spread itself throughout the world. You cannot fight a covert, faceless enemy by conventional means.
The real goal of terrorist groups is not always to attack at every oppurtunity but to keep its target in a constant state of fear. They do not have to actually bring the fight "over here" but rather make its victims think that they will. This will cause the target (American society) to act irrationally and basically destroy itself from within. One more point to ponder: the combined forces of all Middle Eastern "rogue" states will still pale in comparison to a far more superior American military. It is highly unlikely that they would even be able to cross the Atlantic to "bring the fight" on our soil before being destroyed in the high seas.
2007-12-14 01:03:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋
Although both are twisted falacies intended to deceive by posing as facts, "They hate us for our freedoms" makes me cringe every time. It's the same warped logic as an abusive husband who says that the abused wife cries and hates him because she's jealous of his successful career... (Of course not because of anything he's done).
Looking at some of the answers, the trash talk has apperantly worked on some people. Not a surprise since this kind of propeganda has been proven effective in the past: Herman Goering (Hitler's chief deputy) at the Nuremberg trials said:
"Of course the people won't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger".
Chilling...
2007-12-14 00:07:55 · answer #2 · answered by TJTB 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
You really don't know what hate speech is do you? And you are arguing a maybe: "MAYBE that man heard Obama say "bring a gun" "get in their faces" "punish your enemies." I think the blood is on his hands. He is our leader and he regularly engages in hate speech." You can't take a maybe and turn it into the basis of an argument
2016-05-23 22:12:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those are some good lines but I have to bow down to the movie "Reefer Madness" as being the greatest propaganda ever made. Despite all science and logic there's still people out there, 80 years later, who have never even seen or heard of the movie that still think weed turns you in to some crazy crack head. The very thought of the movie makes me LOL IRL.
2007-12-13 23:45:59 · answer #4 · answered by Flavor Vortex 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, at least "We'll fight'em over there" makes sense. (i.e. Let's fight'em over there so we don't eff up our own sh*t.) Horrible? Yes. However, it does makes sense.
But "They hate us for our freedoms"? WHAT EFFIN FREEDOMS? The freedom to work ourselves into early graves? The freedom to go broke on basic necessities? The freedom to remain ill due to having no medical insurance? The freedom to be spied on? The freedom to voice opinions which may earn us the label of terrorist? I repeat, WHAT EFFIN FREEDOMS?
2007-12-14 13:04:45 · answer #5 · answered by SINDY 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They're all pretty bad. But, "You're either with us or against us" is an especially chilling one to me. It proves what a dictator Bush is. That's propaganda geared towards frightening anyone who disagrees with him or wants to remain neutral. Scary stuff!
2007-12-15 15:41:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mine has got to be Bush's "If you're not with us you're against us".
Let me translate that into English for you:
" I George W. Bush say let the Republicans do anything we want or we will lie and call you a terrorist too'.
VERY Nutty. That's our Boy George!
2007-12-14 08:41:41 · answer #7 · answered by Zinger! 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that We'll fight 'em over there is the one the most blatantly false. It seems that many people on Y!A have beeen drinkin the Koolaid.
2007-12-14 02:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by chemcook 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Very tough.
"They hate us for our freedoms?" No...actually, they hate us for our foreign policy. At least they got the first 5 words right.
But, I'll have to go with "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." A truly idiotic statement, even by the usual dumbed-down Wal-mart shopping, trailer-park dwelling republican standards.
What "terrorist" made that agreement? Has Al-Qaeda signed on? I don't think so. In fact, with us fighting "over there," we pretty much guarantee that they'll come over here sooner or later.
It's just a matter of time.
2007-12-14 00:15:24 · answer #9 · answered by Uhlan 6 · 6⤊ 3⤋
My favorites:
We will be greeted as liberators.
USA PATRIOT ACT
If you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to worry about (I don't think that is how the Constitution works)
Those that talk about phantom liberties are aiding the enemy.
The War is going well (then why do you keep making surprise visits?)
2007-12-14 01:37:42 · answer #10 · answered by White Star 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋