I just don't get the attraction of this type of propaganda. I mean, I'm all for a bit of Agit-Prop, but this type of storytelling is preaching to the choir. The only ones who will read it, enjoy it and discuss it are people who already agree with it.

It isn't subtle enough or compelling enough to convince anybody who isn't already there. 

It's like the story of the frog and the boiling water. If you throw a frog into a pot of already boiling water, it'll leap out so quickly that it'll hardly be affected at all. But if you put it in tepid water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog'll boil to death without realizing it.

Good propaganda is about boling the frog slowly. It's about pulling people in, showing the good side, showing the bad side, showing a more complex view of both sides and slowly tipping over until your reader suddenly realizes the frog is dead. Ideally, in good propaganda it's about presenting the information in a way that seems even-handed, but that guides the reader to make the inference about "What is good" before the writer declares it openly.

After which the writer goes "so that's what's good. I know. It came as a surprise to me, too. So now that we know, what must we do about it?"

I believe Christian Jihad looks like this, this is a text from Getty Images, the picture was too awful

...excavated from mass-graves in eastern Bosnia, identified as Muslims killed by Bosnian-Serb forces in Srebrenica area and buried today along with 2,600 already laid down there. Bosnian Serb troops massacred up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys after capturing Srebrenica on 11 July, 1995...

They don't write Christians, they write Bosnian Serbs or something so we go free. But this was definitely a Christian Jihad. Thank you America, but you got there too late. While the rest of the world didn't do anything. Well, later, but that's another thing.

This is starting to remind my of the FISA (ish) thread, where I was

a) called a Chicken Little because I naively thought the recent FISA vote was the end of good government, or something (I don't, by the way.  I'm not the least bit frightened of the government having my phone records, or even my actual phone conversations.  I just think it's a really bad idea that will inevitably be abused.)

and simultaneously

b) called a hypocrite because I was accusing the government of fear-mongering and yet there I (Chicken Little, remember that) was, cynically using unfounded feara to "manipulate" the masses (and I don't even HAVE any legislation before Congress...).

Which really confused me.  How can I be naive and cynical in the same breath?  If you do, in fact, think the sky is falling (even if it's not), how is it hypocritical to get the word out?

But back to this thread.  Rather than play the game, I'm going to do what I did there and hold my tongue.  There's no discussion to be had here.  Bosch's mind is made up, and furthermore, he evidently thinks that BECAUSE his mind is made up, a winner is he.  Because I didn't name my pain (more Burton, I know), I'm some sort of fucking coward, whereas he is the big brave internet tough guy, defending the free world from turbans!  Turbans all around!  get 'em off me! by... drawing... pictures.

So I'm ready to name the problem in the middle east.  I've named him Paul.  He's very complex and there's no simple solution,  but because he has a NAME now, I'm no longer scared of him.

(For the record, I'm not scared of Paul.  I don't feel the need to exorcise my 9/11 demons by clinging to ANYTHING that will make me feel like it's something I can handle and defeat.  I admit my powerlessness and try to make the rent.  There will be more terrorism.  There will ALWAYS be terrorism.  We'll prevent some, we'll avenge others.  Some will get away scot free.  And so it goes.  But we know his name is Paul now.)

So I'm going to do what I did there, and bow out.  Eat a peach, fellas.