[_delirium]

I think that's probably true, but I'm wary of this line of arguments. For example, anti-Vietnam-war protestors were accused of endangering American troops by emboldening the Viet-Cong, and the journalists who published the Abu Ghraib photographs were accused of inflaming Muslim opinion by doing so, some commentators even going so far as to say that the decision to publish the photographs meant they had blood on their hands.

[hugh3]

And that's all probably true. Anti-Vietnam-war protesters did endanger US troops and South Vietnamese civilians by emboldening the Viet Cong, and do in fact bear a great deal of responsibility for the fact that the war was eventually lost. The folks who chose to publish the Abu Ghraib photos and make a huge deal out of an incident of prisoner abuse no worse than what probably goes on a dozen times a year in any US civilian prison, likewise bear some responsibility for the provocation there.

[scott_s]

Saying that antiwar protestors bear responsibility that the war was lost assumes that the war was winnable.

[scott_s]

I'm wary of it as well. But war protestors are protesting against US policy; the purpose of exposing abuse is to prevent it from occurring again. As far as I can tell, the Florida group are protesting the existence of Muslims. All are legally protected, but I'm comfortable drawing distinctions for myself for how I treat them.