as i always do, i browsed the tvnewslies front page to check out the headlines. today, i found this one:

Four U.S. Contractors Killed in Iraq
http://p295.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 ... s_killed_1

ok, so what's the big deal? well, i noticed when reading the first paragraph the reporter called the angy mob "insugents". i'll assume this was because they attacked the convoy of american "contractors".

also stated in the article was this:(keep this in mind)

"

now my twisted and always rebelling brain starts working here....these people were called "insurgents" giving one the impression they wre part of this organized resistance in iraq, but, in reality, they were just an angry anti-american mob who managed to somehow over power a convoy supposedly protected by american troops.

so, how does a group of "insurgents" do this? they don't. the writer, like any other news source, doesn't want to give you the impression that regular people, normal people, in iraq are fed up and pissed off at america's presence there. it was just an angry mob, as reported by the writer....they were not "insurgents"...just pissed off people.

likewise, when you have young children willing to happily run out and throw straw on a burning man, and laugh about it, you have to wonder just how much have we really accomplished in iraq. you never heard of this going before america arrived, yet, these young kids were happy to do this...like it was merely an after school prank for them.

this isn't a product of ignorant iraqi upbringing, or some backwards hill billy type people, but a product of our own doing. before america got there, these kids were most likely in school. saddam ruled with an iron glove, and perhaps he knew best what his country needed. unlike dumb americans who think we can waltz in a create eutopia with a few candy bars.

and, lastly, the writer said that 2 insurgents were shot later on. now, i am again questioning the term "insurgent" here. when the media reports that 20 "insurgents" were killed today, don't they really mean that 20 anti american protestors were killed?

reporting the alleged deaths of "insurgents" is a cheap way of making americans feel good about the war. they did the same crap in vietnam..every day 100 or more VC's were killed..EVERY day...one had to wonder where in the hell are they all coming from??? in reality, that body count, like iraq, was often merely civilians who were killed...but, hey, who knew the difference and who, back here in america, really gave a shit who they included in the "body count?

just like in iraq today...does any american really give a fuck if killed civilians are included in the daily "body count"? the bottom line i guess is just to make americans feel happy about the war.

just my editorial for today.

Well, mga, this is a little difference which we have between what terms in the English language really mean, and what the news media and government interpret them as.

Quick definitions (insurgent)


noun: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)

noun: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

adjective: in opposition to a civil authority or government


Now, the way our government is portraying the word insurgent, you would have to look at the second example of insurgent, in which case, the word insurgent in ONLY that concept, would be correct, from the governments point of view. This also though, totally ignores the other two definitions, which is how the other side feels.



In this case, this would mean that the government is considering itself the constituted authority, of a foreign country mind you. So, does this mean that this government considers itself the constitute authority of the world already?

Of course, what these fighters over there really are, are :
Quick definitions (resistance)

noun: the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with (Example: "He encountered a general feeling of resistance from many citizens")

noun: the military action of resisting the enemy's advance (Example: "The enemy offered little resistance")

noun: group action in opposition to those in power

noun: a secret group organized to overthrow a government or occupation force

So, I would think that this later definition would be what the people fighting against the occupation force should be called.
This will not happen though, I think that if the news media changed what they call these people to resistance, in the governments mind, would be saying that they are wrong in their actions.

To this government, ANYONE who does not agree with this occupation are insurgents, or potential insurgents. Now this is bad, because last night I was reading a poll taken in Iraq (not by our government) which is very very alarming. I am going to have to do some searching to find it again but as soon as I do, I will post it here. I will tell you this though, this poll is definitely in direct contrast to what our ever esteemed media and government are telling us.

Crimson

"The convoy, which included U.S. military guards riding in Humvees, made a wrong turn"????????

It certainly sounds as if there is much being left out of this non action.
I think this story will be back.

TUT

well, crimson, i'm glad you brought that up....now, i looked up "freedom fighter" and i came up with this:

freedom fighter

n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]

so, basically we can call the "freedom fighters" and still be 100% correct, but in the eyes of Main Stream Media, and our government, we would be wrong.

it's more appealing to the american masses when they call dead iraqis "insurgents"...that does sound more demonic.

one can only imagine how confused the public would be if the evening news said "american forces clashed with freedom fighters in iraq today....." lol...i wonder if they'd short out those little brains they have?

i would give anything to watch one newscaster say that.....

Lol, yes, that would be funny

Terrorism is an ideology, first of all.

Insurgency is a tactic. When ever a population hasn't the means to deploy a regualr army, and yet stands invaded, it has no choice but to turn to the tactic of milita actions.

Calling them *terrorists* is patently absurd, and shows little or no actual knowledge of what a terrorist is, or an insurgent.

The ultimate weapon is one man willing to die himself to take out the enemy. When you have a soldier, regular or otherwise, who will sacrifice their own life willingly to accomplish a battle of attrition, you have an army that will be very hard to defeat.

The US is quck to say that this group of that group is a terrorist organization, and yet, the term rarely fits. Most often the term is applied to irregular militias engaged in total warfare against an overwhelming enemy, not a preceived enemy (this would actually be a terrorist), but an actual occupying force. What most Americans dont' care to realize is it is the US that brought *total war* into modern warfare, and has consistently fought all international efforts to make total war unacceptable.

One can not wage war against ideologies. Well, I suppose one can wage a war against anything one chooses to, but in some cases the effort is futile.

Now that Pax Americana has sent our kids to the far flung corners of the third world in search of more merchantilist slave markets, we are forced to face the same horrid truth the Germans faced in the late 40's. Wide spread insurgency is nearly impossible to defeat.

It is worth pointing out that the US military is fully aware of this, and has taken steps to crush the insurgency. The use of DU rounds have made Iraq an uninhabital wasteland. From anywhere form 300 years to several million years (depending on the source you read, we actually don't KNOW how long the pollution will be effective) no human will be able to live long term in the areas where DU warfare has occured. Now, all that is necessary is to prevent the Iraqis from leaving until they all die from radiation exposure. The perfect war against an insurgent population, total war with no survivors.

Makes ya proud to be American, don't it?

Makes ya proud to be American, don't it?

yea....i'm constantly wiping away those tears of patriotism that keep falling.

Ah Ha, I knew I would find the thing.


LONDON (Reuters) - Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.

Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.

The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense.

Britain has more than 8,000 troops stationed in the south of Iraq, and has had 97 soldiers killed, the most recent the victim of a roadside bomb on Tuesday night

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051022/ts_ ... britain_dc