Stop using the terms of the invaders-they are not 'insurgents'

[poe]

Let's all forget this word 'insurgency'. It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started - they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting." -Seymour Hersh www.xymphorablogspot.com


Too often we are caught using the language of the oppressors.

[RBHam]

1. Americans called their insurgents "Patriots"...

And named a football team after them...

Sort of like naming a soccer team after suicide bombers...

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Are you sure

that this is a Seymour Hersh articles.

[poe]

5. Yes here is a better link to the entire speech from which this

was excerpted his 'we have been taken over by a cult' talk rebroadcast on Dem. Now there website has the transcript www.democracynow.org

[Oversea Visitor]

9. Thats a very small

section of the entire articles on why the resistance is growing so fast. And thank you for the link cause your original link dont work.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. "Resistance" is the most neutral and accurate term to describe...

the people fighting the foreign troops currently in Iraq.

[uppityperson]

4. Thank you for the reminder.

I agree that they are fighting for their country after being attacked/invaded by the USA and need a different term. "Insurgent" has always bothered me too.

Definitions:

Insurgency: 1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.
Insurgent: 1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Well, they are rebelling against the leadership of the republican party, but more accurately they are defending themselves against invaders.

[Aristus]

6. Calling them insurgents makes them easier to kill.

'Insurgents' makes them sound bad, evil and nasty. Call them rebels, patriots or The Resistance, and all of a sudden, they are brave, dedicated people defending their homeland against an illegal an unconscionable invasion.

Can't have that now can we?

[Haymare22]

8. Word.....

'Insurgent' is such a general word, sorta like rayguns 'freedom fighters'. Funny how they always find new fun words to call people....

Viva la Resistance!

[Poppyseedman]

13. Viva la Resistance! ?

Not wanting to misunderstand you and give you the benefit of doubt

Are you calling for the "insurgents" or whatever the hell you want to call them, to have victory over our troops by "Viva la Resistance"

I certainly hope not

[Dark]

7. BULLSHIT.

I am sick and tired of people on this board acting like the insurgents are these wonderful saints and we are diabolical exterminators.

They ARE insurgents. They ARE rebels. And they ARE terrorists. They kill indiscriminately. Those suicide bombers slaughtering innocent civilians kill men, women, and CHILDREN.

The are NOT saints. They are NOT patriots. And they are NOT going to save Iraq. They are just as evil as our administration. They kill innocents. Our patriots didn't do that. They killed, true. But they didn't go after children and women. They didn't behead neutrals and innocents.

THEY ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS.

[RBHam]

10. How do you know?

I'd say the attacks targeting the troops are led by nationalist rebels.

But whom does the convenient Al-CIAduh boogeyman Al-Zarqawi really work for?

His existence could be a complete psy-op job.

Read more...

The risks of the al-Zarqawi myth

by Scott Ritter

12/14/04 "Aljazeera" -- For months now, the Bush administration had been building up the image of a massive network of foreign terrorists using Falluja as a base for their terror attacks against targets associated with the interim government of Iyad Allawi and the US military which backs him.

One name appeared in western media accounts, over and over again: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a wanted Jordanian turned alleged "terror" mastermind. Almost overnight, Zarqawi's terrorist group, al-Qaida Holy War for Iraq, expanded its operations across the width and breadth of Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi was everywhere, his bombers striking in Mosul, Baghdad, Samarra, Najaf, Baquba, Ramadi and Falluja. Islamist websites published accounts of al-Zarqawi's actions, and the western media, together with western intelligence services, ran with these stories, giving them credibility. The al-Zarqawi legend, if one can call it that, was born.

The problem is, there is simply no substance to this legend, as US marines are now finding out. Rather than extremist foreign fighters battling to the death, the marines are mostly finding local men from Falluja who are fighting to defend their city from what they view as an illegitimate occupier. The motivations of these fighters may well be anti-American, but they are Iraqi, not foreign, in origin.

There is, indeed, evidence of a foreign presence. But they were not the ones running the show in Falluja, or elsewhere for that matter. As a result, the US-led assault on Falluja may go down in history as the tipping point for the defeat of the US occupation of Iraq. The January 2005 elections are now very much in doubt, and anti-coalition violence has erupted throughout Iraq (including from sources claiming to be aligned with - no surprise - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

more...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7476.htm

[Dark]

15. Well, I read your article, and,

From: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/554FAF3A-B267-427A-B9EC-54881BDE0A2E.htm?printguid={9FA18AFB-F2C9-4678-8E6A-3595D91B83A1}

According to former Iraqi intelligence personnel I have communicated with recently, the Mukhabarat, under instructions from Saddam Hussein, had been preparing for some time before the invasion of Iraq on how to survive, resist and defeat any US-led occupation of Iraq. A critical element of this resistance was to generate chaos and anarchy that would destabilise any US-appointed Iraqi government

Another factor was to shift the attention of the US military away from the true heart of the resistance - Saddam's Baathist loyalists - and on to a fictional target that could be manipulated in an effort to control the pace, timing and nature of the US military response.

The Mukhabarat was desperate for a way to divert attention from the fact that it was behind the attacks against Iraqi civilians. Iraqis killing Iraqis would turn the public against the resistance. It needed a foreign face, and al-Zarqawi provided it. A few planted CD disks later, and the al-Zarqawi myth was born.

According to my contacts, the goal in creating a foreign Islamist face for the violence taking place in Iraq is to get the Iraqi populace to turn away from Iyad Allawi and the US military as a source of stability, and endorse the return of the Baathists (under a new guise, to be sure), who would then deal with the Islamists by shutting down an operation the Mukhabarat thinks they control.


Well, the Mukhabarat, according to your source, seems to be the "true heart of the resistance" which is "behind the attacks against Iraqi civilians".

So, the resistance is the one targeting Iraqi children.

Also, this ISN'T an article. It's an OP-ED piece:

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera


Aljazeera
By Scott Ritter

[RBHam]

18. How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind...

Another perspective...

Sorry, should have included both...

By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah
London Daily Telegraph

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.

Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.


Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg
US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".

"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.

more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml

[TheFarseer]

11. Yes, we have to have some perspective

Muslim extremists are more evil than we could ever be. I don't ever see us kidnapping and beheading innocent people, or sending suicide bombers to kill civilians. I hate it when they call the insurgents "terrorists". Some of them are terrorists of course, but many of them just want us out of their country. If they just quit fighting us, they would be better off, but it's stupid to expect them to do that. I only blame bush for getting our troops killed and killing innocent people in the bombings when none of this needed to happen. I also question his motives...........

[poe]

14. of course the US sends bombers to kill civilians every day in iraq

over 100,000 dead mostly civilians. it's a war crime. capitalist extremists have killed more in the past 100 years than any other group-not even a close call. talk about evil how about the deplewted uranium that will destroy their agriculture for ages. aaaarrrgggghhhh

as far as suicide bombers "you give me the F-15's and i'll give you the pipe bombs."

[Dark]

17. I'm not saying that Bush is the good guy in this. But there are many dead

civilians, including some of ours, because of the insurgents. THEY ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS. STOP ACTING LIKE THEY ARE.

[Mystified]

24. You are dead wrong

Marxist & Communist extremists have killed WAY more than all capitalists combined. Let's see:

1) Stalin
2) Lenin
3) Mao
4) Pol Pot

Those 4 together are responsible for over 50 million deaths in the 20th century. And that is a very conservative number.

[poe]

27. 24,167 die each day from preventable hunger-why?

FAO figures. now how many have died in the congo in last 6 years? 4-6 million.why? viet nam at least 3 million? why? korea-guatemala-nicaragua-iraq at least 3 million in last 14 years and counting? slave trade-dying in the mines-poverty deaths-homelessness-sweatshop labor early deaths-on and on..... billions.

[Mystified]

29. What are you talking about?

Are you trying to say that anyone who makes any profit whatsoever off of anything in the world is a capitalist? I don't understand your point.

[poe]

44. i'm saying look at the totality and the so-called indirect consequences

of the commodified world. i should have reached back into the slave trade which was 100% creation of capitalism and how many millions died and the extermination of indigenous all over to get to the land to exploit resources etc. do not equate marxism w/communism in fact communism and capitalism are quite similar in practice. her is an interesting sidebar the icon of early industrial capitalism the racist henry ford thrilled to the sight of the machines of mass production. so did marx.

[Mystified]

46. Okaaaayyyy....

Don't equate Karl Marx with communism? And how is it that communism and capitalism are quite similar in practice? "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" versus (essentailly) "Every man for himself".

[poe]

56. i hear the words

i'm talking about how those two isms actually functioned-what they lookedlike. having spent some time in east-bloc countries i was struck by the similarities in "commie housing" and say cabrini green in chicago. i was struck by the similarities in the mining operations and the clearcuts. the words don't compute with the realities for either ism.

[TheFarseer]

26. Whoa, must disagree

"capitalist extremists have killed more in the past 100 years than any other group"

Remember Hitler and Stalin. We have some catching up to do to kill the tens of millions they have killed. And they intentionally were killing civilians. Gassing them, starving them in mass, lining them up and machine gunning them, shoving them into ovens. Not that I'll defend what we're doing, but we're not *trying* to kill innocent people, per se.

You make an interesting point though, I wonder if we were ever invaded, if we would try to fight them off with depleted uranium or if that's just for away games?

[two gun sid]

23. I don't buy it

We can be and are as evil as any Muslim extremist. We do kidnap folks, we torture them, and we are now discussing the use of death squads in Iraq like we used them in Central America. There ain't no good guys in any war.
This post is not meant to be a flame.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. I'm not so sure what's more evil. Dropping 500-pound bombs ...

...from 20,000 feet on people you don't know, whose history you haven't bothered to learn and the name of who's country you can't be bothered to pronounce correctly is, in my view, pretty * fucking * evil.

[Dark]

33. It is evil. No doubt about that. But so is driving a truck

filled with semtex into a crow of children.

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. We're PAYING for the 500 lb bombs; not for the truck bombers.

We're "paying for" = we have a *responsibility* .

No????

[Dark]

54. No, the insurgents and their supporters are responsible for the truck bomb

I'm saying that the Iraqi insurgency is not a saintly, patriotic organization trying to save its people.

They are slaughtering their own people. How is that justified?

[Smarmie Doofus]

59. Dark. It is "NOT" justified. But why do you agonize over what ...

"they" are doing???? What "we" are doing is something that "we" ( I'm assuming you are a US citizen) have control over ( we elect the president and senate that calculatedly, premeditatedly started this war.) and, because we have control over it, are *RESPONSIBLE* for it. Including the dropping of 500 lbs on innocent people.

"We" do not, by contrast, have control over the truck bombings."We" did not approve the truck bombings. "We" do not aid and abet them, as we do the five hundred pound bombs on innocent people."We" are not "responsible for the truck bombings. ( And if I can anticipate your retort, the people that drop bombs from 20000 feet *know* that innocent people will invevitably be underneath them,).

When I hear versions of your argument, the subtext always seems to be " yeah, what the US does is bad, but look how bad the other side is." The unstated conclusion we are to draw from this is that the 500 lbs bombs ( and remember they PRECEDED the truck bombings) are not such a big deal and may even be........ necessary?

Do you really believe this?

[Dark]

55. Dupe

[poe]

12. who is "our" patriots

is sending down bombs from 15,000 feet not indiscriminate. 100,000 dead in this latest massacre mostly women and children and the toll is mounting. how about dep. uranium the gift of death from "the patriots" that keeps on giving. how about more than 1.5 million killed during the sanctions over 500,000 children. the crime is the invasion from which all the other nastiness emanates. whoever "our" is it isn't me. patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and is practiced only by those who are engaged in an unthinking parochial allegiance and worship of manufactured symbols-the cumulative stars and stripes e.g.

[Dark]

19. I'm NOT saying that we are the good guys. Bush does not have the best

interests of the Iraqis in mind. I'm not going to debate the morality of the invasion. It was wrong to invade Iraq. I can understand their hatred.

But their hatred DOES NOT JUSTIFY TARGETING INNOCENT CIVILIANS, nor killing our troops.

And the sanctions? Perhaps if the UN had done a better job with its Oil for Food program, then perhaps those people wouldn't have died.

[poe]

21. oil for food program was US tithe-beware propaganda BS

do research on the so-called oil for food scandal. the real scandal was how the US was skimming monet through the world bank with this program. of course their hatred justifies killing your troops (not mine) they are shooting back. wrong questions wrong answers. all crimes emanate from what is the ultimate war crime an aggresive invasion.

[Dark]

34. We had a part in it, but if the UN had acted responsibly, then

those Iraqis would still be alive for Bush to kill.

[uppityperson]

16. They're not the good guys but they are resisting the invasion.

They are not good guys. They do kill, and maim and torture. So do our "good guys". However, they are resisting the USA invasion in the best way they know how. However, this doesn't make them "good", but I agree that resistance is better than insurgent.

[poe]

20. if someone invades my domicile and threatens my family

i'm sure i will not be seen as a 'good' guy by those who are indoctrinated into the same culture as the invaders. i don't believe in the good guy-bad guy dichotomy. this is genocide by any measure and many US troops are sado-masochistic bastards and many also want out. no matter how you slice it it is their land. and the children are being slaughtered en masse by some who revel in it please read Brian Cloughley's 3 page article from Jan. 25,2005 at www.counterpunch.org title "Iraq as Disneyland"

this madness damages us all.

[Dark]

31. If someone invades your home and threatens your family,

would you be better served by throwing yourself at them recklessly, possibly losing some people you love, or by cooperating and saving their lives?

Is is right that you would have to cooperate? No, but it is the best choice, compared with death just to protect your house.

What's more important: Your domicile or your family?

Oh, and the majority of our troops are not 'sado-masochistic bastards'. Some are, and they should be punished. But don't lump all our soldiers together as torturers and then complain about me lumping all the insurgents as terrorists.

[K-W]

38. Im sorry that Iraqi's act like humans and not robots.

Im a bit curious as to why you expect them to show levels of emotional detachment and rationality only seen amongst a small percentage of the human population in any country.

Yes, the most rational course of action is that of non-violent resistance. But it shouldnt be shocking that like all conflicts, militancy is, especially early on, a very popular way to fight back.

[Dark]

51. Militancy, yes. But indiscriminate killing of the people you are trying to

liberate?

That is both idiotic and evil.

[poe]

41. re-read my post show me where i said majority i said many i stand by that

i wouldn't throw myself recklessly i would assess the situation and i suspect cooperation would not be a part of the bargain. i would attempt to eliminate the threat by whatever means necessary-so would you. The US forces have invaded it is Iraqi land nothing changes that. america is a culture of conquest.

[Dark]

52. Hold on.

If someone was attacking, would you use your son or daughter as a shield so that you could get close enough to kill the attacker? Would you sacrifice the lives of people you are trying to save so that you could, um, save them?

[JanMichael]

22. Yes, some kill indiscriminately. I can imagine others don't.

Their targets are well marked with "coalition" and "colaborator" insignias.

The US (And their proxies) is a singular unit in Iraq, the "insurgency" is not, so stop calling them, THEM. There are several operating groups with differing targets and objectives.

[ultraist]

36. US uses weapons that kill masses of people, including innocent civilians

The US is not any more discriminating about who they slaughter than the resistance. Consider the HUGE bombs we use for fucks sake.

We have tortured and beaten to death people we had in capitivity. Is that any different than beheadings? I don't think so. In fact, torturing someone to death might be more painful.

The fact is, we have killed far more of their people than they have of ours. INNOCENT CIVILIANS. THAT IS EVIL.

I'd like to see a display of CHILD SIZE COFFINS that represent EVERY IRAQI CHILD that has been MURDERED BY THE US.

HOW MANY CHILDREN HAS THE RESISTANCE KILLED? Far less than the US has.

BS they are more evil than we are. WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY WHEN THEY WERE OF NO THREAT TO US.

[JanMichael]

40. I was only trying to point out the wrongness of using "Them" to...

...portray all of those who fight against the occupation.

I don't for a moment not consider our Invasion and Occupation a viscious crime against the people of Iraq and Humanity.

I think you responded to the wrong post.

[Dark]

45. I'm not saying that we have the moral highground. But neither do they.

Have killed horendous amounts of children? Yes. But the resistance has done so as well.

But the amount does not matter in morality. The reasons do.

No reason that I can think of could ever justify the taking of a human life, except to save another. The American soldiers kill children in the hopes of killing a few terrorists. This is WRONG. I won't debate that.

But the Insurgents will kill children if it means they kill Americans as well. They will kill children to stop people from helping the Coalition in any way. This is WRONG.

I never said that they are more evil than us. I just said that they are not less evil than us.

[Dark]

39. Yea, the insurgents care about being precise.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/193284_iraq01.html

At least 42 people were killed, including 35 children, and 141 people were wounded, among them 71 children, according to The Associated Press. Ten U.S. soldiers were also wounded in the attack, two seriously.


Sounds to me like they care all about targeting people well marked with 'coalition' insignias,

[JanMichael]

43. Dammit! Once again "they care"? There is not a monolithic "resistance"...

...in Iraq for fucks sake!

Fuck it. Go ahead and label all those people that are against the Occupation "Them".

Not that it matters here anyway.

[Dark]

50. The reason I use them is because I can't list all the different groups

set out against us. So, I use one simple qualifier for 'them'.

Are they violently trying to force us out?

If yes, then their ideaologies, beliefs, gang names and colors, or any other individualistic symbols doesn't matter. They are killing innocent people, and that's bad enough for me.

[JanMichael]

57. Oh man. This isn't working. Mic check, hello?

"The reason I use them is because I can't list all the different groups set out against us. So, I use one simple qualifier for 'them'."

No shit but "They" doesn't cut it.

"Are they violently trying to force us out?"

All I assume are plus I also assume that there are other reasons as well. nternal. personal, religious, etcetera.

"If yes, then their ideaologies, beliefs, gang names and colors, or any other individualistic symbols doesn't matter."

Yes, it does. We're there illegally, not them. So NO. nce again: "They" are not all market bombing while WE are there bombing period.

"They are killing innocent people, and that's bad enough for me."

Strawfuckingman overload. "They" are NOT "Killing innocent people". Some may be, others are not. Your blanket condemnation reeks of FOX.

We are killing innocent people, and that's bad enough for ME.

[K-W]

30. Did you even read the post you responded to?

The fact that the word insurgent is innacurate propaganda in no way shape or form celebrates what the resistance forces are doing.

But way to take an accurate nuetral point and pretend it is crazy liberal babble.

[Dark]

35. This isn't 'crazy liberal'?

Too often we are caught using the language of the oppressors.

[K-W]

42. What is liberal about that?

The United States without any reason illegally invaded a foriegn country and it's military is currently occupying it. It isnt liberal to call oppressors oppressors.

It also isnt liberal to point out that the word that they use and is now used almost universally to describe the forces we are fighting is not accurate and point out that this isnt the first time that inaccurate terminology from the Bush camp has become the commonly used terminology.

Stop worrying about whether somethign was liberal or conservative and ask the only question that matters.

Is he right?


Edit: By the way, liberal isnt just one side to a black and white world. It is a specific set of beliefs about government and society, none of which have anything to do with the proper word for the people our military is fighting in Iraq.

[Dark]

48. You asked me what was 'crazy liberal'.

Ask anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, and they'd tell you that they would see that remark as either of a liberal or a socialist.

I see a grain of truth in that remark. But you cannot deny that you have seen the sentiment, including in that speech, that we are 'horrible monsters' and the insurgency is 'full of saints'. This is what I gathered you meant by 'crazy liberal'.

[poe]

47. i'm not a liberal i'm a radical which means 'to the root'

get to the root of the cause-get out of the politics of comfort. don't let anyone call you a 'consumer' -understand how fallacious the terms of the debate are in all MSM accounts and devoid of context or you will akways ask wrong question and get the wrong answer.

[poe]

49. language is like a disease- it spreads

if you hear yourself using the same terms as the MSM check yourself into the nearest linguistic quarantine center. they can help. american propaganda is so pervasive and relentless most don't even know how much a part of the fabric of their existence it is.

[Karenina]

58. BINGO!

Or, more importantly, HOW it affects their thinking.

[BillZBubb]

63. Exactly!

Every time I read garbage like from this guy "Dark" and others I'm just getting the echo of MSM propaganda. It's like talking to someone who listens to Limpballs. They just parrot his baloney and don't even realize what they are doing.

It is unbelievable how many on DU still fall victim to the propaganda onslaught.

[Toots]

60. Why did we attack Iraq?

Do you feel attacking Iraq was justified? What justification do you use if in fact you feel it is justified.

[Peak_Oil]

61. Sure.

"Hello, old chap, are you a Tory?"

"Why no, I'm not a Tory."

"Oh, so sorry to have bothered you. Please, go on your way."

"Veddy good."

1. Boston Massacre
2. Shay's Rebellion
3. Whiskey Rebellion

I'm not going to get into what US revolutionary forces did to the Iriqois Nation, or in fact what they did to the entire population of ~54 million (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Jared Diamond) human beings.

Oh, I know, they were savages, and we didn't really mean to kill them anyway. It was an accident.

[BillZBubb]

62. You are the propagandist throwing the BULLSHIT

They are fighting for what they believe in against a foreign occupation. Yes, they are patriots. You may not like what they believe in, but that doesn't make them any less patriotic than you.

They attack foreign troops, foreign mercenaries, foreign support personnel, and native collaborators. All are fair targets. Yes innocents do die as the result of errors or being near police or military establishments. That happens in any combat zone.

We are responsible for FAR MORE INNOCENT civilian deaths than the Iraqi resistance. Our troops have killed innocents, even in some cases gone after them. Why aren't you whining about that instead of the small number killed by the resistance?

[Tinoire]

25. Seymour Hersh rocks!!!

I listened to this twice last night. It is SO good to hear a sane voice on the subject!

http://www.archive.org/download/dn2005-0126/dn2005-0126-1_64kb.mp3

[Jim Sagle]

28. And he RRRRRAWWWKSSSSSSSS, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

[Tinoire]

53. Funny that's how I was going to spell it

but I couldn't remember how many S's ;)

[McCamy Taylor]

64. Your insurgents are our Freedom fighters!