Terrorist = doublespeak for “The Little Guy”

The Arab population has unfortunately chosen vast oil-rich desert lands for their homestead. Energy companies, backed by our governments have fought an endless war to keep the oil flowing. (See United Fruit Company’s war in Guatemala for precedent.)

This corporate right of conquest is seldom discussed in the media. It takes for granted that this is a sound theory, and that property can indeed be transferred in this fashion.

It prefers to talk about the next step; various segments of the Arab population fighting back. (symptom not cause) In doublespeak, they call it “Terror” and they are fighting the gallant “War on Terror”. In true Orwellian form, they call the men and women fighting back for what is rightfully (?) theirs, “terrorists.” The Religious aspect is often focused on, and a favorite amongst the corporate media. (Maybe our steeling their natural resources has something to do with us being infidels.)

We are many, they are few. We are rich, they are poor. How exactly are they suppose to fight back? They can’t face our armies head-on. They rely on other methods, which can be performed in smaller teams with little or no technology. We label it “Terror”.

Aren’t the terrorists really just “the little guys” fighting back?
They have terrorists, we have paid soldiers (merceneries), Our heros get purple hearts, theirs get on the FBI's most wanted list.


[edit on 18/7/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Found this debate that discusses if terrorists should be considered soldiers...

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
...In the US, the Army doesn’t recruit soldiers at the barrel of a gun, they don’t rape the young children of dissidents to settle political disagreements, they don’t burn villages, they don’t plunder and pillage. The Taliban did all this and more. These men were NOT soldiers acting in the best interest of their country, fulfilling their duty, these men were criminals, pure and simple. If a foreign nation wants to fight a stand-up, gentlemanly war with the US, captured soldiers of that nation will assuredly be given the full protections and comforts granted a POW.

These terrorists acted foolishly, by engaging in criminal activity to the detriment of the US and Afghani citizens, and they paid the price. If the US were anything like the Taliban, we wouldn’t be talking about detainees, we’d be talking about corpses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'd have to read the whole debate to understand it in context. (You’ll see that WO doesn’t call for mistreatment of terrorist, just that they shouldn’t be protected by the Geneva Convention) WO makes a clear distinction between terrorists and soldiers. I'm not sure if WO was responding to the debate, or if he actually believes his statements. However, I'd like to respond to it here as it is a very good argument, and would put a serious hole in my opening post’s claims.

Here are some testimonies gathered during the Winter Soldier Investigation…

Stephen Craig: "...My testimony covers the maltreatment of prisoners, the suspects actually, and a convoy running down an old woman with no reason at all..."

Rusty Sachs: "...my testimony concerns the leveling of villages for no valid reason, throwing Viet Cong suspects from the aircraft after binding them and gagging them with copper wire..."

Scott Camil: "...My testimony involves burning of villages with civilians in them, the cutting off of ears, cutting off of heads, torturing of prisoners, calling in of artillery on villages for games, corpsmen killing wounded prisoners..."

Kenneth Campbell: "...My testimony will consist of eyewitnessing and participating in the calling in of artillery on undefended villages, mutilation of bodies, killing of civilians, mistreatment of civilians..."

Fred Nienke: "...My testimony includes killing of non-combatants, destruction of Vietnamese property and livestock, use of chemical agents and the use of torture in interpreting prisoners..."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

IMOH most of these terrorists are soldiers. Pure and simple.

[edit on 18/7/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Aren’t the terrorists really just “the little guys” fighting back?
They have terrorists, we have paid soldiers (merceneries), Our heros get purple hearts, theirs get on the FBI's most wanted list.


[edit on 18/7/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Little guys fighting back? You mean like the event at Beslan where they attacked a school full of children who are even smaller then them instead of fighting the Russian soldiers? Or attacking mosques, markets and funerals in Iraq where not even American soldiers are nowhere nearby? And I believe the terrorists don't give a dam about having their faces on wanted posters when they feel they deserve the 72 virgins and a paradise as a martyr. Sounds even better than just a purple heart on our side. I'm sure there are ways to defeat a high tech military force without having to go after civilians, for example IEDs, but it seems they like to go after civilians to terrorize them.

Have you read the quotes from the Winter Soldier Investigation? It seems US soldiers were doing similar things in Vietnam.

Originally posted by deltaboy
when they feel they deserve the 72 virgins and a paradise as a martyr.

You know for a fact that all who oppose corporate imperialism believe this?

ways to defeat a high tech military force without having to go after civilians, for example IEDs, but it seems they like to go after civilians to terrorize them.

So should the US military distribute free IEDs the same way we distribute condoms in High Scools? IEDs, the safe alternative