It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Referring to Iraqi Combatants as "Terrorists" is Absurd

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Finally, Islamo Fascism is a catchy descriptor but does little to reveal the true nature of the majority of the Iraqis being killed and maimed in this futile military adventure.


Please tell me what your descriptor is of those who are killing and maiming the majority of the Iraqis now? Who is doing the killing? Why are they killing more Iraqi civilians and military/ police personal than they are killing Coalition forces? What is the goal of those insurgents who are killing innocent Iraqi civilians? If they wanted the U.S. and other troops to leave ASAP, wouldn't it make sense to let the Iraqi government stablize the place so the troops could leave? I will await your answer.




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
...We have destroyed hard CIVILIAN targets by destroying infrastructure, which has hardened the average Iraqi against America and increased terrorist recruitment while the Bushies mendacity has caused a crisis in recruitment in our volunteer army.

Simply not true. Who was putting the fires at the wells out? Who set them off to begin with? How often does th US military blow up the pipeline? never. Who has been putting the electric grid back together the whole time we've been there? Us. Also not only has the military consistently met it's recruitment goals, it's re-ups are through the roof.


Finally, Islamo Fascism is a catchy descriptor but does little to reveal the true nature of the majority of the Iraqis being killed and maimed in this futile military adventure.


It isn't meant to describe the victims! It is meant to describe the real monsters who are targeting the peaceful civilians of a nation born again.


It is lost. The Bushies had no plan for what to do in/with a post-Saddam Iraq and we are all paying the price for that ignorance. The stumbling and bumbling has to stop. And it will provided the anti-American agents who seek to once again depress voter turnout and otherwise control the voting process are kept at bay.


Nice attitude. When the going gets tough- I'm outta here! Your ass ain't worth mine anyways...

Good luck against the Raiders. I'm routing for the Seahawks. Some teams are just so fun to hate.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Allright, before this goes too far off track, I think some clarification is in order. The overall point of this thread was to call attention to the fact that there is a suttle mind operation going on here with respect to the wanton, general naming of Iraqi combatants as terrorists. Are there activities going on targeting civilians? Sure. Can those activities be considered terroristic when they are in the middle of a civil war? Not so sure.

But still, that part of it, which is what you are describing in this discussion as indeed terroristic, and thus contrary to the title thread, takes the intended purpose of this thread and attempts to hijack it onto the road of self legitimization for considering the avarage Iraq combatant as a terrorist. And that's the part I cannot agree with.

One of the ways an administration can sell a war, or try to, that is, is through their own characterizations of the enemy, and through carefully planting images in our mind that will subliminally get us to think that "We are legitimate, and they are not." "We are doing the right thing, and they are not." "They are terrorists, and we are not." Well I am contending that that is what is happening here, and has been for quite some time in a further attempt to lend legitimacy to the war actions that have taken place, and make it OK in the public's mind.

Ask yourselves if you feel that the media, and the government, have been totally transparent in their descriptions of those that they combat in Iraq. I say not. You decide for yourself.

"We have intelligence information saying that the Fedayeen Saddam people — I'm not going to call them troops, because they're travelling in civilian clothes and they're essentially terrorists..."
— US Defence Secretary D. Rumsfeld
(The Washington Times, 26 March 2003)

So because they don't have uniforms they are now terrorists?

From: usin fo.state.gov


18 July 2004

U.S. Air Strikes Hit Terrorist Position in Fallujah, Iraq

Site is linked to terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

By Eric Green
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- U.S. jets have attacked a site in Fallujah, Iraq, in which about 25 people with ties to terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were present just before the strike, according to the Multi-National Force - Iraq in Baghdad.

A July 18 statement by Brigadier General Erv Lessel, the force's deputy director for operations, said the coalition was authorized by the Iraqi government to conduct the strike early that day against the terrorist fighting position in southern Fallujah, a hotbed of anti-government resistance. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian native, is accused of a series of car bombings, kidnappings, sabotage and other attacks aimed at destabilizing Iraq.


In the example above, they claim 25 people had ties to a single terrorist, al-Zarqawi. But note how the title immediately ups the effect and characterizes the entire crowd as a "terrorist" position. The title could have read more truthfully "Position with ties to terrorist al-Zaqawi hit by air strikes." It's stuff like this I am talking about. Suttle, but each time a bit slightly more effective, less noticed, less questioned, and more accepted by the general public as fact.

It is these types of wanton characterizations, done incrementally over time, which then embed themselves into our psyche as truth. When in fact, they are often times false, misleading, or improper characterizations. Every time the Bush administration or media get away with it unquestioned, they are one step closer to achieving the acquiescence of the average public mind, and furthering their agenda.

I simply just appeal once more to all who read this to be careful, read between the lines, and keep a sharp eye out for deceptions such as these.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   



Who was doing the interrogation? Smurfs? To compare the "methods of interrogation" that our soldiers do (loud rap music? They shivered? They sweat? Over 100 degrees? That's a nice day in the shade where these people are from!) to the regimes he noted is outlandish. That you hold up his standard is a mark against you.



Lol! Good one! I have to admit, it hardly amounts to what I'd call "torture". But then again, as I've said before, not all of these so called "ulawful combatants" are connected to terrorism. Many are just there because they got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, and it often takes months before they are allowed to speak to a lawyer or argue their case before a judicial hearing.

Obviously, not all of the interrogation techniques we use (sleep deprivation, loud music, cold, etc.) amount to torture, but let me ask you this: how would you feel if a member of your own family was treated this way? What if it were your wife, or son, or daughter, and there was little or no reason to believe that the detention and interrogation was in any way justified? You'd be angry, of course. You'd be so angry you'd want to kill Americans. Need I say more?

[edit on 2-11-2006 by Flatwoods]




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join