Reports about Iraq

[Vincent Vega]

Can anyone explain why the people fighting the Americans and British in Iraq are known as "insurgents" (revolutionaries), rather than freedom fighters or resistance fighters as the French were known in the second World War?

 

I in no way support them, but I can definetely see why they are doing what they are doing, and would fully expect the citizens of any country invaded by a foreign oppressor to behave in exactly the same way.

[Aaron Miller]

media spin is a bitch...

[bri]

I asked this the other week to a mate what insurgent meant.

 

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]

 

In american eyes they are trying to create a democracy with the agreement of the majority of the iraqi populous and the insurgents are fighting against that in support of the old status quo. I would say that they see America as just a bigger evil.

 

However after the UK has spent over £5 Billion (and god knows how much the US has spent) on this fuckin war there hardly likely to refer to them as freedom fighters are they. I'm suprised they arent refered to to as terrorists all the time.

[MLB]

Media Beat

Orwellian Logic 101 -- A Few Simple Lessons

By Norman Solomon

 

During the week after U.S. missiles hit sites in Sudan and Afghanistan, some Americans seemed uncomfortable. A vocal minority even voiced opposition. But approval was routine among those who had learned a few easy Orwellian lessons.

 

When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we're retaliating again.

 

When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.

 

When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values.

 

When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror.

 

At all times, Americans must be kept fully informed about who to hate and fear. When the United States found Osama bin Laden useful during the 1980s because of his tenacious violence against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, he was good, or at least not bad -- but now he's really bad.

 

No matter how many times they've lied in the past, U.S. officials are credible in the present. When they vaguely cite evidence that the bombed pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was making ingredients for nerve gas, that should be good enough for us.

 

Might doesn't make right -- except in the real world, when it's American might. Only someone of dubious political orientation would split hairs about international law.

 

When the mass media in some foreign countries serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of their government, the result is ludicrous propaganda. When the mass media in our country serve as megaphones for the rhetoric of the U.S. government, the result is responsible journalism.

 

Unlike the TV anchors spouting the government line in places like Sudan and Afghanistan, ours don't have to be told what to say. They have the freedom to report as they choose.

 

"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip," George Orwell observed, "but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip."

 

Orwell noted that language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." And his novel "1984" explained that "the special function of certain Newspeak words ... was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them."

 

National security. Western values. The world community. War against terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.

 

What's so wondrous about Orwellian processes is that they tend to be very well camouflaged -- part of the normal scenery. Day in and day out, we take them for granted. And we're apt to stay away from uncharted mental paths.

 

In "1984," Orwell wrote about the conditioned reflex of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought ... and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction."

 

Orwell described "doublethink" as the willingness "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed."

 

In his afterword to "1984," Erich Fromm emphasized "the point which is essential for the understanding of Orwell's book, namely that `doublethink' is already with us, and not merely something which will happen in the future, and in dictatorships."

 

Fifty-two years ago, Orwell wrote an essay titled "Politics and the English Language." Today, his words remain as relevant as ever: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."

 

Repression and atrocities "can indeed be defended," Orwell added, "but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

 

National security. Western values. The world community. War against terrorism. Collateral damage. American interests.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman Solomon is co-author of "Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News" and author of "The Trouble With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh."

[MLB]

^ Knowledge.

[cochcaer]

Ragheads! Derka derka derka Muhammed Jihad!

[Stu Monty]

Ah so you are from DerkaDerkastan then?

 

Terrorist:"Who are you?"

 

Undercover Gary: "I'm...ahmed....the terrorist.....sooooo anyone know of any up and coming terrorist attack then"

[Hermes]

I've read reports that most of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi nationals, but foreigners who have a common hatred of America. I've no idea if it is true, but it would explain how the war was won with very little resistance and now the occupiers face a daily battle to remain in control. Why else would they be killing so many of the policeman, who I presume are Iraqis.

[BatChainPuller]

I've read reports that most of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi nationals, but foreigners who have a common hatred of America. I've no idea if it is true, but it would explain how the war was won with very little resistance and now the occupiers face a daily battle to remain in control. Why else would they be killing so many of the policeman, who I presume are Iraqis.

 

The americans have created a magnet for every crazy in the region, thats their achievement. A lot of convincing accounts I have read say that before the invasion of Iraq the mad dog fundamentalists had become about as popular as a dose of the clap. Theres also the hardcore baathists - mostly sunni - trying to cling to power and portray themselves and hold down the shia majority.

 

Thats always been the american imperialist legacy - invade a country, blow it to fuck, totally destroy the civil society and create a recruiting ground for lunatics. In fact its generally their policy to employ one group of nutters to attack another - and eventually the nutters (bin laden, saddam hussein, etc etc )turn on the yanks and they're surprised..

[Nunavut Patrick]

The americans have created a magnet for every crazy in the region, thats their achievement. A lot of convincing accounts I have read say that before the invasion of Iraq the mad dog fundamentalists had become about as popular as a dose of the clap. Theres also the hardcore baathists - mostly sunni - trying to cling to power and portray themselves and hold down the shia majority.

 

Thats always been the american imperialist legacy - invade a country, blow it to fuck, totally destroy the civil society and create a recruiting ground for lunatics. In fact its generally their policy to employ one group of nutters to attack another - and eventually the nutters (bin laden, saddam hussein, etc etc )turn on the yanks and they're surprised..

 

 

Noriega in Nicarauga, Batista in Republica Domenicana, actually about every central/caribbean country.

[Section_31]

Private sector troops, what could possibly go wrong? 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/ex-blackwater-guards-sentenced-to-prison-in-2007-killings-of-iraqi-civilians.html?_r=0

[Jairzinho]

I've no doubt that these four gents aren't the most pleasant individuals that have ever walked the Earth, but I can't help feel that they're being thrown under the bus somewhat. Taking one for Team America in the PR war. These lads fuck off to jail whilst Dick Cheney is probably doing a book tour somewhere.

 

 

 

“The United States has shown that regardless of the nationality of the victims, it values justice for all,” Mr. Martin said. “Even when that means that the American who committed the crime must serve time.”

 

[Stu Monty]

For this sort of stuff Jeremy Scahill is your man. Superb journalist that wrote a book on Blackwater.

[lifetime fan]

While the prosecution ends with the sentences, the legal case is sure to continue for years. The case raised many new legal issues, including whether State Department contractors are covered by American criminal law when operating overseas.

[The_Goat]

They also call IS, the 'so called Islamic State' on the news. Vile as they are, if that's their name, then its their name.

 

Makes me think that a couple of hundred years ago were the calling the United States the 'so called United States'?

[Curly]

I asked this the other week to a mate what insurgent meant.

 

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]

If that's the actual answer your mate gave you, is your mate Google?

[setreal]

They also call IS, the 'so called Islamic State' on the news. Vile as they are, if that's their name, then its their name.

 

Makes me think that a couple of hundred years ago were the calling the United States the 'so called United States'?

 

To be fair, I reckon a lot of average US viewers - or Michelle Bachman - might assume that there is an actual country called "Islamic State" if they just call it that.

[bouncebrigade]

I've no doubt that these four gents aren't the most pleasant individuals that have ever walked the Earth, but I can't help feel that they're being thrown under the bus somewhat. Taking one for Team America in the PR war. These lads fuck off to jail whilst Dick Cheney is probably doing a book tour somewhere.

 

 

 

Possibly, although I think the difference here is that these guys were private contractors and, in theory, not taking their orders from the US government.

 

But yeah, I agree with your wider point (i.e. how the fuck is Dick Cheney not in front of a tribunal somewhere).

[stringvest]

Possibly, although I think the difference here is that these guys were private contractors and, in theory, not taking their orders from the US government.

 

But yeah, I agree with your wider point (i.e. how the fuck is Dick Cheney not in front of a tribunal somewhere).

 

I rather think they were taking their orders from the US Government.  A poxy proxy army.

[Kepler-186]

Short clip from Campbell and Stewart pod about the Yanks “reconstruction” plan for post invasion Iraq. 
 

God Bless America. 

[Section_31]

Thing about the yanks is that they've never been outmatched in a conflict, so their only tactic is to overwhelm with superior technology.

 

The British, even at the height of Empire, never had the best shit. The Spanish galleons were well better, but we had better and faster sailors and superior tactics. Our army was always shite and we could only win by cobbling together alliances.

 

So a hallmark of our tactics was guile and guerilla wars. SAS desert groups , commando raids, disinformation and other shenanigans.

 

The yanks don't truck that shit, they just send 1,000 flying fortresses at you and atom bomb your ass.

 

Problem is, this created hubris which made them think they could just steamroller anyone. They smashed the iraqi army, flooded the place with humvees and CIA paramilitaries and all the rest of it, but after the bombs had stopped they didn't have the finesse to handle what came next.

[SasaS]

Yes, yes, famous guile and guerilla wars of the plucky British Empire.

[TheHowieLama]

Revolution - Hold my beer.

[Section_31]

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Yes, yes, famous guile and guerilla wars of the plucky British Empire.

 

The British could easily subjugate people who had no guns, but pit them against a rival of similar technology and they were almost always on the back foot. British tanks, guns and artillery in world war 2 were total shite. Germans were developing U Boats and the Japanese were building aircraft carriers while we were fucking around still with ships that had big guns.

 

Britain survived the war through brains and nous. Radar, cracking enigma, commandos.

[Lee909]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Yes, yes, famous guile and guerilla wars of the plucky British Empire.

 

He isn't wrong

Most of the British tactics on land was to get the other combatants fighting each other and then coming in at the end to wipe out the survivors. At sea it was a bit different especially by the time the east India company had got there foot into India as though the British ships were often no better the Sailors and access to better gunpowder made the difference. The British army has traditionally been pretty small and spread very thin through the empire, not sure i'd call them plucky underdogs once they started empire building as being a island of the coast of Europe meant they rarely had the borders at risk. 

 

The battles with Napoleon really shows how they worked. Alliances with other nations, doing most of the work at sea before entering the land battles later on. Even Waterloo thats portrayed as a British/Prussian victory ignores that only about a 25,000 of the troops were British/Irish 50,000 Prussians. The rest German,Dutch(17,000),Belgium.

 

The empire was built behind the scenes and in countries that were never really united as a modern nations but more along the lines of city states/Kingdoms  like Germany,Italy were in Europe getting locals on side to fight for them, like they did with the Gurkhas in India.