Originally posted by Psychoblues
I've been reading here for months and always questioned the term "insurgent" as applied to American opposition in Iraq. Consider that many here tend to believe that "insurgent" means some uninvited or otherwise outside force manipulating internal politics. Actually what it does mean is "rising in revolt against established authority". Herein I have a problem.
Typically, all reference to "insurgents" in the context of Iraq are included with remarks bearing reference to al Queda or other religious fundamentalist Islamists. Surely you're not impying that Islamists in general are "insurgents" anymore than our occupiers of Iraq are religious fundamentalist Christians, or are you? I don't ever recall any reference to the Shiites, Sunnis, Baathists or even the Kurds as "insurgents" before the war we now have in Iraq and there are thousands of references of pre-war vintage. How did the term "insurgent" finally enter into the equation?
I once posted an article that would entertain the reference of myself as an "insurgent" should I defend myself and my country should an outside force invade us, the USA, due to some international difference with GWB. I was immediately assured that "No, you would be a patriot." So now I find myself confused.
Considering that Iraq is now a sovereign nation ruled by a council that hasn't been democratically elected and the US has never demonstrated established authority there, what do we now call the opposition? Patriots, insurgents, malcontents, whatever. We simply must have a media friendly name for them. Don't you think?
Psychoblues
"Insurgents" is the European wire service terminology which describes any violent opposition to U.S. or Isreali influence in the Middle East.
They pretend this is part of their neutral role as reporters, as if we are somehow stupid enough to buy their stance as nuetral reporters.
After getting our load of "gunmen" who kill children in their sleep, "militants" who behead civilians in cold blood, one wonders if the "terrorists" ever really existed at all.
But foreign sponsored terror in Spain, for example, which was no different than that carried out in Iraq and done for the same purpose, suddenly convert to true
terrorists, and that's not even a quoted term. You won't find one example since 9-11 where a US figure describes a terrorist without the quoted "terrorists" presentation.
A.P. and Reuters both spite U.S. efforts and make every effort to slant their reporting to reflect their rather extreme leftist bias.
Much of this has to do with the lack of a truly free press in socialist France and Germany, whose media is directly funded by the socialist state. The same goes for the BBC.
Once you understand this it's easy to pick out facts from other total crap they let into their reporting. The Arab reporters in the field write 90% total crap and their editors simply sign off on most of it.
Actually, have you ever noticed how European wire reports , especially to Yahoo, sometimes get revised after the fact when the leftist propaganda from the first posting is nauseous? Thats done for U.S. consumption only, the original is left intact for the rest of it's consumers.
They are bastards of the first order.
