Referring to Iraqi Combatants as "Terrorists" is Absurd

So routinely now I listen to talk radio shows, and continually hear these talk show hosts refer to Iraqi combatants as "terrorists". You want to talk about a friggin propaganda campaign? My GOD. Originally it went from "enemy combatants" to "insurgents", and now it is "terrorists". Terrorists. Yeah, uh huh, terrorists that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks? Terrorists that had no provable ties to Al-Queda?

Terrorists?

For one moment, let's put ourselves in the average Iraqi's shoes, and try to come to some understanding, from that viewpoint, of how he or she, in the defense of their nation, has become a "terrorist". The truth of the matter is that they are not terrorists. And still further, external entities from Syria or Iran or Afghanistan that have come to their aid are not terrorists either. They are merely helping to defend their Muslim neighbors against an overwhelming force, much the same way that we would seek Canadians and Mexicans to do the same if faced with such a deadly situation. Is it any wonder that this "insurgency" continues an unrelenting war on US forces?

Imagine if you will, one bright sunny morning, all of a sudden there are Russian/Chinese paratroopers landing all over the US and attacking our military. Many are killed but eventually due to overwhelming numbers and force, they conquer our military, and in the process kill untold thousands of civilians. The able-bodied citizenry take to the hills and countryside, along with any military remnants, and form pockets of "insurgents." And the reporting in China? "The terrorists are still resisting us."

Well this is exactly what is happening here with this rediculous campaign in Iraq. The Bush administration, and more recently the media, has slowly but surely embedded into the American psyche that we are fighting "terrorists." Nothing could be further from the truth, and please don't be fooled by this propaganda seeking to lend righteousness to the despicable deeds undertaken by this administration under the pretense of false intelligence reports. Those people have every right on the planet to defend their nation, in any way they can. They are NOT terrorists. This War on Terrorism is nothing more than self-serving nomenclature, but FALSE nomenclature, for what is really happening.

And now the REAL kicker. You remember all the battles we had on ATS about the Patriot Act, and the fears of potential, impunitive abuse of powers granted, including the misuse of the terms "enemy combatants" and "terrorists?" Well, my question is, what is to stop this administration from pulling the same crap with the American psyche, right here on American soil, with Americans themselves? The American public? They gonna stop em? Yeah, uh huh, just like they stopped the Iraq war.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Once it was determined that intelligence was faulty, and no real weapons of mass destruction were found (not a bunch of rusty chemical shells), as well as the fact that Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda, WE SHOULD HAVE PULLED OUT AND MADE REPARATIONS ON THE SPOT.

But clearly, honor and integrity have given way to political agenda, no no, make that New World Order agenda, and the thousands of lives lost in the meantime are expendible. Just worthless meat. To them- but not to me. I feel sad and ashamed for this once great country, and I want to issue my personal appology as an American citizen for the devastation and horror that have been brought, erroneously, to the middle eastern nations that have suffered from the American public's lack of resolve to rid itself of those that govern so ruthlessly. I am sorry, and we deserve whatever hell befalls us for not having the will to stand up to this brutality.

What you're saying TrueAmerican is something that I've know about for quite some time. Right wing conservative radio has for years succesfully "defined" the language of war, to the point where not only Iraqi insurgents are called terrorists, but ANY individual who opposes U.S. policy, foreign or domestic, is now considered a terrorist.

Look at the way they the radio talk show hosts explain the torture issue, for crying out loud. They try to make the point that torture is justified in cases where American lives can be saved by forcing that individual to provide information. They imagine a ticking clock on a nuclear bomb about to go off somewhere in an American city.

The trouble is, real life is NOT an episode of the television show 24. Many of the so called "terrorists" we're holding in Guantanamo Bay aren't terrorists, or even Taliban, for that matter. Many of them are people who are there for other reasons, for instance, someone who wasn't liked by his or her neighbor, so that neighbor told Coalition forces that they were with the Al-Queda. Does that person now deserve to be water-boarded, or electrocuted, or whatever it is the United States decides is appropriate interrogation technique?

Originally posted by Flatwoods
Look at the way they the radio talk show hosts explain the torture issue, for crying out loud. They try to make the point that torture is justified in cases where American lives can be saved by forcing that individual to provide information. They imagine a ticking clock on a nuclear bomb about to go off somewhere in an American city.

So true, Flatwoods. I don't understand it either. The moral majority, my ass! No truely moral person would condone torture of any kind. Information should be obtained the way it always has- through OTHER devious means.

Great post. It is what most of us think...and know



In Pace Always
resi

well i completly agree with you, sort of. i consider the insurgents who are fighting our military to have a free country again should not be considered terrorists, however those who are just blowing each others up in sectarian violence should be labeled terrorists. however this is my view, and not right wing politicians who label everything that moves a terrorist

I understand why they are referred to as terrorists because they want to destroy the United States and since I live in the United States I call them terrorists. Many of these 'enemy combatants' or whatever you wish you to call them have been tied to terrorist groups such as Al-Queda and you can look that up just about anywhere. I believe terrorist is an appropriate term from our perspective what bothers me more is that some of our own Americans are calling our troops 'terrorists'....now that is something I would seriously be concerned for.

I have yet to hear anyone call American or Coalition troops "terrorists". I'm sure it happens from time to time, but that sort of attitude about our troops is incredibibly rare. Since the beginning, this war has been all about supporting our troops, that's why you DON'T see 100,000 screaming protesters on the White House lawn like there was in 1969. There is, in fact, no substantial anti-war movement in America, because many people feel it isn't right to go out and loudly put down the cause they are fighting, and dying for. Mark my words, if there is to be an anti-war voice in America, it must come from our own servicemen and their families. When that happens, the war will be over, and no further pro-war argument will be tolerated.

That being said, not everyone fighting our cause in Iraq, and Afghanistan, wants to destroy America. Believe it or not, there are many Sunni Arabs who are committing atrocities(bombings, etc.) against the Shiite population who actually love America. They simply will not accept a Shiite majority in their home country. The same can be said of many Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, many of which are only tenuously allied with Al-Queda. These fighters have no illusions of destroying the West, they simply want Coalition forces OUT.

Recognizing this fact doesn't mean I think we should leave Afghanistan to the Taliban. Clearly, they are a very bad entity in the region, and will ultimately support Al-Queda again should they regain power. But we need find a solution in Afghanistan quickly, one in which the Afghans themselves can provide for their own security. The longer we stay there, the more likely it is that our experience will begin to resemble that of the Soviet Union during their occupation of the country. I fear that full-scale insurgency in Afghanistan will turn out to be much more horrific than what's happening in Iraq.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by Flatwoods]

I dont understand the concept that if your country is invaded and you fight back your classed as a combatent, insurgent, terrorist, how about freedom fighters fighting against an occupying force that you dont want in your country. How can Iraqi's fighting in their own country be seen as wanting to destroy America. Even Bush has said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and until recently Iraq had close ties with the US as he provided a bulwark against Iran.

I have asked American members how they would repsond if someone invaded their country and on the whole its been well we would fight back. Again an attitude I support. But the media in the US and to a degree in the UK seem to want to tell us all that it is wrong for Iraqi's to fight coaltion forces, why. In any conflict you have countries that assist each other or literally individuals. The french helped the young Americans fight against the British, they wernt terrorists. During ww2 some french people fought against the Nazis and we called them the French Resistance.

Modern wars are just not fought on the battlefield their fought in our homes our place of work etc. the Media propaganda machine has to convince us that what the Goverment is doing is correct but not only that but there should be no dissention and we the people should place our trust in said Goverment as they know best. Well its seems to me that wars are now fought with the Industrial complex using the armed forces as some kind of private army.

What is taking place in Iraq now appears to be wholesale slaugther and the carpet bagging of the countries natural assets. Western companies, mainly American ones are making massive proffits from the misery of the Iraqi people. But we are told they are there to rebuild the country, well if we had not destroyed the infrastructure in the first place there would not be a problem.

The whole premise for Iraq2 was based on lies and deception, no WMD's have been found, Iraq had no connection to Al Qeada so what was the real reason for the invasion, some say the oil burse some say Iran was going to move on Iraq. Who will ever know what the real reason was but there is one thing we can be sure of is that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying because of our actions and even worse the honour of our troops has been tainted with stories of rape, murder and torture. That alone should be guarantee to breed the next generation of terrorists, if the didnot hate us befor many will now.

In America and the UK through the use of anti terror legislation we are now in a position were all can be seen as the enemy, there's no such thing as a peacful demonstration, their anarchists and subversive, they should all be locked up some say. A couple of years ago Blair commenting on demonstrators at a G8 summit said of them; Oh there just misguided fools. Well there you go the leader that represents the cradle of democracy saying people who speak out are fools. But maybe he was right, maybe he was saying that because he knows what's in store for us, he is a member of the Bilderberg group.

Bush on speaking about 9/11 said; we dont want any doubters, or conspiracy plots that would be unpatriotic. Which begs 2 questions, why say it in the first place as it draws attention to the issue, and he states to question your goverment is unpatriotic. Well I might be getting old now but I thought Goverments were there to execise the will of the people and to represent them, that Goverments are the servants of the people and accountable to them not the other way round.

I fear there is worse to come, more war, more errosion of our liberty and freedoms, but is there a point that will be reached where we will fight back. Are we now a lost cause, our brains are saturated from drugs in food, water etc. our minds are bombarded with materialism and think of oneself first before others. If we turn our backs on the plight of those in the ME how long will it be before we turn our backs on our fellow citizens. How many homeless and starving in the US/UK, does anyone really care, are we hurtling along to a destruction of our own making.

I hope not, I hope that there will be some light at the end of this very long dark tunnel, I hope that one day that we can all live together and boundaries like religion, nationality, colour are no longer used for hate and murder. Anyway its time for me to go back to that special room now, the one with the soft walls.

Well, it appears that even Iran understands that its struggle is more with the US government than with its people. And now they appear to want to exploit this avenue by offering an incentive to travel agencies, with a premium paid for American tourists!

Iran to give incentives to attract tourists

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran will offer cash incentives to travel agencies to encourage Western tourists to visit the country, giving a premium for Americans, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The Islamic republic’s political leadership has been trying to reach out to ordinary Americans to show that a standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is with the Bush administration — not U.S. citizens.

The latest initiative comes as the United Nations Security Council deliberates a draft resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran for its disputed nuclear program.

Now my question on this would be are they planning to get a bunch of American tourists over there with this program, and then capture and behead them?

Remember their religion allows for any deceipt of the enemy, by any means they can dream up. And they have already stated that American civilians are in their line of fire, as well as the military. Only an american fool would dare go to Iran at the moment, and that's IF you could get a travel visa. I'm sure the government would be more than happy to grant one to the Bush haters, though.

Considering most of the "freedom fighters" in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing the most civilians and going against what the people want [a stable government and peace] I would call them terrorists...no?

Remember when "terrorist" was a label to describe anyone who primarily targeted the civilian population for political gain? Anyone who would strap a bomb on their back and walk into a cafe or night club? Even if you didn't strap one on (IRA)?

Flatwoods-
Our soldiers have been called terrorists by Hugo Chaves and Ahmaidnijad(sp?). They have been compared to Saddam (Kennedy, "open under new mng..."), "[sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot," by Sen Durbon, on and on and on. And that's the democratic leadership.

All of you should open your eyes! You blame republicans for eroding your liberty but it is consistently the democrats who support behavior control legislation. It is the liberals who lie about who they are.

The militants in Iraq are targeting civilians for political gain! So does Hammas! So does Al-Qaeda! So does Hezbola!

I don't care about any of their religions! I don't care about their politics! Anyone who uses these tactics should be fought in there own terms! Brutal Violence wins wars and secures peace. Give it to them there or give it them here. Wake up people to the long term plans...

To use your analogy if the US was overrun and supposed freedom fighters on the US side started a campaign of bombings targeted at civilians ie malls and churches, ect., would they not in fact be causing "terror"? An insurgency targets military and government targets, not the civilians you are supposed to be freeing.
Most of the violence in Iraq is directed toward Iraqis not the Coalition forces.

In another attack against majority Shiites, a motorcycle bomb struck a crowded market in Sadr City on Thursday, killing seven people and wounding 45, police said, just two days after the U.S. lifted a military blockade of the Baghdad district on the orders of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Meanwhile, gunmen killed the Shiite dean of Baghdad University's school of administration and economics - the 155th Iraqi academic murdered in sectarian violence and revenge attacks since the 2003 U.S. invasion.

www.forbes.com...

During ww2 some french people fought against the Nazis and we called them the French Resistance.

The French didn't kill innocent French people, they targeted Nazi and Vichy targets. They fought a resistance but did not kill innoncent people just to spread terror. Big difference IMO but pehaps that is why we see things differently in regards to this. The insurgents in Iraq are indiscriminate as to who they kill or maim.

To those that seek to justify this labelling as terrorists, I have a question:

Did suicide bombers exist in Iraq prior to the invasion? Did militants attack civilians there? I had heard about a few lame attempts to take out Saddam, but really, the conditions were nowhere near what they are now.

It seems to me that in the scenario I pointed out above with an invasion of the US mainland, if some citizens were to side with the invading Russian/Chinese, and start shooting at Americans, then by God the remaining Americans would have to attack them too. Even though I highly doubt anyone would do it by suicide bombing. But they would still attack in whatever way they could those siding with the invading force, who would then be seen as traitors.

And to try to understand what these people are going through, and to further compound the problem, it is almost as if we were to have a racial war thrown in the mix on top of all that. THAT is what it is like over there right now, and the recent story about the leaked slide from a White House presentation showing that internally, the military knows that the Iraq situation is 85 to 90% chaos, just confirms the notion. Despite the fact that the administration publically wants us to believe the opposite.

Any way you slice it, those people are not terrorists, in the classic sense of the word. They are the bastard children of Bush's marriage to power hungry, NWO agenda and greed.

"True American" is acting like Coalition forces are the only foreign invaders in Iraq. In fact however the Insurgancy is made up of arabs from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. They are heavily supplied by Iran.

Regardless of your justification of the other foriegn combatants in theater the answer to your orginal question is plain. If they look like a duck and they quack like a duck and they blow up civilians like a duck...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Did suicide bombers exist in Iraq prior to the invasion? Did militants attack civilians there? I had heard about a few lame attempts to take out Saddam, but really, the conditions were nowhere near what they are now.

Iraq had state sponsered terrorism in Saddam's Military and Police and other agencies. The Military of Iraq under Saddam did attack civillans. The only reason the attempts to take out Saddam were "lame" was that he was so effective at crushing dissent in his country. And as an aside, sucide bombers are a tactic not native to Iraq, it was brought in by "jihadists/terrorists" from other Arab nations. You have just provided more proof that in fact, some of the insurgents in Iraq are in fact terrorists. Many suicide bombs target civilian targets as opposed to targeting only Military/Government targets. Again terrorism.

Originally posted by laiguana
I understand why they are referred to as terrorists because they want to destroy the United States...

You may believe that "they" want to destroy the US (BTW, who is they?), but the FACT of the matter is that WE are destroying/have destroyed Iraq. So can you please tell me by your own definition why WE are not also TERRORISTS?

Originally posted by laiguana
I understand why they are referred to as terrorists because they want to destroy the United States...

That's why they are enemies- not why they are terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic our enemies use.

Originally posted by seattlelawYou may believe that "they" want to destroy the US (BTW, who is they?), but the FACT of the matter is that WE are destroying/have destroyed Iraq. So can you please tell me by your own definition why WE are not also TERRORISTS?

"They" probably refers to the Islamic facists (Islamic- because they are all muslims, Facists- because they want to control the entire world by any means necessary). "They" are not limited strictly to Iraq...

We have destroyed the hard military targets. Iraqs' oil pipelines, electric grid, entire infrastructure, etc was poorly funded/maintained by the former regime. That doesn't happen over night.

(aside) Are you really from Seattle?

Originally posted by Gatordone

Flatwoods-
Our soldiers have been called terrorists by Hugo Chaves and Ahmaidnijad(sp?). They have been compared to Saddam (Kennedy, "open under new mng..."), "[sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot," by Sen Durbon, on and on and on. And that's the democratic leadership.

Ok, Gatordone, that kind of comment deserves a response, because it raises some very important issues. To illustrate the point, let's take a look at this Fox News report quoting what Sen. Durbin ACTUALLY SAID verbatim.

Durbin read from an FBI report that included descriptions of one case at Gitmo in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said last week.

After the uproar that followed those remarks, Durbin said he was not comparing U.S. soldiers to Pol Pot (search), Nazis or Soviet guards, but was "attributing this form of interrogation to repressive regimes such as those that I note."

At no time did Senator Durbin compare U.S. soldiers to Nazis or Soviet guards. Rather, he was criticizing our interrogation techniques.

But according to conservatives, ANY criticism of ANYTHING our military does is an insult to our troops. And if that is the case, then no war, no tactic, no military action at all can be criticized by anyone. That is the opposite of democracy. It's called military dictatorship, and it's happening right now in America.

As for Hugo Chavez and Ahamdenijad, I had no idea that they were candidates for office running as Democrats, as you imply. Are you sure they aren't with the Green Party? Maybe the Libertarians? You might want to check your facts on that one.


[edit on 2-11-2006 by Flatwoods]

Originally posted by Flatwoods

Durbin read from an FBI report that included descriptions of one case at Gitmo in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said last week.

After the uproar that followed those remarks, Durbin said he was not comparing U.S. soldiers to Pol Pot (search), Nazis or Soviet guards, but was "attributing this form of interrogation to repressive regimes such as those that I note."

At no time did Senator Durbin compare U.S. soldiers to Nazis or Soviet guards. Rather, he was criticizing our interrogation techniques.

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.

But according to conservatives, ANY criticism of ANYTHING our military does is an insult to our troops. And if that is the case, then no war, no tactic, no military action at all can be criticized by anyone. That is the opposite of democracy. It's called military dictatorship, and it's happening right now in America.

It is not you big baby.

As for Hugo Chavez and Ahamdenijad, I had no idea that they were candidates for office running as Democrats, as you imply. Are you sure they aren't with the Green Party? Maybe the Libertarians? You might want to check your facts on that one.
[edit on 2-11-2006 by Flatwoods]

Oh you mean they aren't? They get the same talking points. You must admit that on paper they all sound the same...

Originally posted by seattlelawYou may believe that "they" want to destroy the US (BTW, who is they?), but the FACT of the matter is that WE are destroying/have destroyed Iraq. So can you please tell me by your own definition why WE are not also TERRORISTS?

Originally posted by Gatordone
"They" probably refers to the Islamic facists (Islamic- because they are all muslims, Facists- because they want to control the entire world by any means necessary). "They" are not limited strictly to Iraq...

We have destroyed the hard military targets. Iraqs' oil pipelines, electric grid, entire infrastructure, etc was poorly funded/maintained by the former regime. That doesn't happen over night.

(aside) Are you really from Seattle?

I agree with your definitions, but if the shoe fits why not put that fascism label on the Bushies. The PNAC crew explicitly states that world domination is the goal - i.e., "American Supremacy" - same thing. And we are the ones who invaded Iraq under false pretenses and the Bushies are the oath breakers unlawfully dismantling the Constitution because it is an obstacle to their goals of absolute power and absolute control both foreign and domestic. They are now finding out (perhaps) that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Perhaps if they has studied history they would know this path has been taken and failed many times already. Remember, those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. 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. 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 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.

Yes, Seattle. I'll be at the MNF game against the Raiders. Should be wet.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by seattlelaw]