Iraqi "insurgents" and Al-Jazeera - "freedom fighters" and "objective journalism"

[Jawz II]

I love non-sequitur replies.

not as much as i love clever people who know what non sequitur means

 

[The Last Conformist]

not as much as i love clever people who know what non sequitur means

It's Latin for "it does not follow", and used to indicate that a statement doesn't follow from what preceeds it. Here, your question implied an assumption that was in no way motivated by the post of mine you were quoting.

 

[Jawz II]

and what makes you think i didnt know what non sequitur means?
heck its the name of a pretty funny comic strip, an old favourite of mine

and even if i didnt, i could look it up in a dictionary, yes?

and yes i did notice you said "they could argue"

if your whole post wasnt you arguing it, why post it at all?

whats the point?

 

[The Last Conformist]

and what makes you think i didnt know what non sequitur means?

Post #21.

I must confess to a certain curiosity as to why you should draw attention to my use of the phrase if you did understand it.

and yes i did notice you said "they could argue"

if your whole post wasnt you arguing it, why post it at all?

whats the point?

Pointing out that it is not necessary to hold that the method of delivery, per se, makes a moral difference to hold that there is a moral difference.

 

[Jawz II]

of course the method of delivery dosent have anything with the morals of it

but what you said, sounds like you meant that there is a moral diffrence

so youre saying thats not what you meant?

and as far as my comment goes, i dont like when people use bigger words than necessary

 

[The Last Conformist]

BE asked, rhetorically, what was the moral difference in delivering a bomb by car or aircraft. I pointed out there was other differences between the acts that could be seen impacting their moral status, viz. ones relating to purpose. I have said nothing of what I personally might think of the morality of either.

As for big words, well, I tend to use whatever words come most naturally to my mind. I'm afraid I do not see myself changing that just because someone thinks those words are too "big".

 

[Jawz II]

BE asked, rhetorically, what was the moral difference in delivering a bomb by car or aircraft. I pointed out there was other differences between the acts that could be seen impacting their moral status, viz. ones relating to purpose. I have said nothing of what I personally might think of the morality of either.

As for big words, well, I tend to use whatever words come most naturally to my mind. I'm afraid I do not see myself changing that just because someone thinks those words are too "big".

ok, what other diffrences would those be?

and as for the words, they arent too big, they are bigger than necessary

makes you sound a wee bit pretentious

 

[~Corsair#01~]

makes you sound a wee bit pretentious

That's a dangerously big word you got there.

 

[The Last Conformist]

ok, what other diffrences would those be?

That of trying to destabilize a dictatorial regime vs trying to destabilize a free one.

makes you sound a wee bit pretentious

If I'm forgiven for an apolytonianism, my gives a **** is broken.

 

[Jawz II]

That of trying to destabilize a dictatorial regime vs trying to destabilize a free one.

If I'm forgiven for an apolytonianism, my gives a **** is broken.

i see, so you consider the current regime in iraq as a free one?
edit: i just remembered, "they" could argue it, its not you arguing it, right?

i thought your gives a **** was broken, since in another post somewhere you said you like to start threads and belittle the people who reply, although it was prolly said jokingly, i suspect theres a lot of truth there

i would much rather sound like a dumbass than like a condecending ass, i did suspect thats not the case with you, oh well, to each his own

 

[The Last Conformist]

i see, so you consider the current regime in iraq as a free one?

Plenty of people would seem to do so. Personally, I'm not in the habit of refering to regimes of any description as "free".

 

[Jawz II]

ahh

see edit

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

IMO when they attack civilians they are terrorists, and when they attack military targets, they are the more morally neutral term "insurgents".

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Imagine that your country was invaded by a foreign power, its major cities destroyed, 1 or 2 hundred thousand of your fellow citizens dead as a result. Would you write a blog that criticizes the resistance to the occupying forces? I wouldnt either.

I see you pull your stats from the most outrageous places. The highest statistics I've seen that weren't completely conjecture were posted on Al-Jazerra, estimating 100K. That is considered by most to be an extremely high estimate. Others mark it at 10K-30K. Still too high, but also keep in mind that many (some would say most) of these deaths are caused by the terrorist insurgency.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5303

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/2785303

You also need to understand a little about Iraq. The Sunni were very brutal to the Shia and Kurds (who happen to be Sunni also, but aren't Arabs so they are considered lesser beings by the Arab Sunni): hundreds of thousands found in mass graves from the '92 uprising, brutal torture disfigurements, rape rooms, chemical attack on the Kurds, etc. Of course many of the Sunni want to retain power, so they will support the terrrorists. I'm surprised by the huge number of Sunni volunteering to be cops since they are targeted for death by the terrrorists quickly. Obviously they all don't want the terrorists there. Public fear can be just as effective as public support for these terrorists. Iraqis are used to living in fear. The Shia and the Kurds would like to see us leave, but want the terrorists stopped first. The easiest way to get the US to leave would be peace. The terrorists obviously don't want that. They don't want Iraqis to rule themselves, they want to dictate THEIR version of Sunni Sharia Law, with no room for Shia or other thought.

Take a visit to the Middle East. I lived there.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I know, I never understood why dropping a bomb from 20,000 feet in the air was morally superior to delivering one in a car

There is no moral difference between a bomb at 20K ft and a car bomb. The moral difference is the intent. If one is attempting to target enemy troops / terrorists / etc. it is morally acceptable. When one's intented target is innocent civilians it is not.

 

[luiz]

The average iraqi hates the Insurgents. One Insurgent was lynched by an iraqi mob when placing an explosive in a car. I saw the pics.

Why would the iraqis support a group that kills more iraqi civilians then americans.

And to answer Bozo Pothead:
If my country was ruled by a psychotic dictator I would openly welcome any foreign power that would get me rid of such dictator. Nationalism is for ******s. And if there were an insurgent group using terror tactics and killing thosands of my countryman I would happily cooperate with the occupying forces in order to hunt them down. They would not need to pay me to write some blog.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Be that as it may, it's hard to see why the insurgency should be stronger in the Sunni Arab bits of the country if it's not due to a higher degree of popular support there.

 

[Marla_Singer]

If my country was ruled by a psychotic dictator I would openly welcome any foreign power that would get me rid of such dictator. Nationalism is for ******s. And if there were an insurgent group using terror tactics and killing thosands of my countryman I would happily cooperate with the occupying forces in order to hunt them down. They would not need to pay me to write some blog.

Would you have supported the Soviet Union if Gorbachov would have invaded Brazil in order to get you rid of the General João Baptista Figueiredo ?

Don't try to make believe things are simpler than they are. Every situations are different and there's no theory which is universal about dictatorship and liberation. Points of view matter in that kind of story.

This being said, I absolutely don't know if insurgents are supported by most Iraqis or not. I have absolutely no information to give any relevant point of view about this.

The only thing I can talk with is my feeling. As I see it, the Pentagon doesn't have to pay Iraqis to create such blogs. I still hope that there are enough Iraqis which have got a job thanks to the US driven economy in Iraq to be able to create pro-US websites by themselves. However, I'm far to consider that one blog, no matter what's the side taken by the blogger, can give us a better information about the general feeling towards the US in Iraq. Shiites are divided, Sunni Arabs are divided and even Sunni Kurds are divided.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

The insurgents do not enjoy widespread support, if they did there would be many more attacks. The fact that there are members here justifying the acts of the insurgents is rather intresting, if somewhat sickening.

 

[YNCS]

BTW no I wouldn't fight against an occupation that is not permanent. The US doesn't want to stay in Iraq forever you know. There's no reason for bloodshed unless you're a jihadie or another kind of terrorist who want to prevent a free and democratic Iraq at all costs of course.

This whole attitude really bothers me. It should be noted, that we, the USA, started this war. Iraqi citizens did not. They didn't come over and carry out an attack on our country. Was their government tied to terrorism? The jury is still out on that one, and we have two sets of ideologues fighting over whether they did or not. Either way, the great majority of Iraqis had nothing to do with it, because a lot of them were being starved, as the conservative hawks are fond of telling us.

So let's look at this from a new perspective. Here's a scenario: the USA gets invaded because our leader is a jerk who is making WMDs (the latter part is true, we are exempt from a lot of non-proliferation stuff, the former is only the opinion of many people). Let's say that the country doing it claims that they are here to "liberate" us from the tyrrany of GWB. What are most Americans going to do? Get guns, and start shooting the invaders. So why are you surprised that people in Iraq are doing that? Why are you surprised that they don't see our motives for being there as pure and compassionate? Why do you think people there are saying we're doing it for the oil and because we're imperialists, and that we want to destroy the Muslim religion in all its forms?

If you didn't freak out and start thinking I'm a traitor for trying to understand what's going on with the people we're fighting, then hear this. If we bomb or shoot up Iraqi cities, there are going to be more terrorist attacks. Iraq did not attack us, but we started a war with them. Whether or not that attack was justified or not is not the issue. We attacked first, and if we want to be seen as a liberator, we have to really be one. Killing civilians is not a liberation.

What is the real mission here? To kill civilians because supposed Christians get off on the death of people from "infidel" religions? To guarantee a steady and cheap supply of oil? Or to actually make Iraq a safe, secure, and free place for all Iraqis? If it's the latter, we need to change our tactics, if it's any of the former, we're going to lose.