- Steven Spielberg, defending his film "Munich" in Der Spiegel, says he "would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel."
- Cindy Sheehan is thinking of entering politics on an anti-war platform.
- Simon Jenkins writes in the London Times how Britain - and by extension, Australia - is "being set up by the Americans in Afghanistan."
- US officials in Iraq are dealing, thoroughly unsurprisingly, with insurgents (or in Bush-speak, "terrorists.")
- Prime Minister John Howard has memory loss, defends his government's reputation and spins furiously to avoid further embarrassment over the oil-for-food scandal. Just another day in paradise.
- According to the Mail on Sunday, Tony Blair and George Bush worked together to deceive the UN and the world over their intentions to invade Iraq. I like this line especially:
"And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush's allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper."
- Cindy Sheehan is thinking of entering politics on an anti-war platform.
- Simon Jenkins writes in the London Times how Britain - and by extension, Australia - is "being set up by the Americans in Afghanistan."
- US officials in Iraq are dealing, thoroughly unsurprisingly, with insurgents (or in Bush-speak, "terrorists.")
- Prime Minister John Howard has memory loss, defends his government's reputation and spins furiously to avoid further embarrassment over the oil-for-food scandal. Just another day in paradise.
- According to the Mail on Sunday, Tony Blair and George Bush worked together to deceive the UN and the world over their intentions to invade Iraq. I like this line especially:
"And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush's allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper."
3 Comments:
US officials in Iraq are dealing, thoroughly unsurprisingly, with insurgents (or in Bush-speak, "terrorists.")
Oh, here we go...
You honestly believe if someone bombs a mosque, takes over a neighbourhood with an AK, targets someone based on their religion, and/or kills a bus load of policemen, it's Bush-speak to call them terrorists?
It is when they call blacks in New Orleans "insurgents" for daring to rty and feed themselves in the face of starvation and dehydration.
No one called the African-American looters in New Orleans insurgents or terrorists (and had the claim seriously addressed), I fail to see how that ties into the issue I raised. In any case, the looters that were called criminals were labelled such because many were not stealing food or bottled water but TVs.
Because you cannot accept that the US does not simply kill random Muslims, I'll accept- temporarily, for the sake of argument- your counterpunch-fed line that US forces are Christian crusaders on a war for oil, global hegemony, and to kill impoverished African-American males forced into the army, and keep their numbers down across the homefront by a racist, bigoted, genocidal, Administration.
How does that make it inappropriate to call the majority of groups operating within Iraq terrorists rather than insurgents?
It doesn’t! The fact is, all you can do is moan about Bush's (perceived) double standards, then jump straight on the 'not terrorists, but insurgents' bandwagon.
As for New Orleans, you are wrong. There was most defintiely, repeated refereneces to combating the insurgency.
Insurgency how? Anarchy is not insurgency, even if a few articles decide to call looters and gangs insurgents.
There was even footgae whosing NO police helpign themselves to items at a Wallmart, while sayin to the camera that tehy were there to stop the looting. Yeah right.
Corrupt cops? That's not hard to find.
Now please reassure me you're not that stupid and believe any of the Bush party line about being in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy,
At the least, a formal democracy is being established in Iraq. If you're asking whether the US has its own interests in mind in Iraq- they sure do. Does this self-interest mean that the Iraqis have not been given an opportunity?
This book was recommended to me awhile back. I'm still waiting for a copy, but in the mean time I'll suggest you read it for the same reasons that were given to me.
You still failed to address my core question. Assuming I accept the line you feed to me from the wonderful, undeniably truthful counterpunch.org (despite employing self-confessed 'creative writers' for a Beazley $25 an article): Why is it wrong to call the terrorists in Iraq terrorists, rather than continuing to sugar-coat their role as insurgents?
Perhaps I should also break the news to you that Che Guevara wasn't a freedom fighter, and no amount of T-shirts can ever elevate his position.
Post a Comment
<< Home