Saturday, October 23, 2004

pathetic insurgents

Let me say that I am utterly apalled at the actions of whomever kidnapped Margaret Hassan, one of the war in Iraq's biggest opponents and a foreign aid worker operating within Iraq for more than half a decade.

I also opposed the WAY in which the war was started, fought, and how the occupation was totally botched by the Bush admin. However it is clear that what has been done by these kidnappers is abhorrent.

It is easy to say from where I sit in my Oregon USA chair that I condemn the actions of whomever is lashing out against the new order of Iraq. However clearly the invasion has ALREADY happened and it's not going to UN-HAPPEN. What is the point, the purpose, of these stupid and mean acts against innocent people?

I fully condemn the US practice of using heavy artillery and large bombs in heavily populated areas, because it results in many civilian casualties and does much to turn against the USA their "hearts and minds" (although I don't really see how their cardiac health could be all that directly impacted, maybe I'm wrong and people do get heart attacks from learning we blew off their wife's legs and things like that).

I guess I just don't see the point in adding horrors to a war already horrific enough, especially when it is perpetrated against someone that was essentially on YOUR OWN SIDE...



At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about when they slaughter 50 Iraqi national guard trainees while they are walking back to their homes? Obviously I am not on the ground, but I would be inclined to think that some of the Iraqi people must be starting to resent the insurgency. No longer does the agression appear to be directed solely at the "Western," or American coalition, but rather it seems to be more reflective of the insurgents' blind hatred.

At 11:45 PM, Blogger J. S. Gilbert said...

I notice that you refer to the perpetrators of the attack against the 50 Iraqi soldiers as "insurgents." Have you noticed that there was a point at which all of the references to our enemy in Iraq changed from "Saddam's regime" to "insurgents"?

If you listen to what troops on the ground say, they simply say that there is a certain time of day when "whoever" starts shooting. So simply, an "insurgent" is anyone who shoots at us. Maybe they don't know any of the other insurgents. Maybe it's a completey seperate group of people just angry because we killed all their families with errant bombs. Maybe they are not Iraqis at all. Who knows? No one knows who did it; maybe US forces did it to galvanize the Iraqi people against the so-called "insurgents."

People are so ready to buy into the terms and spin that the media puts on all these reports. Yet if you have been in a war or know people who have, and talked to them a lot, you know that things are never as cut-and-dry as that, down on the ground.

Also you will notice that the so-called "insurgents" are also referred to, most of the time, as "terrorists." Clearly, acts of terrorism have been committed, as well as acts of insurgency. Yet, planting mines and roadside bombs and ambushing military convoys does not make you a "terrorist", nor does committing acts of terrorism like setting off a carbomb in a public area make you an "insurgent".

So I go back to the term used by marine snipers: "whoever." We must be extremely cautious that the "war on whoever (shoots at us)" does not extend to the homefront. What if a Fallujah-type massacre happens in the US -- where the military declares a "terrorist threat" or some such thing, and then sets a curfew -- and kills anyone who is outside of their home after it, even if they are unarmed? If it is condonable in Iraq how is it not condonable in our own cities? With the Patriot act, what is there to stop an Orwellian nightmare like that from occurring? Especially when you have religious fanatics out there who would actually argue that such an event is not only condonable, but is prophesied?

From that link:
> > >
Sounding the alarm is only the beginning. Then, Americans will have to sacrifice some of their cherished freedom of movement and take appropriate cover, depending on the threat level. If they do not, they risk suffering injury or loss of life; both the watchers and the watched have a responsibility.
< < <


At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well..hehe...I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit. While I agree that the symantics and labeling of insurgents and terrorists is by no means easy to define, I think that to look at the situation in Iraq and allude to its implications on the infringement of freedoms in the US is a bit over-reaching. I frankly dont think that the patriot act is the big bad monster that people like to think. Is the fact that the Constitution has changed so little over the last 200 plus years a testament to the founding fathers of this nation, or a testament to how little the US govenment has adapted over the years? Like it or not, the world is not the same post-september 11th. Terrorism is not a "nuisance," it is and will continue to be one of the, if not the most important threat facing the US in the years to come. The Patriot Act is designed to adapt to the new threats we face, and provide the security we need perhaps in exchange for a perceived loss of liberty. Is it necessary...I'm not sure, but I'm not going to sit here and yell over the potential slight infringement of my freedoms or contradiction of a document two centuries old.


Post a Comment

<< Home