It appears from some comments to this post that because I don't cotton to Scott McClellan's politically-induced math errors, I'm some sort of terrorist sympathizer. (This is not true. I believe terrorists should be killed cartoon-style with dynamite up their asses, gruesome electrocution, base-jumping sans parachute and other greatest hits from Itchy and Scratchy.) And true to the party-line, there's an immediate conflation of Al Qaeda with Iraq. This raises the question of equivalence again as I did a few months ago here.
It was suggested that the DOD errs on the side of caution when it gives enemy casualty numbers for Iraq. GregC said that although the administration said 30,000 had been killed, it was actually more like 50,000. Never mind that my original comment was on Al Qaeda, not the Iraq war from which those figures were clearly drawn. Even so, the clean intent in quoting these statistics is to show how many terrorists we've rounded up or killed. That's not true.
I don't know how many of that 50,000 were true head-chopper-offers and how many were just a bunch of Iraqi army guys that didn't want to get invaded and went Red Dawn on us. Even the president stated that by far the majority of the insurgency were not terrorists. Yet since, when the administration speaks of the problems in Iraq he always says terrorists because it's good politics at home. He's still trading on 9/11 for a semblance of respect.
A person that targets military or cops is not a terrorist, they are insurgents. Some people don't like other people telling them what to do, regardless of how well intentioned the first party is. This is not always a bad thing...witness the Revolutionary War.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Who targets just cops and military? Where are these people? Not the "insurgents". have you seen how many NON-cops and NON-Military have been killed? They too are just fanatics hoping for a shot at glory. Most Iraqis are scared to death that we will leave and most iraqis feel they are better off. These insurgents are just religious fanatics, stirred up into a hatred fury, trying to go out in a blaze of glory, no different than the Timothy McVeighs of this world. These are no freedom fighters, guess what? they have more freedom now than they did before the invasion. They can VOTE. What freedoms have they been deprived of?
I caution you that voting doesn't necessarily mean freedom. Witness todays election of Hamas --child blower uppers-- in Palestine. Also consider that the Iraqi's voted in Shi'ite fundamentalists who in other locales have employed Religious Police to squash freedom and will definitely limit freedom for females. Burka wearing is on the rise in Basra. Iran voted in a crazy man just like Germany did back in the thirties. Putin was elected but has been consolidating executive power and nationalizing the press...not exactly spreading freedom. As I recall, Robert Mugabe was elected in Zimbabwe. Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela. Where elections are the "means," freedom is not always the "end."
I'm also not sure it's accurate to describe the insurgents as "religious fanatics". Most reports, even from the president, describe a large contingent of the insurgency as disaffected formere Baathists. The Baathists were a secular party that resorted to religion only when politically beneficial.
I got a question for you: are Chechnyan rebels "freedom fighters"?
Okay you tell me then, what are they fighting for? Do they want us to leave? If so, do they realize that the number one reason that we haven't left is the instability that they are causing? I would like someone to explain to me what their goals are. Are they that stupid? and speaking of women's rights,....what rights did they have before we got there? And where is the NOW who can't find a position that a) Bashes Bush and b) explains expanded women's rights, especially in Afghanistan. If someone could explain any of this coherently to me, I might agree that they had a point, but I haven't heard one yet. If they want us to leave, disappear for a month. We'd leave. If they want us to stay, keep up the bad work. If ANYONE thinks that the "insurgents" are a well thought out group of high minded individualists like the early americans were, then they are incredibly naive. Regarding Chechnyan rebels, I am very well read on their travails and my conclusion is that this is not a zero sum game. just because the Russians are the BIGGER BAD BUYS, doesn't make the Chechnyans good guys. Plenty of blood and blame to go around. Steve, you keep saying you are purple, but show me where you have bashed anyone but the right?
Regarding the election of Hamas. Most view this as a negative, but I don't. When you go from vocal critic to the one in power, things change. Let's see what positive changes they bring to the Palestinians. My guess? None. Then what happens? They lose stroke. Again, freedom wins.
Finally, let's address the Baathists. Their leader was a homicidal maniac who committed genocide on their own people, plundered the nations riches and turned a nation with incredible resources into the worlds number one enemy. So are you saying his supporters should be compared to our freedom fighters and the chechnyan rebels? Yes or no?
I'm a little hungover today and I don't think I'm able to think clearly enough to parry your blows.
I think I bashed the PC left yesterday or the day before over them trying to regulate Dora the Explorer off the box of Cheerios.
On the Baathists, I was just contradicting your assertion that the insurgency was all religious zealots.
Post a Comment