Tuesday, May 03, 2005
How Conveeeenient
When an improbable piece of propaganda supporting your side happens to turn up in the hands of the enemy, it's probably planted...
Anyway, the target of this discovery, of course, is not the American public (although it certainly feeds into Red State illusions), but rather the Iraqi insurgents themselves.
And I have to point out again how that word "insurgents" bothers me. By dictionary definition, it means "one who rises in revolt against established authority, especially a government." Hm. We haven't even completely established a new government in Iraq, nor can any Iraqi really consider US forces to be an established authority, unless by "establishing authority" you mean bombing the shit out of everything until there's nothing left but rubble and refuges.
And looking at that definition again, the US itself initiated an insurgency against Saddam Hussein -- ergo, coalition forces were insurgents first.
It's all a matter of semantics, and BushCo. would never call Iraqi Insurgents what they are in Iraqi eyes -- people standing up against an invasion. Yes, we freed them from Saddam, but for some reason they don't all seem to feel free yet, and we are the impediment to that freedom.
But it's this kind of twisted word logic that can turn people defending their homeland into insurgents that this administration specializes in. Look at the description above again of the current "terrorist threat of the month"; Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And let me remind you that, from the British point of view in the 1770s, they would have used descriptions like "West Indies-born militant Alexander Hamilton" or "radical polemecist Benjamin Franklin, who was born in the rebel hotbed of Boston."
When the war of bombs is failing, the war of words is the bailout, and BushCo. continues to turn to lies to try to paint a pretty picture of an absolute and total SNAFU. Then again, that's only appropriate. They used lies to get us into this mess. Now they're using lies to try to get us out.
The U.S. military said Tuesday it has seized a letter from Iraqi insurgents believed to be intended for Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi complaining about low morale among followers and weakening support for the insurgency.Translation of the last: it's a fake. Given the escalation of the insurgency, it seems unlikely that morale is fading. It's also interesting that the letter itself is addressed to a Sheik Abu Ahmad, yet somehow the military just knows that it was intended for al-Zarqawi.
The authenticity of the letter -- which the military said American troops found Thursday in a raid in Baghdad -- could not be independently verified.
Anyway, the target of this discovery, of course, is not the American public (although it certainly feeds into Red State illusions), but rather the Iraqi insurgents themselves.
And I have to point out again how that word "insurgents" bothers me. By dictionary definition, it means "one who rises in revolt against established authority, especially a government." Hm. We haven't even completely established a new government in Iraq, nor can any Iraqi really consider US forces to be an established authority, unless by "establishing authority" you mean bombing the shit out of everything until there's nothing left but rubble and refuges.
And looking at that definition again, the US itself initiated an insurgency against Saddam Hussein -- ergo, coalition forces were insurgents first.
It's all a matter of semantics, and BushCo. would never call Iraqi Insurgents what they are in Iraqi eyes -- people standing up against an invasion. Yes, we freed them from Saddam, but for some reason they don't all seem to feel free yet, and we are the impediment to that freedom.
But it's this kind of twisted word logic that can turn people defending their homeland into insurgents that this administration specializes in. Look at the description above again of the current "terrorist threat of the month"; Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And let me remind you that, from the British point of view in the 1770s, they would have used descriptions like "West Indies-born militant Alexander Hamilton" or "radical polemecist Benjamin Franklin, who was born in the rebel hotbed of Boston."
When the war of bombs is failing, the war of words is the bailout, and BushCo. continues to turn to lies to try to paint a pretty picture of an absolute and total SNAFU. Then again, that's only appropriate. They used lies to get us into this mess. Now they're using lies to try to get us out.
Comments:
Post a Comment
