I imagine those “impartial” professionals in our media wouldn’t call a group trying to blow up St. Patrick’s Cathedral “insurgents,” but they still use that supposedly unbiased moniker to describe the terrorists trying to do the same to Shiite mosqes in Iraq, even though the Iraqis have now held a democratic election. I won’t make accusations of racism or elitism here, though I could, but I would say this is insulting to decent Iraqis trying to build their society. Actually, it makes me sad, because I thought places like CNN would begin to see the ramifications of their own tired rhetoric.
Speaking of which, I saw a bit of the debate between Howard Dean and Richard Perle. I must say that I find Howard entertaining, but he is a dreadful politician in one sense — the ability to win over those on the other side (I don’t think Perle is particularly distinguished at this either, but he’s not running for any office that I know of or acting as a party official). Dean is the opposite of Clinton in that regard or even of Bush, who up close seems to be better than his reputation at coopting his opposition. I’d like a guy Dean for a drinking partner, but not on my side if I were trying to get something done.
I’d think he’d make a better drinking partner if you had a few drinks *before* he joined you…
I heard a reporter on Fox say that the Sunni minority was attacking the Shia majority and I thougt… what a crock.
The people doing this are no more representative of everyday Iraqis, Sunni or otherwise, than I am.
They are terrorists, plain and simple. Don’t credit them with a cause other than mayhem.
Roger:
The press still uses the moniker insurgent because if they called these thugs what they are,Fascists, they would have to recognize that they are not victims of western hegemony and that the agressive stance that Bush is taking to towards them is correct. They ignore that the leaders of these groups have announced that the detest the idea of democracy, that they have no problem killing women and children, that they celebrate hacking off the heads of innocent non-combatants, and yet they continue to honor these pigs by calling them insurgents. The Churchill-Moore crowd even calls them patriots.
The insane thing about these reactionaries is that if the “insurgents” win this war, and install either a fascist bathist style regime or a brutal theocracy many of these people would go onto talking head panels and talk about the Human rights violations that they helped install with their moral support. These coffee shop dilletantes love to moan about repressive regimes and have candlelight vigils to show their solidarity with the downtrodden but they will never lift a finger to help remove them. They have the notion that if they write enough op-eds these tyrants will see the error of their ways and volunteer to stop their activities. They don’t relize that the Saddam’s of the world love their work and the only way to get them to stop is to kill them.
Unfortunately, the leftist meme has already firmly taken hold. If you listen to White House reps,(including Rumsfeld, if I’m not mistaken) they use the terms “insurgency” and “insurgents” when talking about these thugs.
Too long with Zarqawi stained “insurgent”: just a one word “slaughters the innocent”.
I imagine those “impartial” professionals in our media wouldn’t call a group trying to blow up St. Patrick’s Cathedral “insurgents,”
The attitude towards Catholicism manifested by the MSM makes me think that it’s more likely that they would call them “heroes”.
I must say that I find Howard entertaining
Oh, yes. He tells great jokes. I can’t find a link right now, but yesterday I read that he said that the Democrats were stronger on national security than the Republicans.