Why does the press keep calling the terrorists who are terrorizing Iraq “insurgents?” They’re getting their money through Al Quaeda and other foreign sources, they’re mostly foreign fighters to begin with, and they’re killing far, far more innocent civilians than government, coalition, or U.S. forces.
How is that “insurgency?” I could buy “guerrilla invasion” or even “proxy rebellion,” except that the tactics being employed are TERRORIST tactics. They’re trying to pressure a government and a military coalition politically by murdering the civilians that government has sworn (and has now been ELECTED) to protect.
It’s really quite simple. The West is doing battle with Al Quaeda terrorists on the ground in Iraq. Why isn’t it getting reported that way?
–Howard
(UPDATE: best answer I’ve heard so far, paraphrased — “because the US military called them insurgents for the first couple of years.” As naming conventions go, that’s hard to argue with.)
Because that would legitimize the US presence there instead of making it sound like a repeat of Vietnam. And QUAGMIRE sells more papers than TERRORIST BLOWN UP I guess.
If you’re selling newspapers or TV ads in New York or Los Angeles your customer is probably an ideological liberal, so you cater to his prejudices. Which include having “nice” names for everyone on the other side from W so he can root for W to lose.
it’s not “the West”, it’s the US government with a few hang-ons from mostly extrememly small countries with extremely small deployments.
Personally, I think that the terrorists/insurgents in Iraq have a LONG way to go before the number of people they kill comes close to the number of people US forces have killed over the past fifteen-plus years.
I suppose, in part, they could be called insurgents because they’re fighting against an invading army.
I somehow doubt that, since we make it a point to keep civilain casualties low (to the point where we often don’t go after someone if we think too many will be harmed), but the people setting the raod-side bombs and car-bombs target the police, school kids, markets, and other such “Target Rich Environments”…
I’m again filled with this profound anger at the thought that the U.S. Military wanders around killing anything that moves. Yes, civilians get hurt, but what the HECK do you expect when the people setting bombs and shooting at you are dressed just like the civilians? If I’m getting shot at by someone dressed like John Q. Iraqi, and a REAL John Q. Iraqi stands up during the fire-fight, odds are good that I’ll shoot him first, and worry about what side he’s on later. My first worry is to keep myself and my people safe.
I also hasten to point out that we could, actually, torture almost every single on of the “insurgents” we capture, and be squeaky clean as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned. How can I say this? Because unless it has an amendment somewhere I don’t know about, the Conventions only aply to uniformed soldiers. Anyone acting against us that isn’t in a uniform could be easily classified as a sabatour, and can be executed by firing squad. No POW camp, no trial, but simply a bullet in the brain pan. Why aren’t we? Because somewhere along the line we allowed people to start thinking that war and military action should be this neat, clean, civil affair. It isn’t. It’s ugly, dirty, and it’s down right mean. The army’s job isn’t to hand out food during a national disaster (nor is it the job of the National Guard, but that’s a different rant)… It’s job is to kill people and break things.
It’s a shame that we still haven’t learned the lessons of Viet Nam very well… We still let politics dictate military actions. We tie the hands of our military.
Shoot at a U.S. Soldier, and I believe that you should be shot. Right there, no questions asked. I don’t care why you did it, I don’t care what you think of us, and how hurt you are that we came in and kicked the snot out of a government that has killed thousands upon thousands upon THOUSANDS of civilians, and used chemical weapons on it’s own freaking people. Shoot at us, and you’ll get the business end of the best trained and equiped military in the world. In the time of Rome, there was a phrase. Civis Romanus. “Citizen of Rome”. It meant that a citizen of Rome could walk the length and width of the known world without fear, so certain was the vengence of the Roman government.
That isn’t the case now. We fight “nice”. We’re polite, and civil, and do our best to make sure no one is offended by us when we go and do what should have been done years ago.
Yeah, we’re just horrid killing machines. We’re monsters…
We’re also the world’s bank, police force, and military (we’re over 50% of the UN’s military)… The world hates us until it’s time for us to give them money. Then they love us just long enough for the check to clear…
I’m sick of it, and why no one else is I will never understand…
I am with you.
===|==============/ Level Head
Probably a side-effect of choice of targets; when the country is ostensibly going to war for the benefit of Iraqis, killing Iraqi civilians is very much against the point. By comparison, when the war was ostensibly done for the benefit of the French / English / Belgians, the country doesn’t care as much about the welfare of German civilians.
I also hasten to point out that we could, actually, torture almost every single on of the “insurgents” we capture, and be squeaky clean as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned.
Yeah, but not Human Rights. ’cause dude, torture is not cool.
… except some of those medieval thingys, god those were cool. but that’s besides the point.
Anyway, I’m just glad I’m not in the military. War sucks these days. Politics and war don’t mix at all. Well, i suppose war is just an extension of international politics, so what i really mean is that running a war based on the opinions of the media back home is stupid.
That isn’t the case now. We fight “nice”. We’re polite, and civil, and do our best to make sure no one is offended by us when we go and do what should have been done years ago.
See, i think there’s a serious difference between “acceptable civilian casualties” and the way your military fights now. When keeping random civilians who have nothing to do with the mission safe starts to endanger your troops, it should be forgotten. The troops mean a hell of a lot more than some silly civilian who can’t run fast enough.
We’re also the world’s bank, police force, and military (we’re over 50% of the UN’s military)… The world hates us until it’s time for us to give them money. Then they love us just long enough for the check to clear…
Hehm. I don’t hate you (well, I hate your shitty government, but that’s besides the point), and I’m not an American; well, not anymore, I do still hold an American citizenship as well as my NZ one though. The money thing doesn’t really affect me: NZ has a long and not particularly happy relationship with the US dealing with governments who won’t let us import shit, but we are a First World country. And as for being the world’s police force, that’s always struck me as stupid. policing outside your own borders is insane, ESPECIALLY when you’re at war with, effectively, two entire countries. NZ does it in several Indonesian and pacific islands; but we’re not at war with anyone and we need some way to get combat experience (of a sort) for our troops.
But altogether, I’m with you, dude. Every time your military is forced into something stupid by your government or media, i cringe.
Like heck it isn’t… If hooking a guy’s “bits” to a car battery gets the location of of people who want to kill americans, or who plans on blowing up something to kill civillians, then I have but two things to say to you… Red is positive, and black is negative… (This assumes that the person having a battery back-up installed was caught doing Something Naughty… Randomly picking people up for a ‘session’ is, indeed, not cool…)
See, there’s a reason I would make a lousy Commander in Chief…
My first response to something like 9-11 would have been “Give me a running possible location of the people most responsible… But you don’t need to be more than, say, 1 or 2 miles accurate… And get me the launch code book…”
And for cities like Falujah (spelling is NOT correct, I’m sure), I would have broken out the MOABs… Drop leaflets saying soemthing to the effect of ‘Turn the people trying to kill us over to us, or we drop the boggest bomb you ever saw on you. You have three days.”, give them those three days, and the drop one a ways outside of town where there was no one going to be hurt by it (though it would still be very visable), and the drop leaflets saying “Oops… Forgot to correct for the cross-brease… You have 3 more days…”
I don’t think anything helps drive a point home like a a massive explosion outside your town… I mean heck, 9-11 seems to have, for a while, driven home the point that no, there really are people who just want to kill as many Americans as possible…
I agree with the war. I agree completely. Howard nailed it a while back, when he said that we’re acting as fly paper, and fighting the terrorists places Not Here, which is a good thing in my book… Yeah, Iraqi civilians die as a result of “insurgent actions”, but all things being equal (get ready… Cold-hearted coming up in three, two, one…) I would rather Iraqi civilians die in a car bombing than say people in Miami or Denver or some other place where large amounts of Americans live… A close second to “places I would prefer to keep the bombs from exploding in” would be the contries who are supporting our efforts to kick Terrorist Butt…
I’m a nationalist. I firmly believe that America’s interests should dominate our actions, and the needs and wants of the rest of the world should be at best secondary concerns… Altruism is all well and good, but I think “Enlightened Self Interest” serves us better…
It’s a shame that my notion of “If you aren’t with us, then yer on yer own, pal…” will never recieve wide acceptance…
Mainly cause I’m just a jerk… 🙂
Okay. Torture for a point… it has its uses. I still don’t like it, but that’s just a point of ethics. I wouldn’t object to something like mindrip if we had it, because even though it kills them it remains a far more humane method (at least from what little we’ve seen of it.)
My first response to something like 9-11 would have been “Give me a running possible location of the people most responsible… But you don’t need to be more than, say, 1 or 2 miles accurate… And get me the launch code book…”
Well, with a decent ICBM (or flight of ICBMs yay), 1 or 2 miles off is still on target. But that wasn’t your point. I can’t say I agree with that; it smacks of random vengeance against thier families for killing yours, which is both patriotic and a good way to start an internationial blood feud. Your country did the best possible thing on shitty intelligence; well, invasion maybe not… I would have tried for somthing a little more directed first, somthing involving the SAS (or American eqivalent, but i betcha they would use ours, ’cause NZ’z SAS is the best in the world; gives us SOMETHING to brag about. besides sheep. i hate sheep)
I don’t think anything helps drive a point home like a a massive explosion outside your town… I mean heck, 9-11 seems to have, for a while, driven home the point that no, there really are people who just want to kill as many Americans as possible…
Dude, point. Another one that’s proven to work is constant bombardment a la trench warfare, that does shit for morale.
I agree with the war. I agree completely. Howard nailed it a while back, when he said that we’re acting as fly paper, and fighting the terrorists places Not Here, which is a good thing in my book… Yeah, Iraqi civilians die as a result of “insurgent actions”, but all things being equal (get ready… Cold-hearted coming up in three, two, one…) I would rather Iraqi civilians die in a car bombing than say people in Miami or Denver or some other place where large amounts of Americans live… A close second to “places I would prefer to keep the bombs from exploding in” would be the contries who are supporting our efforts to kick Terrorist Butt…
That wasn’t my point. The war in general is good; my point is that it would be BETTER if the army could have free rein to do whatever it takes, which they certianly don’t right now. If you’re gonna invade, at least to it properly. You guys could be FINISHED in Afghanistan AND Iraq if you had conducted a war there instead of what amounts to a continual special forces insertion… with Marines instead of spec. ops.
Look, if it was up to me, I’d do it ‘scorched earth’ from one end to the other (one country at a time, what the hell were they thinking invading a second place when the first was still giving them shit?), start slow and speed up, give anyone who wants to run the chance, try to do as little damage as possible to farmland and civil services, but don’t spare anything on those who resist. then once you’ve done that, disarm the place as totally as possible, let people back in, pump a nice massive sum in each year for a decade to keep ’em happy, and use one or two brigades of your troops as Customs, but let them do police, government, whatever; that makes it most likely they won’t get pissed off at you. There would always be small scale stuff at least, people mad ’cause thier brother died in the war or whatever, but if you push the stance that you gave fair warning of invasion and moved slow to let refugees out, it would be more difficult for them to get mobs up.
THEN you move on, wait at least a year between wars to make sure its settling down properly though.
This goes to show why I’d make a shitty general; at least in any war after WWII. I insist there’s a better way to wage war than this stupid running around inside what’s effectively enemy territory like madmen with guns. I’m not sure if I’m right, i dunno if scorched earth would work these days; i sure as hell know it would make the media SCREAM, but i swear it’s worth a go.
Part TWO: read the other comment first. yeah. sorry.
Dude, two parts to this ’cause I broke the character limit.
I’m a nationalist. I firmly believe that America’s interests should dominate our actions, and the needs and wants of the rest of the world should be at best secondary concerns… Altruism is all well and good, but I think “Enlightened Self Interest” serves us better…
Well, not being American, I can’t agree with ALL of that, but I agree with the principle. Your own countries needs shouls dominate your actions, especially in time of war; but don’t neglect the allies who aren’t neccesarily in there with you, and certianly don’t neglect trade partners (i.e, most of the First World.) Do, however, pull out most if not all of those stupid military bases all over the world; it can damn well police itself and you need those troops where you can use ’em, not sitting in Africa or something equally stupid. In a time when you can get the Airbornes into combat within what, 36 hours anywhere in the world is what they say, no? If you can reaaly do that, you don’t need anyone sitting all over the world ‘just in case’, and especially wasting thier time as police when you’re going through troops like a blizzard in Iraq.
Re: Part TWO: read the other comment first. yeah. sorry.
I agree pretty much completely…
As for HOW I would conduct a war, I think Howard said it best…
“There is no overkill. There is only ‘Open fire’ and ‘I need to reload’.”
Re: Part TWO: read the other comment first. yeah. sorry.
Hahaha. yes. That’s what I was implying by ‘scorched earth.’ I just think you need to at least give the civs a chance to get out first.
One thing I love about the American Military is that you do wonders for the advance of technology. Mainly defensive, sure, but there’s some cool stuff in there if only you could use it. Modern artilery for one thing. some of those guns…. *loves*
You’re not quite as alone in your thinking as you think. There are those of us who agree with you, though I’m starting to wonder how many…or how few.
They’re getting their money through Al Quaeda and other foreign sources, they’re mostly foreign fighters to begin with, and they’re killing far, far more innocent civilians than government, coalition, or U.S. forces.
Most of the fighters aren’t Al Qaeda, most of them are native Iraqis, and not all of them target civilians.
It’s really quite simple. The West is doing battle with Al Quaeda terrorists on the ground in Iraq. Why isn’t it getting reported that way?
Why should it be reported as that? Al Qaeda isn’t responsible for the majority of the violence.
But they are funded, in large portion, by Al Qaeda. That makes them Al Qaeda by proxy…
Again, I disagree on the grounds that the people running the “insurancy” are Al Qaeda, and they are funded by the same…
But they are funded, in large portion, by Al Qaeda. That makes them Al Qaeda by proxy…
Sources, please. This is the first I’ve heard anyone make that claim, It’s not like they need to buy weapons or anything — many of the old Iraqi Army’s armories were looted in 2003.
Again, I disagree on the grounds that the people running the “insurancy” are Al Qaeda, and they are funded by the same…
How many Shi’a Arabs do you think would willingly work for or with Al Qaeda?
Then we are all French, because they supplied money, training, and soldiers to us during the revolutionary war.
We paid that back twice…
Or does WWI and WWII not count?
Hey, you’re the one that said the money made them all al-Quedas. Time to brush up on your french, oui?
You know…
…I don’t get that belief. I really don’t.
How does one “pay back” a nation for making it possible to be free? How does one “pay back” a global power taking a chance and declaring war on another global power in your own battle for independence.
Just like France really can’t ever repay us for WWI or WWII, I think it dishonors Lafayette and hundreds of other Frenchmen who came over here and put their lives on the line for our cause — not to mention Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and many others who devoted themselves to recruiting the French in the first place — to dismiss them because their descendants have disagreements with us.
It would be useful to look at the history back and forth between France and the nascent United States, and the Confederation and colonies before that. The relationship between America and France and England — in which America was often a sort of proxy for the French to play, suggests that we both benefited from the deal.
Several things:’
— Hamilton insisted, over Jefferson’s objections (and attempt at impeachment) that the new US pay back its debts. We did.
— In the 1790s, after our revolution was done, the government France ceased to exist when it went through its own. We could have used this to blow off debts. We didn’t.
— Jefferson was quite pro-French, and had a French quisi-official cabinet member.
— Within a couple of decades, later actions (including the War of 1812) had the French owing the US a large amount of money.
— France attempted in the 1820s to disavow this debt.
— Andrew Jackson threatened to attack France unless they paid. They paid.
— We loaned France massive amounts of money in World War I.
— We continued loaning money to France — and loaned billions to Germany so that it could pay reparations to France.
— In 1934 (if I remember correctly), France disavowed this debt to us. We did nothing.
— We did the same thing in WWII.
— For a time in those decades, it seemed that all of Europe was fueled by loans from the US.
It is my opinion that we do not owe France anything at this point — and that for decades, we’ve been supporting and defending them because it suits us to do so.
===|==============/ Level Head
There was a significant US presence in Europe and/or France during WW2? News to me.
You’re kidding, right?
You have to be kidding me. Does the fact that it was the US army forces (under the command of, among other, Patton) that forced the germans out of france, and liberated Paris not exist in your copy of Time Life’s World War II?
Did the fact that the only reason Patton didn’t take Berlin was Eisenhower FORCING him to allow the Russians to take it skip by you?
Seriously… No significant presence? If the US had sat back and done absolutely nothing… Well, allow me to use my favorite line for traveling abroad…
‘If it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking German right now…” Note: Does not work in Germany
If not for the US, WWII (and WWI) would have ended very, very differently…
Funny, that’s not how I know history. But then, I’m Russian. It’s good to see the self-importance of the US demonstrated again, but there were a few little things like Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad… But really, if the US weren’t there, we’d all be speaking German.
And moving off the USSR soil, Budapest, Eastern Prussian operation (3rd Belorussian fleet), Budapest, Vienna, Kenigsberg… All without a trace of US involvement. But that’s okay, because if the US weren’t there, we’d all be speaking German.
While we’re at it, why don’t you look up *another* major US victory — find out why the White House is white.
Had the German army not had a second front to deal with, not even shooting retreating soldiers would have gotten you past the Urals…
The Brits were out of the fight, and surviving because we were sending them gear, and the rest of Europe was already beaten, save for the frickin’ John and Jane Q Frenchie in the resistance (and othe rlike movements in other countries)…
If you think Russia could have won alone, then that’s fine…
Though on a pure numbers issue (and please no one take this to mean that I don’t think Hitler was a monster, because he was), we should have been fighting with Germany against Russia…
Hitler “only” killed, what, 12 million (plus body count from battles)? A lot weren’t even his countrymen… Your guy killed, what, 20 million russians?
Yer not still sore for the whole Alaska thing, are you?
That’s right, America the Great saves the world one more time. Considering your revisionist view of the universe, I don’t think this conversation has a point. But trust me — you really should figure out that whole White House thing.
Okay, cut it out. We’re not discounting Russian fronts during WWII, but you’re bent on discounting D-Day and the ensuing liberation of France. Without US troops and materiel, France would have remained a German province until the collapse of the Third Reich (inevitable, given the nature of the tyranny, but it would have been unconscionable to allow the Reich to collapse under its own weight).
It’s not revisionist history. It’s a fact. And if it’s not something Russian schoolchildren hear about, perhaps that’s because until about 15 years ago there was a significant amount of revisionism going on in the Soviet Bloc. Western media may have flaws, but censorship and “official truth” are not among them.
–Howard
The difference would be if these are people who would otherwise be mildly tolerant of the US occupation before recieving help from an outside source. Americans didn’t wait for French help to arrive and they actively solicited help (which is why prior to the war a lot of people were saying ‘It’d be one thing if they asked us to come help them kick out Sadaam’). But I don’t know, nor have I seen anything that claims to know, what the circumstances are. It is asking a little to compare this easily to the American war of independance.
I believe there was some resistance to the U.S. occupation before alQeuda got in. We here very little of Campaign Shock and Awe.
Also, I was comparing us to the british, and alQueda to the french. (And that does not mean I think alQueda are the good guys. It means we are the ‘occupying’ power.) I know it’s not a great analogy, but I do think it’s one you can use to try and get people to think about Iraq in black and whites.
Perhaps, but the problem with analogies like that is that it’s too easy to find out how they don’t fit. I’d rather just know for real and have more information on the people doing these things and their motives, rather than what people want their motives to be (they hate the US/ want their old gov back/ want the US out). Eh, anyway, suffice to say it’s complicated, but that’s not how it’s often presented in the news. At least the US news. They don’t use “insurgent” so much in Canada. Just “this happened, this many people died/were injured, somebody suspects this, another suspect that”. I like that method.
Yes, it would be nice if reporters quit dumbing it down. Or at least SOME of them. I wouldn’t care about newsertainment so much if it weren’t so prevelant. At least let us have 20% or so GOOD news coverage.
And really… political bias in the news blows. Both right AND left. I love hearing about people who complain about the liberal media while watching Fox News. Or those complaining about Fox News while reading nothing but certain blog news sites.
People should be like me. Complain about both while reading “The Onion”
And really… political bias in the news blows. Both right AND left. I love hearing about people who complain about the liberal media while watching Fox News. Or those complaining about Fox News while reading nothing but certain blog news sites.
Oh heck yeah. =D And if you get your news from only one source, it should be a funny source.
As a rule, I read the CNN website. It is usually pretty evenhanded.
That’s an interesting twist of logic.
In fact, it’s been the frequent experience of the US that funding a group of rebels or an insurgent force makes them “yours.” They take your money, and then they do what they want with it; that’s been our experience in South America, Asia, and the Middle East.
Even assuming that you are correct that it is funded by al Qaeda, experience suggests that your leap of logic is still unsupported.
Because it’s not that simple. There’s more than one group fighting us (heck, they’re even fighting each other), and only some are foreign-funded organizations. It’s labled as “the insurgency” because broadly speaking none of the groups like us or the nominal Iraqi government (though their reasons vary from mis-interpretations of Islam to nationalism). And all of that is built on a patchwork quilt of ethnic and religious strife in the region that lasts longer than the span of recorded human history. It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than the flag-waving “fightin’ terruh” crowd wants it to be.
Real life is not a four-color comic strip with clear-cut heros and villans.
It’s really quite simple. The West is doing battle with Al Quaeda terrorists on the ground in Iraq. Why isn’t it getting reported that way?
Because it isn’t actually that simple. There are at least four broad categories of “insurgents” in Iraq:
1. Out-of-work-and-pissed-off ex-Baathists (Sunni Moslem)
2. Shiite radicals
3. Various native Iraqi subgroups with an axe to grind (e.g. because family members got killed), this includes the Marsh Arabs the British are dealing with
4. Foreign terrorists linked to Al Qaeda
I don’t know how the numbers break down, but they’re all there.
Then isn’t it simply lazy journalism to use one word to cover several different groups with different motives? And bad journalism to imply they’re all part of some insurgency? I’m pretty sick of words being used because they’ll come across to a certain audience the right way instead of just reporting the facts.
Yes, it’s oversimplified and misleading. Not quite as much as labeling them all as Al Qaeda would be, since “insurgents” is a very general term, but still oversimplified. Some of them are classic insurgents, some are Al Qaeda, some are Iranian provacateurs (who are not the same thing as Al Qaeda and aren’t even the same branch of Islam), etc.
Most of the Sunnis don’t necessarily want Saddam returned to power. See, for example, this article, and the linked pdf.
True, even of the ex-Baathist ones. Not implying otherwise.
I think it’s because there isn’t a perfectly good name for it. I’ve seen the same occurance reported as a terrorist attack by one news source and an insurgent attack in others. There are both foreign and national people involved, motivated both by general antipathy towards the west but also at the occupation.
For comparison, let’s look at the american revolution. In the american revolution, french soldiers fought on the side of the american insurgents against the british army and the american loyalists. Americans killed americans in that war. Native americans fought on both sides. It was not americans against the british. The insurgents won. So we don’t call it an insurgency, now do we? But anyway, the iraqis fighting against the U.S. troops and Iraqi troops should probably be called insurgants. They are using guerilla tactics and terrorist tactics. The guerilla tactics are logical, the terrorist tactics reprehensible. (But, to a certain type of mind, logical, in that they’re trying to scare people out of collaborating.)
The French (and a few others) were helping us out to stick a thumb in Britian’s eye. Al-Queda (which wasn’t in Iraq before the war) is helping out the insurgency to stick a thumb in our eye. There are Iraqis on both sides of the conflict, just like in our revolutionary war. The BIG difference is that the major players are NOT the Iraqis, really. It’s the ‘outside’ guys with the most pull. Foreign fighters recruited and sent in to keep up one side of the war against the U.S. troops (and slowly, the iraqi national army) on the other side. It’s a crappy situation. And personally, I think the Iraqis get the short end. The ones that are mad at the U.S. for the occupation (and why shouldn’t they be? We’d be mad if somebody occupied our country) are being used by the terrorist organizations as justification, a recruiting base, and so forth. The ones on the other side are stuck between a rock and a few hard places. They need the U.S. still to maintain peace while they try and get a government hammered out, but the U.S. presence fuels the opposition. So they have to appease the U.S. with a government that gets a ‘stamp of approval’ while trying to appease the ones that don’t want anything to do with the U.S. and see them as toadying.
It’s an ugly, ugly mess. I’m amazed that progress seems to being made, though. I hope they can pull troops out sooner rather than later because I see the occupation as one of the destabilizing factors in the area.
}Al-Queda (which wasn’t in Iraq before the war)
Wasn’t al-Zarqawi (sp?) (the head of Al-Queda in Iraq) in Baghdad when the war began? I was under the impression he was being treated in their hospitals as a sort of Guest Of The Government?
Yup…
Funny how that gets skipped right over, isn’t it?
Yes — and he apparently received a prothestic leg there, to replace one lost in our attack on Afghanistan.
You’ll see the “CIA report” quoted as proving this is not true — but in fact, the CIA report says that Zarqawi was known to be in the Baghdad hospital for treatment, but that there was no “conclusive” evidence that Hussein personally knew about it.
This has been taken by the news and conclusive evidence that he was never there. Peculiar.
Just as news media quote a CIA report as proving that there were no WMDs in Iraq after 1991. But the CIA report contains this statement: “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.”
Apparently, they rely on people not reading the reports.
That doesn’t work for me — I’m a reader. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
al-Zargawi didn’t attach himself (and his group) to al Qaeda until September of 2004, a year and a half after the initial US invasion.
The group was previously known as “Jama’at at-Tawhid wal-Jihad”, or the “Monotheism and Holy War movement”, and was only loosely, if at all, associated with al Qaeda. More at Wikipedia.
Seriously, why do people rely on Wikipedia for anything?
It is, as the man from Penny Arcade said ‘A kind of quantum encyclopedia, where facts both exist and DON’T exist, depending on the whim of the discordant mob’…
I could change Bill Clinton’s entry to some about him “loving” farm animals, and having a desire to clone the Hamburger Men from Jupiter, and it would be there till someone changed it…
Would be a bad time for someone to rely on wiki for facts so they could write a report, wouldn’t it…
Actually, I went through this argument about Wikipedia on my own LJ, and again a few days later. The second link more accurately reflects my opinion at this point. Point is, I was expecting an attack on Wikipedia from someone who sought to discredit the source of the information in my argument rather than putting up a valid counterargument.
Anyway, I went to Wikipedia in this to get some more specific details on events that I already knew had occurred, due to my own recollection. I remember the news reports from the time, about al-Zarqawi’s group, previously unaffiliated, declaring allegiance to al Qaeda and bin Laden.
(Incidentally, why don’t you try making that change to Clinton’s entry? See how long it lasts.)
While I’m aware of them, I haven’t run into inaccuracies on Wikipedia myself, yet.
But, in general, I would guess that the probability of your finding an inaccurate entry on a subject is directly proportional to the product of its contraversiality and its complexity.
Not necessarily. Though it depends on what you define as “inaccuracy”. Restricting ourselves to matters of fact, I agree on the complexity part – more stuff to get wrong, easier to get wrong – but controversial entries, while they may have inaccuracies introduced more often, also tend to have a larger number of people doing their best to make sure the article remains correct.
Hmmm….
Something of a Chicken or the Egg debate.
I’m not sure what they mean in the article that al-Quaeda in Iraq was only loosely associated with al-Quaeda until Sept ’04. If al-Zarqawi renamed his group, it indicates a fairly high order definition of “loosely associated.”
Attempt at humor:
One could say the UK was loosely associated with the US in the war, but I don’t think that the UK would rename themselves as “The US in England”. 😉
The group was only renamed to “al Qaeda in Iraq” when they declared allegiance to al Qaeda in September 2004.
I know that. But, what I’m saying is: I have a hard time believing they were only loosely associated with each other, if they were willing not only to declare allegiance to al-Queda, but to change their name as well. I would tend to think that a nomme de guerre is a point of pride, and not something easily changed.
(After all, “Targon’s Toughs” didn’t change their name to “Breya’s Bruins” 😉 )
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20000618.html
Okay, I can appreciate that. And I can really only speak to what’s been said on the topic, not necessarily to the actual state of things, since I’m not exactly out there collecting intelligence myself.
For what it’s worth, I can see two separate groups realizing they have similar aims and banding together as a result, and I can see the JTJ deciding to take on al Qaeda’s name as a way of pissing off the Americans. Bear in mind that a lot of the goal of terrorism is recognition for their cause, and a name in the mouths of more people brings greater recognition to them and their cause. That’s mostly speculation on my part, though.
I see your point too.
It’s just that there are a lot of questions about al-Quaeda in Iraq, that just haven’t been answered. There’s a lot of grey area about them. Unfortunately, all we can do is speculate.
Hmm. The way I have seen it reported, that should be “they /were/ mostly foreign fighters to begin with” – but now they are mostly Iraqi.
They may also have a different view of what is “foriegn”: if a Chinese invasion of the US and subsequent withdrawal were to leave America partitioned into multiple different countries, I’m not sure you would be happy describing Californians as “foriegn”.
Laziness. Reporters are given releases from the Department of Defense, and use that in subtlely different ways to report the same thing from many different venues. Information saturation ensures that the same underlying message is delivered across all points, and it makes it very hard to correct any underlying misconceptions from the original ‘idea’ message.
Insurgence is what the government wants to call it, because this is not a war about Terrorism in Iraq, any more. Overall, it is part of a strategy, but the message about the war in Iraq is ‘freedom’. Free/democratic government, and the establishment of a sovereign, governing body.
Terrorists don’t have any real ‘set’ goal, they just .. oppose. They use horrible tactics that threaten the ‘civilized’ mind, causing fear and terror. Insurgents, however, oppose control. They specifically rebel against an established civil authority. They may use terrorist tactics, but they actually want to accomplish something, making them very clearly an Enemy. You can have terrorists working for insurgents, simply as men at arms.
Since the American/Allied forces there are ensuring the installation of structure, and these people are opposing that installation through whatever means available (for whatever reasons they have), they are, by definition, insurgents in the eyes of the United States Military.
…but this could’ve been rhetorical. 😉
Terrorists have goals. The Provisional IRA wants a Marxist state ruling the whole island. Hamas wants an Islamist Palestine from the Med to the Jordan River. Al Qaeda wants to wipe out “man made law” in favor of a Caliphate enforcing sharia law. They usually publish the goals in manifestos to the whole world. Go read bin Laden’s various fatwas.
I guess my distinction here is that the ideal behind terrorism is to make yourself so terrible that the alternative is to just not oppose what you want. They may have goals, but they’re not fighting explicitly towards those goals, they’re fighting and demonizing in order to stop people from doing what they don’t want, rather than fighting to get people to do what they do want.
or, more succinctly,
Insurgents can be terrorists, but not all terrorists are insurgents.
In a nutshell?
The Pentagon reported there were insurgents fighting an insurgency. They made reference for years to “the Insurgency.”
When they changed their tune (at a press conference on November 29), the Pentagon (and specifically, Rumsfeld) didn’t come out and say “we’re fighting terrorists, most of them foreign born.” He equivocated. And used the phrase “Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government” to describe them. And then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, standing next to him, referred to them multiple times as “the Insurgents.”
Is this actually an insurgency versus a terrorist action? I’m not well versed enough to say either way. Why does the press continue to refer to it as the insurgency? Because our military did for a long time, and when they reversed themselves they did it clumsily, with phrasing that doesn’t suit itself to the public consciousness, and then they went on to contradict themselves.
So, blame for the term is pretty solidly in the government’s hands, not the press’s, in my opinion.
But I consider the press lazy for relying on the government. Is the government going to try and manipulate the press? Yes, of course, and the press knows it. Should that mean we give them a free pass? Hell no. I blame them both, but mostly the press because they know better and it’s their job to find out the truth, not recycle press statements. Maybe I’m letting the government off easy by not placing the blame soley on them. (Is saying politicians will be politicians awful or what?)
But I think it’s reasonable for the press, when told by military authorities that an “insurgency” has risen in an occupied territory, to accept that that’s the appropriate term. The definition of insurgency is “an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.” From the outside, especially after being told by power that the Iraqi situation is an insurgency, it’s reasonable that the term would gain traction. And once it gains traction, it’s what’s going to be used.
In a sense, the term was initially spun by the Pentagon because they wanted to separate current fighting from the actual war. They wanted to be able to say “this is an insurgent force trying to unseat the legitimate Iraqi government” because they didn’t want to say “this is a continuation of the war to overthrow the Iraqi government.” They wanted the idea that the interim authority (followed by elected authority) were the government, and those fighting were rebelling against the Iraqi government instead of resisting United States occupation.
The problem is, as Howard has said, the people on the ground fighting really aren’t insurgents at this point. (I’m taking Howard at his word about that, because I think he’s got greater clue than I in this). However, having successfully recast the conflict from an extension of the Iraqi War into a post-occupation insurgency, it is now very, very hard to recast it again into an extended terrorist conflict.
That the Pentagon went about trying it in a clumsy way just makes it worse. No one in the press really took the “redefinition” seriously. It seemed too much like spin, so it was discounted as spin.
Do I absolve the press? No. No, I don’t. But if the question is “why is the press reporting this conflict as an insurgency,” the answer is “because that’s how the Pentagon wanted it reported.”
That’s very true, all that you’ve said. I just reserve the right to be grumpy about it. 😉
But it also part of the compacting of the news. It’s easier to say “insurgent” and have most everyone watching instantly be on about the same page because it’s the term everyone is using. They’re trying to get as much information as possible out in a matter of seconds and I’ll give them that it’s hard.
But… not everyone is using it.
Howard, I would like to know the source of your knowledge as to the identity and funding of the — whatever word you prefer for the people who are unlawfully killing other people in Iraq.
And if you’re about to say Pentagon briefings, think really hard about that. You should know as well as anyone that the military considers information to be a weapon as much as any tank or jet.
It’s actually been fairly widely reported that the people fighting the burgeoning democracy in Iraq are mostly Saudi (the same folks we have to thank for 9-11). We know this because of another purposely underreported fact – that we’re killing them by the hundreds if not thousands.
A quick google search (or better yet a Lexus Nexus search) will give you dozens of articles on this subject. The reason you haven’t heard any of this is because the mainstream press in this country (USA for those international readers) hate Bush and America. They hate the fact that we’re the world’s lone superpower and, most of them being devout Socialists (according to polls) they hate democracy. As such, it is much better toward the goal of furthering their cause if they give the false impression that there is a massive and well armed group of Iraqis who hate the US presence there, hat democracy, and want both out.
A little further research (especially to the blogs of soldiers actually serving in Iraq) will reveal that the massive majority of Iraqis like or tolerate the US presence and respect and thank us for freeing them from the clutches of a madman. Already massive free markets are growing in the southern provinces of Iraq, business are being opened and prosperity is growing (as it does in all truly free places). There are even areas in Southern Iraq where British soldiers are patrolling without weapons.
Now I don’t contend that every person in Iraq is thrilled that we’re there, because they aren’t. Some are even willing to join the terrorists to drive us out. But the majority aren’t and saying that they are, even by implication, is dishonest – and that’s the problem Howard’s having with this news coverage. The press isn’t concerned with the truth here, but with the appearance. It’s a lie, specially packaged to further their own anti-American, anti-western, agendas and to embarrass, as much as it were possible, the Bush administration. That’s not reporting, it’s propaganda.
The reason you haven’t heard any of this is because the mainstream press in this country (USA for those international readers) hate Bush and America.
Quite frankly, this is an absurd statement. Even interpreting it as a toned-down version of what it really says, the fact that a significant portion of the mainstream media has been reporting pretty much exactly what the government has been feeding it regarding the war, and the fact that the vast majority of the cable news “panel” and “opinion” type shows are heavily slanted to the conservative side, would seem to contradict it pretty strongly.
Aside from Fox News, name me three conservatives (actual, admitted people of the Right, who don’t sit ethere and agree with whatever the othe guy says). I dare you.
Sorry, I’m going to have to pass on your “dare”. I don’t have the time to dig up the article I read a few months ago. The gist of it was that they counted the guests and panel members on a bunch of pundit shows on several different networks for an entire weekend, and they came out to something like 80% Republican. And that wasn’t an isolated incident.
I recall that one…
It counted the ones who call themselves “Moderate conservatives” which is, frankly, a liberal…
If you check their actual views and statements, they sure are from the Right…
Just because they call themselves something doesn’t mean they actually ARE… But boy it sounds good when over half SAY they are republican… Though it looks funny to me when they never really disagree with what the left-ists say…
That’s the other thing, I don’t really recall any of them just rolling over and agreeing with the “leftists” – or, for that matter, liberals claiming to be conservative. I know it’s a continuum, but still there are some generally consistent definitions… Do you have some examples of this? I know I didn’t have the time to find my own examples, but maybe you do. Otherwise, we’ll just have to have differing recollections of what goes on, and leave it at that…
The one that comes to mind quickly is the guy from I believe MSNBC… The guy with the bow-tie (seriously, they dressed him like Doc dressed Marty in Back to the Future 2, or Alex from Family Ties)…
I almost never hear that guy take an actual conservative stance. While I understand that there are a great number of issues about which reasonable men (and women) might disagree, such a thing requires an actual disagreement…
Though to be honest, I barely count Governor Schwarzenegger as a republican…
Tucker Carlson?
Tucker Carlson is not a good person to base any arguments on, in my opinion. His basic stance seems to be more argumentative self-righteousness, from the little I’ve seen of him. (Admittedly not much, but there’s a reason for that.) I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him take any kind of coherent stance. (I still have fond memories of seeing him get totally dismantled on his own show by Jon Stewart.)
And I don’t know what the crap Schwarzenegger is. He’s conservative on a bunch of issues, liberal on a bunch of others, and just plain wrong on others. So… yeah.
That’s the guy…
Oh, so do I… But remember, Stewartwasn’t slamming him… He was slamming ALL news shows like that one. And rightly so…
And John Stewart is one of those from the left that I find VERY funny.
Mainly because he’s willing to poke fun at his own party as well…
During the election, the funniest bit was where they played footage from Kerry, and then cut back to John and he’s reading a book titled “So You’ve Decided to Become a Republican”… He’s just plain funny, and I laugh at the Bush stuff as much as I laugh at anything else… Colber, however, grates on my nerves for some reason… Mainly because he doesn’t do like John does, and I have yet to see him poke fun at liberals… Though I admit I miss the show as much as I see it…
Yeah, I know Stewart was slamming everyone, but Carlson really didn’t take it well at all.
I know what you mean about Colbert. He’ll get better as he gets more comfortable in his new role, but I think a lot of the reason the liberals don’t get much flak from him is because they, um, haven’t been doing much lately, and that in particular his show is framed pretty much as a direct parody of Bill O’Reilly. (As far as I can see, O’Reilly is to the conservative movement what Pat Robertson is to the Christians – someone that your average, reasonably intelligent conservative would really rather not have on their side because he’s loud and makes the entire right wing look bad.)
I dunno… I Like O’Reilly… I recall fondly his slamming for the funds raised after 9-11 (they weren’t actually going to help 9-11 victims) and stories of that sort. I can bet you that NBC would never have been the first to run that…
Sometimes the mean guy is the one you need most…
Though lately, Bill is getting a lil out there…
And yeah, whenever Robertson or Falwel start talking I imagine God rolling his eyes…
Yeah, anyone’s liable to get stuff right once in a while. But this is a guy who’s still boycotting France, just as an example. He’s pretty out there nowadays – probably more than he was four years ago.
I still think that a Boycot on French products is a good idea…
But I really do dislike the French, so I may be a bit bias…
I’m boycotting France. Italian wines are just as good and have 92% less French in them.
Okay, I’ve got a new New Year’s resolution, which is not to get in fights with the readers of other people’s webcomics. Even when they spout poisonous nonsense.
Please note, this question was directed to Howard. I know Howard, and I am interested to hear the basis of his reasoning for believing something he has stated as a fact.
I really, really don’t care to hear from you again.
Funny, what posted doesn’t seem to me to be either poisonous or nonsense. The biggest complaint that those serving in Iraq have right now is that the US media is actively working against them, by not reporting at all on the good they’re doing and the accomplishments they’ve made. This isn’t my opinion. This is what the soldiers themselves are saying. They know that the situation in Iraq is nowhere near as bad as the mainstream media is making it out to be. That’s going to come back to bite the media after the war is over.
This is a public forum, subject only to Howard’s – not your – control. I would assume that, if Howard were to object, he’d let all of us know. Whether you care to hear from, or myself, is not material to whether we can or should comment in Howard’s journal.
And here I thought my diet would be my hardest and most-often-tested resolution.
Funny, I don’t see any poison in that guy’s answer. It was calm, civil, and actually gave suggestions on where source material might be found. Disagreeing with your view of things does not a poisonus thing make…
And if you really and truly don’t want comments from the peanut gallery, maybe a public forum like this isn’t the best place to be asking something, neh?
See my reply to Tron guy.
I can’t fight it…
“It’s a good thing your Resolution wasn’t ‘Never be a smarmy jerk’…”
And with that, I’m bowing out of this, and deleting the bookmark to your comic.
Yes, I’m ceasing reading your webcomic because your views are SO darn close-minded… What, you thought I stopped reading Ozzy and Milly because I didn’t like the art?
Great bait. Fabulous. Million possible responses. Not taking it. Bye.
You mean I’m not the only one who dragged the O&M bookmark to the trash because of Simpson’s attitude? Amazing.
You are so my new best friend…
I’m amazed, but for a different reason. If I only read comics by artists whose political views I agreed with, I’d have left Schlock Mercenary behind a long time ago.
It’s a good way to miss out on a lot of excellent work.
I read comics without regard to their authors’ political views.
My objection to O&M was that Simpson treated the O&M mailing list as his own personal fiefdom, and though it was about the strip, it was not acceptable to actually disagree with it when the strip took on his political views. The final straw was that Simpson said that there would be no discussion about Iraq on the list, and he wouldn’t mention it in the strip. Fair enough. Then he mentioned it in the strip, and when I took him to task, he ran me off.
That his response to my departure was a comment about champagne corks popping just showed how little class he has.
It’s not about politics. I’m friends with people across the political spectrum. It’s about the attitude shown by the people involved.
I see what you mean. I wasn’t present for that, so I can’t really speak to it at all…
In my experience, politics seems to be a difficult topic for him to deal with. He writes and draws on the subject well (in my opinion, but then I agree with him on a lot of things), but the strife that usually arises as a result of political debate seems to trouble him deeply, and he’s left in the difficult position of being strongly opinionated but strongly disliking debate on the topic.
Honestly, I don’t think that it troubles him so much as the fact that people are daring to disagree OFFENDS him…
“Self-rightous” is a term I would easily free-associate with him…
Honestly, I enjoy Ozy and Millie a lot. That said, when he started whining about people disagreeing with him in his public forums (and if you don’t have journal entry locked, it is public. You can have rules, but “no disagreeing with me ever” is a particularly stupid rule for that sort of thing) I just quit reading anything he wrote outside of the strip itself.
Also..
It happened years ago…
The whiney over 2000’s election just drove me nuts…
And in response to Our friend here, it’s not the views that caused it…
I’ve a large percentage of my friends who are liberal (one is even a socialist, of all things), and their views are fine. I’ve already said that there are many topics over which reasonable men might disagree. My issue is when any sort of divergent view is ignored, shouted down, and the holder is labeled with buzz-words (I’m particually amused by ‘homophobe’ and ‘racist’, but again that’s a different rant).
Hold a different opinion… Don’t act as if I just insulted your mother because I don’t share it…
Simpson failed utterly in that regard (his railing against capitalism was particularly annoying), and thus I sent him an e-mail, recieved a less than civil response, and so I dropped him like a bad habit (not to be confused with my bad habits, which I hold on to like you wouldn’t believe).
Partially Clips has gone that route. Much the way I once (many MANY years ago) found Michael Moore funny.
It isn’t the viewpoint that offends… It’s the way it’s expressed…
Re: Also..
In fairness, I’ve never seen a distastefully expressed political viewpoint at Partially Clips. Rob and I disagree on a lot of things, including fundamental stuff like “whether or not there’s a God,” but we still get along fine.
Needless to say it bugs me when people with whom I get along can’t seem to get along with each other.
–Howard
Re: Also..
I suppose it’s the “bah, begone!” attitude, really…
It’s very much how I always thought Simpson would respond to a debate…
Though to be fair, I’ve done my share of things similar, though it was on my own LJ (the dropping of those who’s posts were mostly “Oh Em Gee!!!11!!1! Bush is teh sux0rz!!1!” sort of things)… Though when I get home, I’m going to have to ADD a few people now… 🙂
Re: Also..
I know that feeling all too well…indeed, I’m dealing with a particularly severe case of it at the moment. I’m not sure I know what to do about it.
It’s actually been fairly widely reported that the people fighting the burgeoning democracy in Iraq are mostly Saudi (the same folks we have to thank for 9-11). We know this because of another purposely underreported fact – that we’re killing them by the hundreds if not thousands.
Can you provide any recent news articles stating that? I can’t find any, not after August 2005 or so. I can find the opposite: this, or (related) this.
I have yet to see anyone in the military or otherwise discredit the referenced report. If you have, I’d be interested to read about it. Tell me, though, why is it easy to believe that the Saudis or Syrians or whatever are behind most of the violence, and the Iraqis aren’t?
A little further research (especially to the blogs of soldiers actually serving in Iraq) will reveal that the massive majority of Iraqis like or tolerate the US presence and respect and thank us for freeing them from the clutches of a madman.
“Massive majority” — that’s the key phrase. And some of the unhappy minority (who are Iraqi) turn to violence.
Short answer: Dan Willis and I have been reading from some of the same milbloggers. His list is more extensive than mine, but it’s topically quite similar.
Long answer: I’m too lazy for the long answer right now. Seriously.
Any MilBloggers you’d care to recommend?
I’d be interested in this too. Political affiliations aside, it’s hard to argue with actual troops on the ground about what’s going on in Iraq, at least as far as the day-to-day activity and individual civilians’ responses to the troops go. I’d have a hard time trusting an individual soldier’s view of the big picture, though, because of how information flow in the military tends to be (to my knowledge, anyway, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be otherwise) tightly controlled, and to be quite honest I don’t really trust the higher-ups to be forthcoming and candid with the enlisted men about things like that. (Nor should they be, necessarily – morale is a powerful tool, and regardless of my own opinions on the war, we don’t really need our troops thinking that their fight is futile, or not going well. (My own solution to that is different, but honestly I’m not enough of an idealist to think that the military will pull out of an engagement rather than stay in and make the troops think everything is going well. (I’m not necessarily saying they’re doing this, but just that it’s a possibility.)))
Start at http://www.milblogging.com, noodle around from there. That’s probably the best collection there is.
Yeah, but you’re allowed… You have comedy gold to create… We have to allow you to save up… 🙂
“The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don’t come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS).”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
insurgent: “Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent
Insurgent – Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
That works for me. Yes, there are many groups within this Insurgency, but they all fit nicely under this umbrella. If you are using “terrorists” to describe these people, you are just fear mongering.
Al Qaeda doesn’t have their own money. They are primarily getting it from Saudi and Syrian sympathizers (amongst others).
If you don’t like “insurgent”, try these…
nihilistic malcontents
anarchical agitators
pig-headed partisan
Rancorous rebel rousers
Irate insurrectionists
Haughty Heathens
Belligerent Barbarians
Because if they’re called terrorists people will begin to associate all manner of guerilla-style activites as terrorism and start questioning things frequently touted as heroic. The French Resistance during WWII, for example.
Political semantics avoids falling into that trap. Hence, they’re insurgents.
My nephew is on the ground in Iraq (keep him safe!). The locals are friendly, and happy he’s there. My hubby’s step-brother just came home from a trip out there, and experienced similar situations.
Yes, they have both encountered the occasional nutjob who tried to blow up a building or whatever… but they’re more rare than the coverage would lead us to believe. In the cases both of my family members over there experienced, the locals helped them to stop the nutjobs!
As far as “insurgents,” I asked them… and both said that their superiors keep calling them that as well. So if the military has officially changed its lingo, it’s not getting out to the guys on the ground. Sure, they have other names for the “insurgents,” but they still hear the term thrown about by their commanders themselves.
Media conservative or liberal?
Easy enough to answer that question. Just look up the public data on their political donations.
For the 2004 elections, TWO maximum personal donations from NBC employees went to Republicans. NO CBS employee donated to Republicans. FOX News Channel employees gave less overall to political donations than other networks, but the large majority of FNC donations did not go to Republicans.
That’s all you need to know to put the needle into any “conservative media bias” BS argument. The huge majority of people employed by American television networks make political donations to Democrats or other politicans that are other than Republicans.
Who’s this Osama bin Laden fellow? The DOD spells his name Usama. Curiously, the only media outlet I’ve seen spell it with a U is FOX. Can’t recall which FNC talking head it was, but when asked why FNC spells it with a U, “Because the Department of Defense spells it with a U.”
Watch any DOD breifing video where they have stuff on a monitor or easel about bin Laden, it’s always Usama not Osama.
P.S. I “lean” more towards “small L” libertarianisim. I and 16 other people in this county voted for Badnarik in 2004.
P.P.S. I just created a LJ account so I could post here. Don’t *expect* to ever see anything at livejournal.com/users/kvugng/ However, I reserve the priveledge to suddenly, without any warning whatsoever, to put something there. Possibly an image of a cow, or Milk Duds, or the underside of a dirty lawnmower. You haven’t been warned yet. 😉