Rebels?

• March 22, 2006

Good grief…

Rebels attack Iraqi police station, kill four
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Rebels blasted an Iraqi police station with grenade and mortar fire before dawn on Wednesday, killing four policemen in Madaen, south of Baghdad, police said.
They said they had detained about 70 suspects in raids in the town after the assault, which occurred a day after at least 22 people were killed and 30 prisoners released in a similar attack on a police post northeast of the capital.
Among the detainees was a Syrian found with leaflets by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, police said.

Since when are the followers of Zarqawi and/or al Qaeda considered rebels? Yes, I know, “rebel” is technically accurate for what they are…but that term evokes images of oppressed citizens fighting against tyranny. In this instance we have just the opposite: Murderous tyrants fighting against a government of the people with terror and cowardly sneak attacks.
They aren’t rebels, they are terrorists and should be called such.

Tags: Media

http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

isirota1965 said:

calling them what they are (terrorists) would go against the agenda being pursued by the MSM and the various news organizations.

this doesn’t make any sense given the blog post immediately preceeding this one, here.  In it Rob uses a chart from the DoD (military) which shows that since the war began not a single U.S. Soldier has been killed by Terrorists.  So, would you also say that the DoD has an agenda that they are pursuing, that of redefining the words?
Dave

They aren’t rebels, they are terrorists and should be called such.

I think they should be called Homo sapiens, which is the only accurate term. Everything else is biased.
isirota1965

You are correct, but unfortunately, calling them what they are (terrorists) would go against the agenda being pursued by the MSM and the various news organizations.  Reuters is one of the worst offenders………
http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

It’s not a dumb point, Rob.  Just because you don’t like it that someone calls them ‘rebels’ or ‘insurgents’ instead of terrorists doesn’t mean that they are wrong.  When the U.S. Military isn’t classifying attacks in Iraq as terrorism (and rightly so, because almost all acts in a war are terror of one sort or another . . . acts that I was responsible for when I was in would absolutely be terrorist if perpetrated on a peaceful populace not in a war zone, for example), and yet you expect to chain news organizations to your own brand of P.C. jargon, it doesn’t make a very convincing platform for your indignation.
http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

Rob, there most certainly is a column in that report for Death by Terrorism.  No reported cases since the war started.  It most certainly is fair.
http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

That’s just not something that sits well with me.

 Fair enough.
Dave

Explain how "terrorist" is less biased and more objective than "Homo sapien." Did not think so.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Ah, and you’re right.  It was coming up too zoomed in on my screen.

But I still think your point is a dumb one.  However the DoD defines it, to me a roadside bomb placed where it targets just as many Iraqi civilians as U.S. military is a terror attack.  And the fact that Zarqawi are using terror tactics, like attacking civilians and beheading captives, makes them terrorists.  Calling them "rebels" dillutes the monstrosity of their actions. 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

So, would you also say that the DoD has an agenda that they are pursuing, that of redefining the words?

Um…that’s not exactly a fair argument Rick.  If you read the chart from the DoD it separates out soldiers who died from homicide, illness, hostile action, etc.  Hostile action would be the combat deaths, but it doesn’t break that one down any further.  We don’t have numbers for friendly fire, soldier-on-soldier conflict or death from terror attacks.

So, really, the DoD didn’t use the term"terrorist" because they didn’t have to.

I think they should be called Homo sapiens, which is the only accurate term. Everything else is biased.

Captain Obfuscation rides again. 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Explain how "terrorist" is less biased and more objective than "Homo sapien." Did not think so.

Tell me how calling someone who blows up innocent women and children to affect political change through fear a "terrorist" is biased.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

It’s not a dumb point, Rob.  Just because you don’t like it that someone calls them ‘rebels’ or ‘insurgents’ instead of terrorists doesn’t mean that they are wrong

I didn’t say it was wrong.  In fact, I said it was technically accurate. 

you expect to chain news organizations to your own brand of P.C. jargon, it doesn’t make a very convincing platform for your indignation.

Maybe that’s a fair point.  I just have an opinion about this and am expressing it.  I feel that calling them rebels lends a sense of authenticity to the terrorists.  As though what they were doing is comparable to rebels fighting tyranny.

That’s just not something that sits well with me.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Rebels?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments