While your shameless lapdogs are wringing their hands about the U.S. slaughter of innocent people overshadowing the elections, don’t let this little effort to move us a little bit closer to Oceania: When the U.S. kills people now, we’ll just report the body count as “terrorists.” Women, children, old people, anyone caught in the fire is presumed a terrorist by the very fact that they were killed.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/17/iraq.main/index.html
Well duh. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. And if you don’t oppose terrorists, you support terrorists. We’re at war with Iraq, so Iraqis are against us. Ergo…
I sure thought that that small rapped body I saw in the news photos was yet another one of those nasty terrorists. Confoundit, they’re even arming the infants I hear!
The fact that they were civilians does not mean that some were not terrorists.
That said, the thought of. “I bet one out of three is a woman or child” passed through my head as I heard it on the radio this morning. Not surprised to be correct. Just saddened.
The fact that they were civilians does not mean that some were not terrorists.
That said, the thought of. “I bet one out of three is a woman or child” passed through my head as I heard it on the radio this morning. Not surprised to be correct. Just saddened.
(My apologies if this posts twice)
Apologies accepted. 
You’re absolutely right. The fact that civilians were killed does not negate the claim that 70+ terrorists were also killed. Not saying I believe the claim, just that there’s no evidence against it as yet.
The way I read it is that 70 is merely the number of fatalities, and the US is glibly reporting the body count as “terrorists killed.”
Some of the people in the WTC were possibly felons. We didn’t report that 3,000 felons had been killed because one or more victims may or may not have incidentally been felons.
Not to be any more callous than usual, but…no shit?
It’s not like this is new.
Maybe Starving Artist can swing by and point out how the rest were actually “terrorist sympathizers”.
Not that she can define those, it seems.
-Joe
“Terrorist” is a meaningless word anyway. The US defines any resistance to the invasion of Iraq as “terrorism.” It’s a stupid word with no coherent definition. By their definition George Washington was a terrorist.
Speaking of Bushspeak, “unlawful combatant” is another insane, Orwellian categorization. An “unlawful combatant” is anyone who isn’t wearing a uniform when we attack them.
Of course they were terrorists. They died in terror and by dying in such a terrorized state, they must have surely terrorized those who were with them with all their screaming and agonizing. Thus, terrorists. That Dubya, I tell you, he’s on to something.
Creative use of language is not likely to persuade the ordinary Iraqi of the goodwill and intent of US forces.
It just emphasises the need to other nations in the are that they must have an effective deterrant, way to go USA.
They were probably just as guity as those unfortunate persons at the wedding parties that were bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Damn them for firing their weapons in the air.
Something, incidentaly, that many consider to be a fundamental right of Americans.
I don’t think they’re trying to persuade the Iraqis anymore - it’s down to the few people over here who really buy into this mission.
To be fair, even the most gun totinist buddies of mine find shooting in the air to be pretty stupid. Since they have a working understanding of gravity and all.
Did any of these people in the Administration learn anything about body counts from Vietnam? Of course not, they were either getting drunk or “had other priorities”. Pity Westmoreland isn’t still around to give interviews.
…and to be even fairer, all evidence points to the fact that in the Iraq wedding incident, everybody was in bed at the time of the American attack, and noone was shooting in the air at the time at all…
I dunno if you’re trying to lay the genesis of that term at the foot of Bush and/or his administration, but “unlawful combatant” has been in use since at least 1942. Mebbe you’re just blaming Bush for trying to increase the fuzziness of the definition, but I can’t tell for certain.
When it’s Coalition soldiers, the term is “undercover soldier.” When it’s the enemy, it’s “unlawful combatant.”
[sub]Anyone else find it morbidly ironic that the google ads are now touting ‘Cheap flights to Baghdad’? [/sub]