|
Policy Change: “Terrorists” Are Now “Insurgents”
This is the biggest Orwellian rewrite I have ever experienced.
For years the label "AlQaeda" and "terrorists" were practically used as synonyms. But, following the Obama administrations lead, the New York Times has now rewritten its stylebook and relabeled "AlQaeda" from "terrorists group" to a somewhat neutral "insurgency".
Iraq Insurgents Kill Nearly 100 After Declaring New Offensive
BAGHDAD — In a coordinated display intended to show they remain a viable force, Iraqi insurgents launched at least 37 separate attacks throughout the country on Monday morning, setting off car bombs, storming a military base, attacking policemen in their homes and ambushing checkpoints, Iraqi authorities said….
So there are now "insurgents" in Iraq? Should we support them?
Further into the piece it becomes clear who these "insurgents" are:
The attacks, coming in the early days of Ramadan, the monthlong Muslim religious rite, were predicted Sunday in an audio message attributed to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Bakir Al Baghdadi, and posted on the group’s Web site. Mr. Baghdada vowed that a new offensive, which he called Breaking Down Walls, would begin soon.
Hmm – Al Qaeda now "predicts" such atrocities? Would not "announce" be a more factual word? Are we supposed to doubt that AlQaeda in Iraq committed these killings today after it only "predicted" them? Why?
On Twitter Yemen specialist Gregory Johnsen asked: Why is the NYT calling al-Qaeda in Iraq "Iraqi insurgents"
My short answer was: b/c AlQaeda in Syria are "rebels"
The longer answer is that the Oceania no longer at war with Eurasia. It is now allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia. The New York Times, as the paper of record, is just documenting that shift though without acknowledging it.
The U.S. and its assorted poodles are now allied with those radical Sunni AlQaeda fighters. But as the U.S. would never support "terrorists" they now have to be renamed and rather suddenly become "insurgents" (in Iraq) or "rebels" (in Syria).
This is a bit ominous for the Iraqi premier Maliki. This relabeling after the devastating attacks today makes clear that he is now on the same regime change targeting list that Syria's Bashar is on.
Al Qaeda associated groups have for quite some time been running terrorist campaigns against the governments of Syria and Iraq. Support for them from the U.S. and its Saudi allies has been more or less open for quite some time. Relabeling them as "insurgents" and "rebels" is the official declaration of this cooperation as a new U.S. policy.
“What the feck is does he mean by creating their own reality??? Here’s some reality for them..They’re TRILLIONS of dollars in dept..Bogged down in the most backwards of countries called Afghanistan with no way out and still suffering economic decline..
One has to be a real fool no to see this….The basic tenet of all arrogant idiot is their unshakeable belief that they’re smarter than everybody else. Let them revel in their “reality creation” business.”
Selected excerpts From:
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zarqawi
Winston began reading :
Chapter I. Ignorance is Strength. . . .
War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous . . .
But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes . . . .
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. . .
In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient – a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete – was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, . . .
From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. . . .
In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves ; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.
Posted by: Hu Bris | Jul 24 2012 6:44 utc | 75
|
