It's ok to kill "Insurgents" and "Militants"

I keep seeing these two words. Apparently as long as you are one of these two things you can be killed, no questions asked. Kinda like a cockroach.

Skimming over to Dictionary.com (cuz it's easy) I find:

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
n.
One who is insurgent.

and

mil·i·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ml-tnt)
adj.
Fighting or warring.
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

So apparently when today's headline reads:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050510/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq">U.S. Attack in Iraq Kills 100 Insurgents
and the text reads "hunting for followers of Iraq's most wanted terrorist and reportedly killing as many as 100 militants since the weekend operation began."

It must be something like a really successful deer hunt. And I'm happy that there are no civilians dying en-mass. No women, children, or people just desperate to be left alone and have foreign invaders out of their country.

No...nothing like that is happening. Because we only kill Insurgents and Militants. Not people. Killing people would be wrong. Going to someone else's country and killing them would be wrong. But we aren't doing that. Because we have a couple other words we can call them by. And that makes all the difference.

right?

"insurgents"? How do they know? Do they have ID cards? Or, more likely, is it that any body in the body count had to be an insurgent or militant?

may only effect Militants and Insurgents. Ergo, dying in a hail of gunfire is proof that you are one of the two. Sorta like burning when you're tied to a flaming stake might be considered proof you are a witch?

I'm still unsure what you have to do to qualify as which. Maybe Males are one and Females are the other?

As if this was evidence of anything.

Other times, fake IDs. They never say what is fake about them, or how they know since the people are dead.

Then they are militants rather than soldiers? If you are a vagrant, you cannot be a militant, or an insurgent, I guess.

we would all be insurgents as I am sure we would all fight to protect our families, friends, pets etc.

Try explaining that to any Bush supporter. Insurgent does not equal terrorist in every context.

IF the people who are being killed are the same people who are planting bombs everywhere and blowing up people by the dozen, THEN I don't care what label they are called, they must be stopped.

IF, however, the label is being used as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later, THEN the labeling must stop.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Peace.

Sorry, it isn't that simple. These people, these "insurgents", "militants", and "terrorists" in Iraq are really the same thing that our Founding Fathers were, patriots struggling to throw a brutal and repressive enemy out of their country. Sure, they don't have any uniforms, nor much of an organized military structure, and yes, they fight back in unconventional ways, but quite frankly all of these charges and more were leveled out those who fought the Revolutionary War. And yes, our Founding Fathers were labeled as villains, terrorists, and worse. It is all a matter of perspective and propaganda friend. You're obviously seeing it through the eyes of official military propaganda channels. Try looking at the situation through the eyes of an Iraqi citizen. I think that your opinion would change.

You don't think that the Iraqi people have the right to fight against a country that is illegally and immorally invading their country? You don't think that they should have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary? You think that these people should just roll over and let America strip them of their resources, oil, infrastructure and wealth? Sorry friend, but the right of self defense isn't solely an American right, it is for everybody.

You don't want to see the insurgent fighting to continue, then work like hell to get our troops out NOW, for that is the only way such attacks will stop.

I see it the way I said I do.

I don't care a whit about the American Revolution, oil, freedom fighters, who's a hegemonic tyrant and who's a noble countryman. I really don't care about the politics of it at all. I sure as hell don't pay attention to "the official military propaganda channels" that you tried to associate me with. All this crap is what people who sit in front of computers carp about. People with full bellies and zero chance of being blown up by a nail bomb.

I get my info from a Chaldean Iraqi friend who has family in Iraq.

Iraqi Baathists are currently planting bombs and blowing up random people in Iraq, lots of them, because they want to be back in power. I don't think well of that. I protested like hell when the war got going and still do, but the war is what it is, and I can't change it now.

If the soldiers are going after the bomb planters, then that is a good use of soldiers' time.

If they are going after people who aren't bomb planters but using it as an excuse, then I don't think well of it.

My Iraqi friend tells me that the bomb planters are attacking many civilian targets. I believe him.

Where do you get your news, friend?

Peace.

And for your information, I get my information from many other sources than the MSM, including the foreign press, soldiers back from Iraq, and Iraqis themselves. Sorry but they are painting a picture that is radically different from your friend. And quite frankly, when I'm getting the same information from numerous, unrelated sources that verify each other, I tend to believe them, rather than the lone, unsubstantiated source. It just is common sense. Have you ever considered that your friend has an agenda? That his viewpoint is biased? Considering that you stated said friend was a Chaldean Christian, I would think that such a viewpoint was a biased source, especially since you stated that this is your main source of information. Perhaps you could do with some other viewpoints?

Have you also considered that it is the American presence that is causing the bomb planting? That if the American forces left, such acts of insurgency would die out and go away? This arguement that we must stay in country in order to pacify the country is the same arguement that kept the US in Vietnam for entirely too long. And gee, look what good the US did there:eyes:

And I find your statement that "the war is what it is, and I can't change it now." very telling, and very sad. It is this type of defeatist attitude that allows Bushco to prolong this illegal, immoral occupation for his own ends, thus threatening the lives of every single Iraqi, including your friend's family. Time for you to get up from your computer and go do something productive, rather than throwing up your hands and being defeatist. Look, it took sustained pressure for over a decade to finally get the US out of Vietnam, and it looks like it will take the same sort of effort on this war. Coming to the conclusion that all such efforts are useless is counterproductive, and plays right into Bushco's hands.

I have a complete life separate from my screen.

The way you describe your sources generically tells me where you get your info, by the way. From the screen. From soldiers? Really? From Iraqis? Do tell.

If you think there are such things as unbiased sources, you're wrong. Every source is biased. Critical judgment relies on evaluating the subjectivity of all sources, flitering out what has happened from opinions about what has happened, and determining whether you want to grind the same axe as your source.

My "defeatist" attitude is "very telling, very sad" to you. Perfectly chosen words from the faux compassionate lingo, words which mean exactly the opposite of what they pretend. Why not say the words you actually mean? Specifically, that you feel contempt and superiority? To a fellow progressive, no less?

I am the opposite of a defeatist, friend. You have no clue who I am, but if you did, that would be the last phrase to cross your lips.

I do trust my Iraqi friend, as he is a first-person source with direct connections to family who are actually experiencing what you read about. I know he doesn't provide me a complete or unbiased picture. It's ridiculous I even have to say that. Meanwhile, I read a number of journalistic accounts as well, ranged across the political spectrum. I avoid the ones that only tell one side of the story, whether that's left or right, Arab or American, whatever. Those are easy to figure out. They're the ones that promise that their point of view is the only point of view that contains the "truth."

I'll figure out my own truth...don't need someone else to do it for me.

Peace.

But yes, my sources are real people, back from the war, or in the middle of it. Multiple sources, saying much the same thing. Gee, I think that that is a bit more objective than your single, biased source. You do know that it is common for every bad thing to be blamed on the Baathists, whether true or not, much like every bad thing is blamed on liberals here in the US. Perhaps you should apply your much vaunted filter a little more diligently friend.

And that you interpret my words as meaning the opposite of what I say, well, once again, very telling, and yes very sad, since you are, at least in your own mind, such a great progressive. For gee, if you weren't such a cynical suspicious person, you might recognize genuine emotions when you read it. But no, you think I have contempt for you:eyes: Nice try at playing the victim friend, but it doesn't work. How can I feel contempt for you when all I know of you is from these two posts. I don't make snap judgements about people, though there are some who do.

You don't seem to recognize that the Chaldeans want to control the reins of power as much as the Baathists, Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and various other grouups do. A bad blind spot friend, and one that you should correct. You scold me about not using critical judgement, but seem blind to the fact that you are lacking it yourself. I am at least receiving information from multiple sources that have been on the ground, and you are relying on what, one person, via second hand reports. Mote, eye, beam, etc.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully we can both agree to bring the troops home now. For all that their continued presence is doing is aggravating an already bad situation.

Seems to be a pattern with you.

I see you're back to your "very telling, very sad" baloney again. Plus, after I explicitly tell you I read a range of sources across the political spectrum, because I find this subject very interesting, you go right back to the single-source trope. Man, thank god I don't have to sit on an airplane next to you for a flight from LA to NY. I'd probably jump out the window.

Let's be clear. I am not your "victim." I loathe the victim culture and its attendant assumptions. That stuff won't work with me.

My Iraqi friend is part of a community of Iraqis with whom I do business. I get a lot of opinions from them, and not all of them are in agreement. My friend is the one who's told me the most, and suggested a number of sources at the library to bone up on history of the region. It ain't pretty.

You find it astonishing that Chaldeans have a political agenda, just like Baathists, Kurds, and the rest of them? The only astonishing thing would be if they didn't. You, too, have a political agenda. So do I. So did Mother Teresa. Welcome to the human race.

I am not blind to my own point of view. In fact, I am proud of it, because I come by it honestly, rather than pretend I am a member of the truth elite, like, ahem, some posters. Mote, beam, eye yourself.

Peace.

And the amazing thing is that none of them are there.

I also find it funny that when you get challenged on your lone Iraqi source, it suddenly becomes "community of Iraqis with whom I do business" Gee, funny how that transformation happens.:eyes:

Apparently you don't wish to take facts or other's opinions into consideration about your own opinions. You are proud of your POV, and will apparently defend it without having to resort to facts. Fine and good, you are entitled to it. But don't expect others to adapt it, especially when it appears so one sided, single minded and flawed.

And yes, everybody has a political agenda friend, even you.

I only know what you post.

I wonder if you even read what I posted.

You write, with declarative fervor:
"And yes, everybody has a political agenda friend, even you."

Here is a quote from my post:
"You, too, have a political agenda. So do I."

Then you take issue that I didn't write a 500-word post explaining up-front all the details of the involvement I have with my Chaldean friends, and use that to cast aspersions. (Meanwhile, you seem curiously silent about your own.) They told me about people like you in my Logic and Fallacies class in college.

Just because I reach different conclusions than you, doesn't mean I haven't examined a lot of facts. Quite the opposite. I think you're just mad I don't agree with you.

Peace.

And I've learned long ago not to get mad about such matters. But hey, projection can be one's best friend:eyes:

Look friend, you and I probably agree on a lot of matters, but on this one I think that you are blindered. You are basing a lot of your opinion on an admitedly biased source(s), your Chaldean friends. This is all well and good, but there are other viewpoints that are just as valid, if not more so. And you don't seem to wish to take them into consideration. You also seem rather dismissive of historical lessons. Well friend, you know what they say about those who ignore such lessons. . .

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. However I do recommend that you peruse the books I mentioned. It is always good to broaden one's knowledge base.

Do we believe that those the media and pentagon are routinely labelling "Militants and Insurgents" are in fact these things in the negative sense? Or do we believe that many (not all) are actually civilians who are being labelled in order to make our invasion seem healthy, noble, and bloodless (insofar as innocents are concerned).

For myself, I think most of American history has been whitewashed to mythologize our nobility. That leads me to be HIGHLY skeptical of these very neutral or positive sounding reports that claim Victory over some mass enemy in Iraq. Rather, I suspect we're bombing the crap out of civilian blocks (often in reponse to attacks admittedly) but then reporting whatever bodies we find as "Combatants".

In the end, I think this is the PR tactic of most invaders and despots. Sadly, I believe we qualify.

The history that we're fed as kids and college students IS so much whitewashed BS. It was only after getting out of school, reading and researching on my own did I realize that there is lot more to our history than what we're taught, and most of it isn't pretty. And that statement doesn't just apply to the US, but to all countries in all ages.

Sad to say, most people think that you're a nut if you don't believe the official history taught in History 101. Most such classes ARE nothing but revisionist PR, written by and for the victors. And yes, based on this type of track record, it is wise to have a healthy dose of skepticism.

Not at all. Our FFs didn't blow up women and children. Our FFs didn't cut off people's heads. Our FFs weren't religious extremists.

:shrug:

What they shovel into your head in high school and college is a very incomplete dose of what has gone on in this country. The American Revolution was a very brutal time in our country's history, and yes, women and children were deliberately killed during it. The US forces were considered to be unprincipled terrorists, and did rob, plunder, and murder the families of those known or suspected to be loyalists. Hell, fifty thousand Tories fled the states to Canada, leaving most of their property behind, in order to save their lives.

Sorry, but your standard American education leaves out a lot of the uglier parts of the American Revolution. Loyalists were stripped of property, terrorized, scalped(that unique American invention), robbed and killed during the American Revolution. I would suggest that you read the full story of the Revolution. A couple of good places to start are Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and Kevin Phillip's "The Cousins' Wars. When you get done there, come back and we can go from there.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't authorizing the bombing of innocent women and children. I guarantee you that. In fact, when a bunch of British forces were captured in Virginia Jefferson had them 'imprisoned' in a pretty nice country home and he and others even dined with them and hung out with them - befriending them to a certain extent.

Jefferson and the others' were not religious extremeists either.

Rather than America's tender mercy as a whole. The American Revolution was a brutal conflict for both sides, with both sides committing atrocities against civilians. And since the victors write the history, we tend to highlight the brutality of somebody like Tarelton, yet omit the equal brutality of somebody like General Charles Lee.

I would also suggest that you reasearch the atrocities accorded to loyalists in towns like Boston, Philidelphia, and New York. In many ways, the American Revolution was simply another extension of the British Civil War, and like all civil wars, including our own, it is violent, nasty and more brutal than most. The American Revolution was no exception.

These matters are played down in our history books. We want to think of our Founding Fathers as noble men who were gentlemen of honor. While that is true for a few of them, most of them were quite pragmatic about what they were facing, and what needed to be done. And they were not above the use of terrorism on the civilian populace in order to achieve their ends.

Jefferson may not have done such things...but can we say the same for other Generals and Captains?

We certainly saw the low side of Human/American Nature during the Civil War...and while we have a very rosey view of our actions in WWI and WWII...our actions in Korea and Vietnam again pretty clearly demostrate our ability to get right down in the mud with everyone else.

I've got a brother-in-law in Bagdad right now...today. And inside the Greenzone he says things are fairly mellow. On the other hand, he is very clear...let me emphasize VERY CLEAR that he *can't* comment on what US troops are doing outside the protected center.

Sure, lots of people from every culture are nice, decent, keep your head down and don't make waves sorta people. But for every Saint it sure seems like we've got 10 sinners who use the power of Authority and a Gun to live out their macho fantasies. For every Jefferson we have how many on the flipside, hence Wounded Knee, Cold Harbor, and Mei Li?

It seems like it has always been so and perhaps will always be so. It's one of the reasons why I like to avoid creating wars where we take lots of under educated, often poorly trained youth and give them a gun then throw them in danger. They often react poorly....and the other side ends up doing the same. When they do that...how often do they stop themselves at combatants? I'm not very confident in our history of moral superiority in wartime here.

and saw off kidnap victims' heads with a knife. And they sure as hell didn't spend most of their time killing other Americans.

I'm rooting for the new government in Iraq and our troops over there--even if Bush is using them for his own purposes.

And follow the reading selections I mentioned. Yes, the American revolutionary forces were as brutal, if not more so, than the Iraqis. And rooting for the new, puppet Iraqi government is counter-productive if you ever want to see our troops sent home and peace return to the region. Kind of like rooting for the Diem government in Vietnam, and will produce the same, sad results.

I too support the troops friend, and wish for peace in Iraq. The only way that peace will occur though is for the troops to come home ASAP. Otherwise, we will simply be mired in a 'Nam like quagmire for years, killing innocent Iraqis, and being killed. Meanwhile, Bush and his capatilist cronies will make out like bandits, while the rest of us continue to be weighted down by an increasing defecit that is going to bankrupt us.

only they can be considered Iraqi patriots.

Can an Iraqi not want to kill Americans and still be considered a patriot, in your opinion?

Geez, chill out friend.

What I am pointing out is the old adage that one man's terrorist is another man's patriot, and that this is being proven even today. Whether or not you like it, it is still true. Our founding fathers were considered terrorists by the British, and many atrocities were committed in the name of American freedom during the American Revolution. That also is a historical truth. It is always a matter of one's view. The people that we consider terrorists and insurgents are considerd to be Iraqi patriots by many in Iraq. All a matter of viewpoint.

And oh, you might want to drop the usage of "Islamists". Rather broad brush and RW:shrug: Also rather inaccurate to boot.

But the fundamental misapprehension is that the insurgency is primarily about ending the occupation--it isn't.

Rather, it is low scale civil war, with the terrorism/resistance being carried out by Sunnis unhappy with the idea of having Shiites and Kurds ruling the roost. The focus of this conflict is what will happen after the US ends the occupation, not ending the actual occupation.

This stands in direct contrast to the American revolution, which was a movement of national liberation, not a class or religious or ethnic conflict.

And while yes, there is a low grade civil war going on, there is also an organized effort to kick out the US. Much like what we faced in Vietnam, do you remember that?

And I would suggest that you go read the Phillips book that I mentioned above. It points out in great detail, with good references, that the American Revolution was also a low grade civil war. Most wars of "liberation" do involve an element of civil war. It is a changing of the power structure.

That said though, our continued presence will only continue to aggravate the situation, bringing about the death of more innocents, and the continued ruin of a nation that illegaly and immoraly occupied by us. It is time to bring the troops home NOW. Yes, there will probably be a short, sharp civil war when we leave. But it doesn't matter when we leave, it will still occur. Thus, why should we prolong the suffering when the end result is going to be the same either way? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam. Sad to say, apparently not:eyes:

That's the essence of a quagmire--can't stay, can't leave. Neither option is acceptable. We've seen the downside to staying--the potential downside to leaving includes a massive civil war with huge numbers of casualties (imagine Shiite military units or Kurdish militias dealing with Tikrit), regional instability, and the equivalent of 1990's Afghanistan.

And of course there were elements of civil war in the American revolution. The key difference is that those interests were directly tied into the issue of sovereignty, whereas in Iraq the issue is power-sharing between religious and ethnic groups.

Why should we stay? All we are doing, as we agree about, is prolonging the aggrivation right? Then let us stop prolonging said aggravation and go. Civil war either way, and our continued presence only insures more needless death and destruction, while our multinationals like Haliburton continue to drain money out of Iraq. It is time to go now!

And I really suggest that you read the Phillip's book I mentioned above. You will see that the American Revolution was in many ways a simple extension of the British Civil War, a war grounded in religious differences.

Constructing a national civil society should precede any withdrawal. There's a big difference between isolated terror bombings and full-scale Darfuresque atrocities.

I'm familiar with Philips' thesis, but I don't find it particularly applicable to this context. If there is a value-system struggle at stake, the better lights of Iraq certainly are not represented by the poll bombers and the head choppers. At its essence, this is a naked question of power. The Sunnis had it, and are deathly afraid of what will happen if the Shiites and Kurds get it.

Any colonial withdrawl(for this is in essence our occupation has become). Any government that we set up, even if it temporarily stabilizes the region, is going to be considered illegit and illegal by a large minority, if not majority, of the Iraqi people, and a civil war will break out as soon as we're gone, and that government set up under our auspices will be swept aside. There is no winning strategy in this matter, it is lose-lose no matter what we do. The only question now is are we going to minimize the casualties and destruction or not? By remaining in Iraq, for whatever reason even the noblest(unlikely under the Bush regime), we are simply adding numbers to the body count. The time to leave is NOW.

the only plausible Ho Chi Minhesque figure, Sistani, is in favor of elections and democracy, and has signed off on the process so far.

Remember, these elections were his idea, not Bush's.

Your point is accurate only insofar as it concerns Sunnis. A government elected by Shiites granting Shiites majority status will enjoy the support of Sistani and the majority of Shiites.

And other forces within the country will think that the government is illegal and illegit, and will resort to a civil war in order to correct the situation. Sorry, but that is how matters will play out, that is how matters have almost always played out following the withdrawl of a colonial power.

But we shall see, and honestly, I hope that you're correct, it would spare a lot of bloodshed. Sadly though, I think that you'll be proven wrong:shrug:

Most Americans have no idea what a vicious and brutal "civil war" the Revolution actually was. Especially in the back country of the southern states, Whigs and Tories engaged in widespread guerrilla warfare and mobbed and attacked each other--tarring and feathering, whipping, and hanging men, abusing and terrorizing women and children, plundering property and burning homes.

Thanks for reminding me that I really do need to read that Phillips' book--I'm still trying to get through Wealth and Democracy in my spare time.

1. You say the "insurgency" isn't about ending the occupation.
2. You say the terrorism/resistance is being carried out by Sunnis.

Read these acounts of the attacks and tell me how you know so much more than anyone else about who is involved.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://npr.streamsage.com/google/programlist/srfeature.php%3Fwfid%3D://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php%3FstoryId%3D4647005

For example, why would Sunnis be attacking Sunnis?

Minutes later, another suicide bomber plowed into a civilian convoy near the offices of the National Dialogue Council, a coalition of 10 Sunni Arab factions that had been negotiating for a stake in Iraq's new Shiite-dominated government. The blast killed at least one council guard and injured 18 other Iraqis, said police Capt. Kadhim Abbas at al-Yarmouk Hospital.

Two Iraqis -- a policeman and a former official in Saddam Hussein's Baath party -- also died in shootings yesterday in Baghdad.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/05/01/1020596-sun.html

And these reputed foreign fighters, why would they resent Sunni/Kurd leadership?

The desert Anbar province is used by foreign fighters as a base for attacks on larger cities, including Baghdad, Mosul in the north, and Ramadi, the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement from Baghdad.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aQCfyMorEt7o&refer=us

Why would Sunnis kidnap the Anbar governor. It's a Sunni province, so I assume he's Sunni:

Gunmen today kidnapped Anbar's governor, Raja Nawaf Farhan al- Mahalawi, as he drove to the provincial capital Ramadi, and told his family he would be released when U.S. forces withdraw from al- Qaim

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aQCfyMorEt7o&refer=us
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/130/world/U_S_forces_push_toward_the_Syr:.shtml

As I read through these reports, I notice that though a lot of Iraqis are killed by the numerous car bombs, they are almost always set off when US troops or contractors, or Iraqi troops are passing by, so Iraqi civilians appear to be "collateral damage", not targets.

I'm sure in the Anbar province it is mostly Sunnis, but how about in the north and south?

Combative character? Check!
Agressive? Check! (If passive agressive counts)

She isn't really a political activist, unless she's a part of some underground daughter-in-law-never-be-good-enough movement.

Does this mean I can kill her?

If they aren't carrying an American flag. I was reading a story the other day, I'm sure many must have heard it. It was on how a Italian intelligence officer was killed on the way home from a successful retrieval of a journalist taken hostage. When the car didn't sufficiently slow down for an unmarked road block the army opened fire. The driver and intelligence officer was slain and the rescued reported injured. Though a blessing may have came with it because it has influenced the Italian government to pull out of the very unpopular Iraq war. If an Italian servicemen was killed then you know that innocent Iraqis must be slain by the dozens. But it's OK because as you said they can just be labeled as "insurgents" and passed off as a success story

Insurrectos or niggers. Lots of comparisons with Iraq, tho. the PI cost the US 4,000 troops and $600 million (1902) dollars. The Filipinos lost somewhere between 250,000 and 1 million people, almost entirely civilian.
- - - - -
"During the war, torture was resorted to by American troops to obtain information and confessions. The water cure was given to those merely suspected of being rebels. Some were hanged by the thumbs, others were dragged by galloping horses, or fires lit beneath others while they were hanging.

Another form of torture was tying to a tree and then shooting the suspect through the legs. If a confession was not obtained, he was again shot, the day after. This went on until he confessed or eventually died.

Villages were burned, townfolks massacred and their possessions looted. In Samar and Batangas, Brigadier General Jacob H. Smith and General Franklin Bell, respectively, ordered the mass murders in answer to the mass resistance.

And in six months, General “Jake” Smith transformed Balangiga into a “howling wilderness.” He ordered his men to kill anybody capable of carrying arms, including ten-year old boys.

Smith particularly ordered Major Littleton Waller to punish the people of Samar for the deaths of the American troops. His exact orders were: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me.”
- - - - - - -
I got this from
http://www.filipino-americans.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=filamwar.html

But it's available everywhere.

From Howard Zinn's "A People’s History of the United States"

In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:

“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...

“Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses.”

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/Philippines.html

that says Power of Pride...

And you have the monster I fear we have become.

in the Green Zone. A dead Iraqi was an Insurgent. All detainees are Insurgents unless they can prove otherwise.

to say "Pride of Power"

no one ever got it but me.

Then as now, there is a virulent racism that must be inculcated to enhance the effectiveness of group-think-military-mind. It's the ultimate Them vs Us.

Decades ago at an "elite Arts institute" I was engaged in converstion by a small-town Texas fellow (VERY FINE PLAYER) who regaled me with details of his weekend jollies back home "nigger whuppin.'" I recently read Delgado's account of his experiences and simply burst into tears.
It. Hasn't. Changed. :cry:

TAZE de preggo non-compliant nigger bitch! How DARE SHE question AUTHORITY! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3628418 Do you have ANY CLUE how RAMPANT this mindset is in your no-longer-completely-voluntary military? What happens to those who, like Delgado, experience that EUREKA! moment?

Oh my dearest DU colleagues, I cannot express how distressed, depressed and HORRIFIED I am at the tacit acceptance of the daily bloodletting...

I guess I know how they will describe me now...

were insurgants, militants, terrorists? This point has been made countless times and certainly bears repeating... again and again and again....

"Insurgents", "militants", "terrorists", "ragheads", "sand niggers", "camel jockies", "commies", "gooks", etc, are all just propaganda to make killing respectable by depersonalizing people and reducing them to "the enemy" that deserves to die.

How else could normally sane people drop bombs, fire artillery, or shoot their fellow beings?

War isn't glorious it's just murder.