portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

government | imperialism & war

When Your Ostensible Ally Says Blowing Up Your Troops is Okay, It's Time to Head Home

Maybe I'm missing something, but if killing our guys is patriotic resistance in the view of the people we're supposedly "liberating," then what are we doing sending our guys over there for? Target practice? Does this make sense to anybody besides Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice?

If anything should have Americans of all political stripes calling for an immediate return of all US troops from Iraq, it would be the Iraqi summit conference in Egypt earlier this week, hosted by Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, at which it was decided that attacking and blowing up US, British and other occupation troops should not be called "terrorism," but rather "acts of resistance."

That's pretty shocking, wouldn't you say?

And yet, there has been nothing but silence from the right-wing yak shows, little in the mainstream media, and nothing from the White House.

And how about the "support our troops" crowd? So far, not a word.

And what about the "noble mission" for which over 2100 American soldiers have so far died--the one Bush keeps citing as a reason to keep on sending more soldiers over to die?

Turns out our troops aren't being killed by terrorists, as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been saying, but by noble Iraqi resistance fighters. Take it from the Iraqi leaders who we have installed as Iraq's puppet government.

According to them, it's only terrorism if you blow up other Iraqi citizens. Blowing up Americans or Brits is okay. It's even patriotic, apparently.

Man, if I was an American soldier in Iraq right now, I'd be ready to pack it up. I mean, doing your duty is understandable to a point, but this is getting rediculous.

What I want to know is, where's the outrage?

I want to hear now from some of the parents of active-duty troops in Iraq who were trashing Cindy Sheehan for saying not one more mother's son should die in Iraq, now that they know how much the Iraqis want their sons and daughters over there.

For other stories by Lindorff, please go (at no charge) to This Can't Be Happening! .

homepage: homepage: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

"it was decided 26.Nov.2005 09:25

that attacking and blowing up

US, British and other occupation troops should not be called "terrorism," but rather "acts of resistance."

That's pretty shocking, wouldn't you say?"

Burro says: they finally got the terminology correct! Don't worry about what the right wing pundits are, or are not, saying.

Anything that shakes up the brainwashed troops and their family of supporters is good -- whether they themselves want to admit it or not.

. 26.Nov.2005 11:46


i have troops?

so everything that's not "terrorism" is OK? 26.Nov.2005 14:20

what an interesting ethical theory

The whole reason people are supposed to be outraged about "terrorism" is that "terrorism" is violence against civilians. Extending the definition to acts against uniformed, armed soldiers was always an act of blatant Orwellianism. The Egyptians are just being intellectually honest, unlike blah blah blah oh come on I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

occupiers are always fair game 26.Nov.2005 17:51

land of fire

i'm a non-violent person, but i'm not sure what i would do if my family was tortured by an occupying force. would i join the resistance? or would i find a non-violent way to express my anger?? i don't know!

i really get tired of our media only focusing on the 2000 occupiers who have died in iraq. what about the 150,000 iraqis? do their lives mean anything?

remember collateral damage??

we are sick people to think the lives of our loved ones are so much more important than the iraqis. even when they pick up guns and terrorise an innocent people half way across the world for our "freedom" to drive hummers and excursions.

sick, sick, sick!