The Voice of Reason. A look at contemporary philosophy and politics from outside the Left vs. Right continuum. RSS FEED

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Seattle Times distorts the Iraq War

Now in its fourth year, the war has taken a heavy toll: More than 2,600 Americans have died and many more Iraqis have been killed. Last month alone, about 3,500 Iraqis died violently, the highest monthly civilian toll so far.
So let's be clear about "the war". There is no "the war". There are a multitude of conflicts currently playing out in Iraq. The current war that the US is directly engaged in, is among violent Islamofascists who want the US out of Iraq so they can take over and establish an Islamic dictatorship.

Aside from that, there is the "sectarian violence" which is Shiites slaughtering Sunnis in exchange for 30 years of Sunni slaughter of Shiites - and vice versa going back 1,400 years.

And, some number of these deaths were perpetrated by criminal gangs similar to our own mafia, who have been kidnapping and beheading for ransom for many decades in Iraq.

The Seattle Times uses the passive voice, and uses a word ("died") which blurs important facts. "Iraqis have been killed" they say, without specifying who killed them. "The war has taken a heavy toll" they say. Clearly the Times wants readers to conclude that "the war" killed everyone. Since there would be no war without US troops in Iraq, the Times wants us to think that nobody would be killed if we just left Iraq, and that nobody would ever have been killed had we not gone to Iraq in the first place. (Please don't say that this is an absurd conclusion. Because this is in fact the "progressive" stance - violence in Iraq would stop if we would just leave, that's all they want! And according to Sean Penn, Iraq was a peaceful land where children flew kites on the banks of a river of milk and honey.)

This is the importance of the passive voice in this article: it is to distract attention away from the fact that there are specific groups of Islamofascists of various stripes that are doing the slaughtering. In fact, all of the civilians and US troops murdered in Iraq each month are being murdered by Muslims - Muslims driven by power, by revenge, or by greed. They are not being murdered by the US, or "the war".

Why doesn't the Times state this? Because the Times agenda is for the US to get out of Iraq. The article's author therefore wrote the piece in a tone that specfically avoids placing blame for these murders where it belongs - on violent Islamofascists. And that's what these are, MURDERS, vicious slaughter of innocents. They are not "have died"s. By refusing to state simply where the blame for these murders lies, and by refusing to call them murders, the Seattle Times has abdicated morality lock, stock and barrel. They have handed the murdering hordes moral legitimacy.

By simply using the passive voice and lumping all the deaths together, the Times places blame for those deaths at the feet of the US - when in fact those murders, of US troops and Iraqi civilians alike, are being perpetrated by certain groups of Islamofascists.
Groups who must not under any circumstances be allowed to take control of Iraq.

Monday, August 21, 2006

The Anfal Campaign

From the Washington Post,

Months later, the first of eight waves of the Anfal campaign was launched, lasting until the end of 1988 and moving systematically across northeastern Iraq. The military bombarded villages, sometimes with mustard gas and nerve agents, then sent in troops to raze the communities. Families were taken to camps by the truckload, while in some cases men were executed on the spot, the rights group's report said.

THE CAMPS: Tens of thousands were taken to prison camps in northern and central Iraq, where men and boys were separated from their families. Most of the males disappeared, executed by firing squad and buried in mass graves. Women, children and elderly were held for months in crowded, unsanitary conditions that caused further deaths, according to Human Rights Watch."

This was precisely Hitler's "final solution" to the "Jewish problem". Please bear in mind that Saddam Hussein is the man with whom the American leftists / progressives / socialists wanted us to "negotiate" with. This is the man who only 2 years later would invade Kuwait - and he would have invaded Saudi Arabia had the US not intervened.

Those who harp on that we should not have invaded Iraq because "there were no WMDs" are missing the point.

Saddam Hussein IS a weapon of mass destruction. Having someone so callously indifferent to human life at the head of a nation with massive oil wealth, who turned that wealth into genocide, is intolerable. His mere existence as a dictatorial head of state, in charge of those kinds of assets, was a constant threat to all free peoples.

There is also a broad misconception about the Iraq conflict:

There have actually been two wars in Iraq. We won the first war in one month, overturning the Hussein regime. The second war started some months after that, as Islamic fascists moved in and took advantage of the security vacuum to start slaughtering civilians and US troops for their own agenda - an agenda which has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Some of the Islamofascists were homegrown in Iraq - for example, Muqtada al Sadr, head of one of the largest private militias and a thorn in the side of the US since we went to Iraq. Some of them were imported - from Iran (who is providing support to al Sadr), al Qaeda, and enterprising terrorist upstarts from all over. Some smaller number of fascists were Friends of Saddam, elements of the old regime, getting support, money and intelligence from the friendly also-Ba'athist regime in Syria.

Islamofascists started a new war, a second Iraq war, against the United States in mid-2003. At the time we failed to properly deal with this new threat. The borders with Syria and Iran flowed with money, weapons, and young Islamic sheep looking for their 72 virgins in heaven.

The Left keeps passing lies about this conflict. They want Americans to believe that the "resistance" is composed of simple, honest Iraqi men who only want the US to leave and then will live in peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, at this point many factions are vying for control of Iraq and its oil wealth - and all of them want to turn that wealth into weapons to use against infidels everywhere - just like papa Saddam was doing.

This war can be won - and this war MUST be won, for that reason. Losing in Iraq means that Islamic terrorists will have gained a fantastically dangerous weapon to use against us - a state.