It was just a little hazing

[conjur]

Originally posted by: syf3r
I think the whole term "insurgents" is a giant misnomer created by media distortion of the truth. The fact is that these are not insurgents, they are native, indiginous Iraqi people who are resisting a foreign power's invasion. The media cleverly calls them "insurgents" which puts the image in the mind of the uninformed that the entire Iraqi populace welcomes us and that all this trouble is being caused by people slipping over the border and stirring up conflict. The truth is far from that. Are there foreign guerillas coming over the border to assist their muslim brothers? Of course, but the media would like you to believe that the insurgents are all foreign fighters when they, in fact, are not.

/syf3r

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party


Insurgent implies indigenous.

 

[Infohawk]

"Insurgent implies indigenous."
How so?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Insurgent implies indigenous."
How so?

From dictionary.com: Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

You can't rebel or rise in revolt against a government unless you are a native subject of that government, i.e., we didn't wage "revolution" against Germany or Japan, we waged war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Insurgent implies indigenous."
How so?

uhh...it's rather clear from the definition I just posted.

 

[lozina]

This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch...

"It's only a flesh wound!"

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Insurgent implies indigenous."
How so?

From dictionary.com: Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

You can't rebel or rise in revolt against a government unless you are a native subject of that government, i.e., we didn't wage "revolution" against Germany or Japan, we waged war.

The definition allows for revolting against established authority without it being a government. "Especially a government" is not exclusive language.

You have to be indigenous to revolt against an established authority. An example of this is the foreign fighters that are opposing the US authority and who are not "native subjects of that government".

Even if you assume an insurgent MUST revolt against a government, it's still possible for non "native subjects" to revolt against the government.

The definition could have said, "a native who rises against his own government." But it didn't.

 

[syf3r]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: syf3r
I think the whole term "insurgents" is a giant misnomer created by media distortion of the truth. The fact is that these are not insurgents, they are native, indiginous Iraqi people who are resisting a foreign power's invasion. The media cleverly calls them "insurgents" which puts the image in the mind of the uninformed that the entire Iraqi populace welcomes us and that all this trouble is being caused by people slipping over the border and stirring up conflict. The truth is far from that. Are there foreign guerillas coming over the border to assist their muslim brothers? Of course, but the media would like you to believe that the insurgents are all foreign fighters when they, in fact, are not.

/syf3r

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party


Insurgent implies indigenous.

You missed my point entirely, and yet you proved it at the same time. You had to go and look up the definition of the word... and that is my point. How many people do you think go and look up the word 'insurgent' when they see it on the news? The same people who, if their television didn't have a remote control, would effectively have only one channel. My point is that it's a very cleverly used word, in this particular situation, that's designed to mold the public's uninformed opinion. Most people will hear 'insurgent' and will automatically connect IN-SURGE with people coming in, over the border, and causing trouble. It's the psychology of swaying public perception with the manner in which information is presented so as to convince people that the population loves us and the troublemakers are IN-SURGEnts. I'm sure you've noticed that, aside from al-Sadr, every single mention of resistance is labeled "insurgence" and al-Sadr is explained away as a "radical" figure not representing the belief/will of the greater Iraqi population. The fact of the matter is that it is the Iraqi people who are resisting us because they do not want us there. When is the last time you heard ANY news outlet report that the Iraqi people as a whole are fighting our occupation? The one or two occasional photos that show a smiling Iraqi is not representative of the Iraqi population as a whole welcoming us, though they are always presented to the public with that implied representation. THAT is the psychology of what I was referring to. It is the same psychology that uses the word IN-SURGEnt to 'suggest' an outside fighter coming IN, rather than just saying "Iraqi rebels" or "Iraqi resistance", which would be more clear, and almost impossible to misinterpret, wouldn't it? That would make it very clear that it is IRAQIs who are fighting us, but the fact of the matter is, every single news outlet uses the exact same word, insurgents, to describe them... Why? To get you to think a certain way, perhaps? Is there no other word to describe them but insurgents? If there is, then why that one word in particular being used by every news outlet?

Investigate this for yourself, if you don't agree. Ask random people on the street who the insurgents are (make sure you use that word when you ask them), that are fighting us in Iraq, and you will invariably get al-Qaeda, Iranians, Islamic Jihad, Syrians as the response. No one wants to believe it is the Iraqi people themselves who do not want us there, and their opinions are molded by cleverly used memetics that are designed to 'suggest' ideas which, in the blur of media distortion become, and are remembered as, "facts".

[edit: An additional point regarding "al-Sadr" and "insurgents." Have you ever heard al-Sadr himself being refered to as an insurgent, or only as a "radical Shia cleric" with his own private "militia"? (Think of all the negative connotations carried by the term "militia" too). If the news media intended for you to think insurgents were really the iraqi populace, wouldn't they refer to al-Sadr himself as an insurgent? After all, by your definition above, he IS one, so why don't they? Why is he the radical cleric with a gun-toting "milita" (think visions of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Columbine, violence, murder) that doesn't represent the overall populace, and all the other troublemakers are IN-SURGEnts? Very clever indeed.]

/syf3r

 

[conjur]

I didn't have to look it up. I knew what it meant.

I thought, perhaps, I would educate you.






BTW,

It is the same psychology that uses the word IN-SURGEnt to 'suggest' an outside fighter coming IN, rather than just saying "Iraqi rebels" or "Iraqi resistance",

Tinfoil hat a bit tight these days??

 

[syf3r]

In lieu of making a weak personal attack, perhaps you could directly address the issues I raised in my post? If you don't believe that any and every news media broadcast is a heavy excercise in human psychology and persuasion, you're sadly mistaken. News media is just another form of advertising, swaying public opinion, getting you to believe something. If you have nothing to say other than to deflect my post with a lame personal attack that completely and purposely dodges all the issues, then why even bother posting?

/syf3r

 

[conjur]

Because you underestimate the American populace when it suits you.

Everyone I've spoken with knows the difference.

 

[Infohawk]

I would like to support syf3r regarding ad hominem attacks. There are too many posts on this board that don't get substantive. They are either sarcastic or insulting. Indeed, what is the point of such posts? They don't add to the debate.

I will also add conjur is not a particularly terrible offender (from what I've seen). There are many other posts that are much worse.

(That will be the last I'll say on this topic since it's off-topic.)

 

[syf3r]

And have you spoken with complete strangers at random, or only with people you know, from a social/economic/cultural/educational background similar to your own? The average SAT-verbal score has hovered around 500 for the last 20 years. Considering you get 200 points for signing your name to the paper, and considering most high school students study spanish or french rather than latin (and let's ignore for now whether they even PASS spanish or french), exactly how many people do you think know the definition of the word insurgent, and how many people simply assume it means what it sounds like? Until you poll a larger group of people than your friends and family to get a more accurate cross-sectional representation of the average joe schmoe on the street, you're just assuming everyone is in the same bracket as you.
Take any of those late night shows like Leno, where he goes out on the street and asks random people random questions, like what's a quarter of 20 and they answer 25 cents... That's what I'm refering to.

Look, all I'm saying is that psychology and memetics are a major part of advertising, and news media is nothing more than another form of advertising. Clever wording is a marketer's bread-and-butter. Considering that everything you see on the news is "dumbed-down" to a point, so as to accomodate that lowest common denominator which the media and marketing firms are targeting so as to not leave anyone out, it becomes a simple question of why would they choose to use a tricky word like that, and why would they ALL be using the same exact word, and why would they not just say it in plain and clear language? Why "insurgents" and why not "Iraqi rebels" or something similar? There is a memetic device at work in the wording they chose. That word is being used for a reason.

/syf3r

 

[conjur]

I don't generally play scoop reporter in the grocery store.

 

[syf3r]

See, again, that's just a joking/sarcastic response that completely evades the issue so that you don't have to answer the issue. I don't play scoop reporter either. As a matter of fact I went along with a friend of mine who was conducting a survey for a mass media course. He chose the topic of the War on Terror, and came up with a list of questions to ask. He interviewed people at his school, at an ivy league university, at a mall, at a park, and on a NYC street. I went along with him on one of his trips. The question of insurgents was one of the questions he came up with. That's why I brought it up, and that's how I know my point is valid.

[edit: and contrary to what you might think, I'm not trying to badger you. If you don't want to continue the discussion (which seems to be the case given all the deflections and redirections) then we'll just drop it]

/syf3r

 

[sandorski]

Though we in the West have recently found out about this, I wonder how long it has been known by the Iraqi people? Consider that many were "hazed" then let go, don't you think they had told their friends/family what happened? This may have been common knowledge in Iraq for quite a long time now and it may be the cause for many of actions taken in recent months.

If I was an Iraqi I would want the US out now and would be willing to die for it. The US can still make Moral claims and state pleasantries in the West, but for the Iraqi the same words have become empty lies. If the US can only point fingers at the burnt corpses(IIRC who were Contractors and quite possibly involved in this "hazing", specifically targeted revenge maybe?)and downplay its' own obvious violations, it has no chance of being taken seriously in the Mid-East and will only breed more Terrorism.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: syf3r
See, again, that's just a joking/sarcastic response that completely evades the issue so that you don't have to answer the issue. I don't play scoop reporter either. As a matter of fact I went along with a friend of mine who was conducting a survey for a mass media course. He chose the topic of the War on Terror, and came up with a list of questions to ask. He interviewed people at his school, at an ivy league university, at a mall, at a park, and on a NYC street. I went along with him on one of his trips. The question of insurgents was one of the questions he came up with. That's why I brought it up, and that's how I know my point is valid.

[edit: and contrary to what you might think, I'm not trying to badger you. If you don't want to continue the discussion (which seems to be the case given all the deflections and redirections) then we'll just drop it]

/syf3r

So, from your anectdotal evidence, all of America is clueless as to the meaning of the term "insurgent."

If that's the case, there's only one person to blame: George "The Great Obfuscator" Bush.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Though we in the West have recently found out about this, I wonder how long it has been known by the Iraqi people? Consider that many were "hazed" then let go, don't you think they had told their friends/family what happened? This may have been common knowledge in Iraq for quite a long time now and it may be the cause for many of actions taken in recent months.

If I was an Iraqi I would want the US out now and would be willing to die for it. The US can still make Moral claims and state pleasantries in the West, but for the Iraqi the same words have become empty lies. If the US can only point fingers at the burnt corpses(IIRC who were Contractors and quite possibly involved in this "hazing", specifically targeted revenge maybe?)and downplay its' own obvious violations, it has no chance of being taken seriously in the Mid-East and will only breed more Terrorism.

It's entirely possible word of the abuse spread amongst Iraqis for months and was a cause of the insurgency and a cause of the contractors' deaths.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur
...these people arrested (70-90% of them are INNOCENT and were WRONGLY ARRESTED)

You know this how?

I know it by reading. You should try it sometime.

What have you read in order to KNOW?

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;threadid=1309021&amp;highlight_key=y&amp;keyword1=70

<AHEM>! your own damned self. I didn't ask you where you might have seen some information that MIGHT lend some sort of credence to your assertion. I asked you how did you KNOW and the answer is the same now as it was then... you DON'T. You don't KNOW, the Red Cross doesn't KNOW, the "some coalition military intelligence officers estimated..." don't KNOW.

How about explaining to me how you can take this quote...

some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake

and turn it into this assertion of seemingly incontrovertible fact...

...these people arrested (70-90% of them are INNOCENT and were WRONGLY ARRESTED)

How many are "some"? "Some" of what total? Is the "some" reflective of the majority? What information is the ESTIMATES of these "some" based on? Is that information provably credible? What is the definition of the term "deprived of their liberty in Iraq"? Does it mean "deprived of their liberty" nationwide and include those persons previously detained but not currently being held? Does it include those detained by Iraqi police officers/security forces as well? Any THINKING person would have multiple questions as the statement is NOT supported by any evidence to lend it credence. As reported it is merely a GUESS by a minimum of two persons about an undefined condition. You've taken an unstantiated allegation, totally warped it to your liking, and then declared it as Gospel from the rooftops. Why?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Format C:
How many are "some"? "Some" of what total? Is the "some" reflective of the majority? What information is the ESTIMATES of these "some" based on? Is that information provably credible? What is the definition of the term "deprived of their liberty in Iraq"? Does it mean "deprived of their liberty" nationwide and include those persons previously detained but not currently being held? Does it include those detained by Iraqi police officers/security forces as well? Any THINKING person would have multiple questions as the statement is NOT supported by any evidence to lend it credence. As reported it is merely a GUESS by a minimum of two persons about an undefined condition. You've taken an unstantiated allegation, totally warped it to your liking, and then declared it as Gospel from the rooftops. Why?

To send you into an uncontrollable tizzy?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;threadid=1309021&amp;highlight_key=y&amp;keyword1=70

<AHEM>! your own damned self. I didn't ask you where you might have seen some information that MIGHT lend some sort of credence to your assertion. I asked you how did you KNOW and the answer is the same now as it was then... you DON'T. You don't KNOW, the Red Cross doesn't KNOW, the "some coalition military intelligence officers estimated..." don't KNOW.

How about explaining to me how you can take this quote...

some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake

and turn it into this assertion of seemingly incontrovertible fact...

Oh, it's ok for Bush to do it re:evidence of WMDs but the Red Cross can't?

...these people arrested (70-90% of them are INNOCENT and were WRONGLY ARRESTED)

How many are "some"? "Some" of what total? Is the "some" reflective of the majority? What information is the ESTIMATES of these "some" based on? Is that information provably credible? What is the definition of the term "deprived of their liberty in Iraq"? Does it mean "deprived of their liberty" nationwide and include those persons previously detained but not currently being held? Does it include those detained by Iraqi police officers/security forces as well? Any THINKING person would have multiple questions as the statement is NOT supported by any evidence to lend it credence. As reported it is merely a GUESS by a minimum of two persons about an undefined condition. You've taken an unstantiated allegation, totally warped it to your liking, and then declared it as Gospel from the rooftops. Why?

Considering the Red Cross was invited to investigate the claims of abuses, I will put my faith in the credibility of their report. Are you somehow trying to imply the Red Cross has an agenda?

 

[Zebo]

syf3r you're a pretty smart cookie. So whos' behind this "wag the dog" in our media? Church commision part duex?