The second of a __part series by The Windjammer
by The Windjammer
My excuse for the title is the same as in the first part.
"Political Correctness" has long since spread to reporting on the conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere. The practice of using the term "insurgents" to describe those who are really causing the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Turkey and a few dozen other places in the world bestows some sort of dignity which is undeserved. We need to start calling them as we sees them.
The same old dictionary I have used since Hector was a pup defines insurgent as: adj. Rising in revolt against established authority; rebellious. n. 1. One who takes part in forcible resistance or opposition to an existing government; especially, a rebel not recognized as a belligerent. That dictionary might not have all the new words and the stolen meanings of perfectly fine old words which are in more or less common use today, but it is totally accurate with the true definitions. That is, if you don’t count the footnotes I have entered along the margins consisting of words I have coined. No one else uses those anyway.
The term "insurgent" carries with it a suggestion that those coming under the category are rebelling in some way against oppression. Those who are carrying out the dastardly deeds in the aforementioned places aren’t doing that. They are trying to establish oppression of their own making against all who do not join or agree with their effort to become the ruling class. They have been known to do away with whatever number of their own which those in the seat of power deem necessary in order to cement their claim to power.
The recent slaughter of more than a hundred Shiite Muslims should erase any doubt that these perpetrators are bent on destroying Islam and anyone who stands in the way of that objective, no matter how remote or insignificant, is subject to being bombed out of this world. It should become apparent to even the most obtuse that the ‘terrorists" are indeed multinational and multiethnic and that their objective is criminal domination. Their conduct belies any claims to the contrary. Their targets can be anyone, including those within the movement.
Their conduct is not the only such and is not the first. I wrote earlier comparing them to the Sicilian Mafia et al. If one studies the questionable history accounts of the Mafia, it is easy to ascertain the similarities in the approach. Such conduct is not unique to either the Mafia nor to the terrorists.
One historical example of such conduct was the changeover in Russia when the Bolshevists wrested power from the czars and czarinas. We can only guess at the cost in human lives, many of which were lost in purges within the party. I have heard the argument, "Yeah, but the Bolshevik revolution and the resulting Communist government were not pure Marxism." Hogwash! It is what has resulted in some degree in nearly every attempt to bring such philosophies into government. The few early attempts at communist settlement in this country may well be the lone exceptions, but those were momentous failures in their own right and didn’t last long enough to become violent societies or to impose death sentences on their members. If there is any record of such activity among those few small efforts to establish early (1600's and 1800's) communistic societies here, I have not been able to locate it.
The late regime of Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a government of oppression. The remnants of that regime are trying to regain the position. They are receiving help from outside sources which desire not so much to defeat the coalition as to destroy Iraq. The real motive should be obvious to even the most casual observer.
There is one certainty. The United States and its allies in the War on Terror can not accomplish the destruction of Al Qaeda and all the other offshoots without the help of the people who are the planned victims, those who adhere to Islam or to any other ethical philosophy which is not based on their own brand of criminality.