[OT] Why are the terrorists being called militants ?

Because calling them terrorists would imply the war in Iraq is a theater of the war against terrorism.

Because the media wants to be "fair" to those vermin. Translated, that means "these guys oppose Bush, and so do we, so let's go soft on them. If we call them terrorists, that makes them bad guys. If we call them militants, that makes them noble comrades in arms against the Evil Oppressor (Bush)."

I thought our gov't had been trying to imply _that_ all along.

-dave w

Ray, I wonder if people in the media have any idea of how low an opinion of journalistic integrity most people have? DR

The government has been saying that all along, the opposition, including the press, has been denying it.

Exactly!

Randy

Well, in the colonies they called irregular local forces fighting a foreign invader "Patriots", and in France in 1944 they were "Maquis" and in the Netherlands and Norway they called them "Resistance". So calling them "militants" seems a bit harsh. A rose by any other name...

Insurgence? Then again there are a lot of mercenaries, etc. One problem with Iraq is that it is essentially a country in civil war with factions fighting for control. They'll probably need a real bad-ass leadership to keep it all together. Unfortunately the only thing the factions can unite over is expelling the US forces, but the US forces will not leave until order is restored.

Regardless, I don't think getting Sadom was worth the head of one US citizen. Now getting Bin Ladden and rolling up Alquida, would be worth a few heads.

Mike P. replied:

From what I've read, the military was already conducting an investigation into this issue before the media got ahold of it. There was no need to go public with it, and doing so would only put innocent people at risk and make a bad situation worse. So whoever leaked it, was clearly only interested in making Bush and/or the USA look bad at the expense of endangering civilians and our troops.

Are you saying that the Iraqi attacks US personnel were motivated, not by the prison abuse itself, but by the fact that it came to be disclosed publicly in the US?

-dave w

Yep, and every person that was released from those prisons (and there were many...a huge portion of the prisoners did not belong there) went back and told everyone they knew about the abuse that was going on. So the Iraqis already knew. It was only being kept from the American public.

In 12 years in the Air Force, I was always taught that we were supposed to be better than that; that we (American military) were to be held to the higher standard, and set the good example, rather than be the bad example. The kind of crap that was exposed is what we badmouthed the other guys for doing.

That's a feeling I've had that goes a lot deeper than the Iraq prison scandal itself... judging by the style of our overall government reaction to 9/11, it seems that the defects of Liberty for which we once claimed to be "at cold war" with the Soviet Union - the secret police, etc. - have less to do with "Communism" than with the general tendencies of a large and nervous government faced with a Perceived Threat. (I believe "department of homeland security" is a fairly accurate translation of the Russian phrases behind abbreviations such as "KGB"!)

-dave w

Do you think the person that let out the information had any idea that it would cause anyone to die?

Isn't it more likely that the leaker was hoping to improve things for the prisoners by leaking this information?

No, I'm saying the kidnappings and beheadings (and potentially, abuse of captured US troops) could have been avoided if the prison abuse problem had not been made public. There was no legitimate reason to go public with it, since the military had already been made aware of the problem and was conducting an investigation.

I'm not defending the prison abuse (though I do believe it's getting blown out of proportion). What I'm saying is that whoever leaked it to the media is guilty of intentionally endangering both our troops and civilians. The prison abuse was wrong. Leaking it to the media was also wrong, and -- predictably -- resulted in serious harm.

Apparently the news wasn't reaching the terrorists, since they did not start beheading hostages until the scandal hit the media.

I agree. I just think the person who leaked this should have used some common sense and discretion.

Yes, I do. Anyone with half a brain, even a liberal, could have forseen that this news would inflame the entire Islamic world and would be used by terrorists as an excuse to commit more crimes against our troops and innocent civilians.

How did "going public" lead to kidnappings, abuse of US personnel, etc.? The Iraqis already _knew_... it's not like that was how _they_ found out.

-dave w