|
|
March 26, 2003
Who adopted "resistance" for this war?
Every time I see Iraqi fighting referred to as "resistance" my teeth clench. Who decided to make this loaded word the obligatory term for Iraqi fighting in our media reports and discussions of the war? To me, "resistance" implies something noble and valiant working against something unjust. That is just not the case here, no matter how much the antiwar zealots would like for it to be. From everything I've seen, the only Iraqis fighting coalition forces are Saddam's fanatical Republican Guards and Fedeyeen Saddam, and they're killing more of their own people than ours. Why do we so readily accept defeat in the language of discourse? Comments
Well, annoying as it is, "resistance" is appropriate... it would be a bit cumbersome to call it "Iraqi Fighting Back". Any suggestions for alternate terms? Posted by: Sal M at March 26, 2003 02:50 AMopposition, opponents, adversary, combat, battle, struggle, fighters... Posted by: Clyde at March 26, 2003 11:54 AMIt's interesting that many war-protestors absolutely refuse to allow anyone to make a distinction between the Saddam loyalists and the rest of the country. They speak of the war consistently as if the civilian Iraqi casualties and our war victories mean the same thing to us, the evil people supporting this war. They ask, "why are you slaughtering innocents--can't you see that's wrong," while absolutely refusing to admit that the coalition is trying, in fact making an unprecedented effort, not to kill civilians. Pisses me off big time! Posted by: lexplex at March 27, 2003 05:38 PMPost a comment
|