Deb, glad to see you back again. I know I've missed your comments on the site, so I hope you're able to be with us for a bit.
I read an interesting commentary this morning in my local paper and it was about how the first casualty in a war is language and how we use words to justify what happens in a war. It is certainly making me think.
The play on words is happening on both sides of the "war".
Prior to the first suicide bomb attack, the Iraqi resistance fighters were referred to as "irregulars" and "guerillas" - now they are "terrorists" despite the fact that they are fighting in the open and Rumsfeld even went so far as to call them "death squads". Because of the juxtaposition of the terms by Bush et al in their speeches, many now believe that Saddam was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks - for which there has been no direct link.
This manipulation of words is no where near what Saddam has done however, because he has been a man that has held anti-religious and secular views all of his life and now suddenly this is all tied in with the Jihad and martydom attackers.
The writer goes on to state that even the term coalition is used to infer that this is somehow similar to the 1991 Gulf war where 28 countries - 13 of them Arab - were genuinely engaged on the ground to stop the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and had the backing of the UN versus the non-UN supported "wanton act of aggression" we are seeing now.
Many of those that have signed on with the present "coalition" have yet to send any troops at all, with the majority of troops being comprised of the Americans, British and a smattering of Australians. There are many countries that have joined the "coalition" but have yet to do much of anything.
This draws me back to an earlier question - if we are just wanting to support the "coalition" to avoid penalties and sanctions, then how sincere are we in our support?
I read an interesting commentary this morning in my local paper and it was about how the first casualty in a war is language and how we use words to justify what happens in a war. It is certainly making me think.
The play on words is happening on both sides of the "war".
Prior to the first suicide bomb attack, the Iraqi resistance fighters were referred to as "irregulars" and "guerillas" - now they are "terrorists" despite the fact that they are fighting in the open and Rumsfeld even went so far as to call them "death squads". Because of the juxtaposition of the terms by Bush et al in their speeches, many now believe that Saddam was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks - for which there has been no direct link.
This manipulation of words is no where near what Saddam has done however, because he has been a man that has held anti-religious and secular views all of his life and now suddenly this is all tied in with the Jihad and martydom attackers.
The writer goes on to state that even the term coalition is used to infer that this is somehow similar to the 1991 Gulf war where 28 countries - 13 of them Arab - were genuinely engaged on the ground to stop the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and had the backing of the UN versus the non-UN supported "wanton act of aggression" we are seeing now.
Many of those that have signed on with the present "coalition" have yet to send any troops at all, with the majority of troops being comprised of the Americans, British and a smattering of Australians. There are many countries that have joined the "coalition" but have yet to do much of anything.
This draws me back to an earlier question - if we are just wanting to support the "coalition" to avoid penalties and sanctions, then how sincere are we in our support?
Comment