"Rejectionists" in Iraq

This was actually posted as a comment on the 24 Steps to Liberty Blog, but its long and includes some foul language, so to avoid losing it altogether it's going to go here as well.

It was written in response to a string of comments by someone referred to as TexAg03. Comments on this blog (this one, here, misneach) are also welcome.

Tex, I just don't think that from your bunker in College Station, Texas, you can really appreciate the realities of the situation. First of all, you make broad, incorrect assumptions based on republican "talking points" rhetoric that generally has little or no basis in reality. To give one example, you refer to those who oppose American occupation of Iraq as "rejectionists" and go on to make them out to be the bad guys, no different from the true terrorists who commit cold blooded murder in the name of ethnic purity, racial purity, religious purity, or whatever the excuse-of-the-day is. The fact that you accept the doctrine of "rejectionists" being the bad guys as truth is really, really starting to irritate me. OF COURSE THEY REJECT OCCUPATION MAN, WAKE THE HELL UP! NEARLY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF AMERICA REJECTS THE "MORALITY" OF AN AMERICAN OCCUPIED IRAQ! America invaded Iraq in violation of international law, most people in the world believe in law and order. You do know that the vast majority of people polled worldwide over the past 3 years have said that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, right? I don't mean to scream at you through my shift button, but there sometimes doesn't seem to be much other way to get through to you, and you often come across as adamently opposed to dissenting opinions. You also seem to be failing to realise that the definition of "terrorism" that Rupert Murdoch's Republican Talking Points Dissemination System has beaten into your brain is, for lack of a better discription, WRONG. Resisting an occupying force that has illegaly invaded your country and is repressivly occupying your country IS NOT THE SAME as murdering someone in cold blood because they pray in a different manner from you. Try thinkin about it this way: If a foreign country INVADED AMERICA, then proceeded to indiscriminantly kill American men, women, and children (innocent civilians, by the TENS OF THOUSANDS), throw random Red Blooded Americans in jail for no reason and subject them to torture, flatten ENTIRE AMERICAN CITIES with carpet bombing, and then proceed to tell Americans "hey, you should thank us!" would you (a) say "yeah man, you're great!" or would you (b)GET YOUR SMITH AND WESSON AND GO AFTER THE BASTARDS. I would do the latter, and I think you would do the same. If your answer was (b), then, according to YOUR OWN definition of terrorism (provided by the Republican Talking Points Machine), YOU ARE A TERRORIST. According to YOUR OWN DESCRIPTIONS of Nadia or TAI, you would be a "rejectionist" for not choosing the "(a)" response. Most importantly to this point, you would be, by the Bush/Rupert Murdoch over-broad and incorrect definition of terrorism, be NO DIFFERENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO KILL OTHERS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY PRAY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. (That is, basically, the main difference between Shia and Sunni according to my understanding, based on my reading of Iraqi Blogs). People who do that are, in my opinion, sadistic psychopaths. That is all. They ARE NOT THE SAME as those who would seek to resist an illegal occupation by a foreign power.Do you not see that there's a difference? You often lump those who are "rejectionists" (who resist the american occupation) in with those who would seek to murder their fellow countrymen strictly based on small differences in praying rituals (it would be like a bunch of methodists trying to wipe out episcopalians). That is again, for lack of a better term, wrong. Additionally, you may recall from recent blogger coverage of the clashes between Residents, Militants, The Iraqi Army, and the U.S. army a couple of weeks ago in Adhamiya and of other similar situations that, not really knowing what to do in certain situations, the U.S. forces tend to just open fire "at anything that moves." That does not exactly engratiate them with the local population, and as such, the local population would reasonably "reject" their presence. Would that not be a sensible thing to do given the circumstances? While Saddam was a brutal dictator (I'll not get into the fact that during his worst atrocities he was a close ally of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Donald Rumsfeld, and a large percentage of the current administration that has been recycled into government from the previous tenures of the current regime, Reagan and Bush I), you should be well aware from your constant reading of Iraqi blogs that between 2002 (when saddam was still in power) and 2006 (after 3 years of american occupation) their quality of living has gone from basically normal to ABSOLUTELY UNBEARABLE. How can you be presented with facts like this but yet still lash out at those who are critical (or worse) of the American occupation. Do you not see the correlation? For the past 3 years straight, Mercer Human Resources Group has determined that Baghdad is the worst city to live in in the world. America has been occupying Baghdad for, yes, THREE YEARS. Do you not see the correlation? If Saddam had been removed (without the complete and utter destruction of infrastructure and slaughter of civilians that the invasion has brought about), and GENUINELY FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS (wherein the Iraqis could choose between whomever they wanted to rule their country, rather than a bunch of people hand picked by the U.S. forces based on their willingness to do the Bush Administration's bidding) had been held, then perhaps people would now be saying more positive things about the american invasion. However, that is not what has happened. (As I have already taken up like a dozen pages on the blog, I'm going to leave it at that, although I should really also mention that there should have been a better handling of the post-war situation, security, etc.) [Don't worry, as this is a blog post and not a comment anymore I can add a bit more detail to it, so perhaps this post will get even longer, and more refined...] ---- Just to go back to my point about people killing their own countrymen and destroying their own country for a moment, I was specifically referring to the fact that americans are also killing their own countrymen and destroying their own country. Any idea how many firearms deaths there are in america each year? Any idea what america's higher-than-average pollution rates are going to do to your country over the next decade or two? You speak in such a condescending manner towards others sometimes, but (as you seem to be some variety of a christian, as you would have to be to live safely in texas) perhaps you should think back to the words of Jesus Christ: "Let whoever among you is without sin be the first to cast a stone" I don't see how america can be held up as the moral guardian of the planet when their actions are almost the polar opposite to their rhetoric. TexAg, I don't mean to personally insult you. I do greatly respect the fact that, even though your opinions are very different from ones that I hold to be the most logical and rational, you are not the kind of person who buries their head in the sand by way of avoiding exposing themselves to non-status-quo-protecting sources (sources other than Fox News or Reuters, or Right Wing blogs) to shield yourself from the painful realities of the world. I am absolutely flabergasted, however, that you can be presented with constant evidence that contradicts your viewpoints, yet still maintain them. I challenge you to expand your knowledge base even further. Try reading dissident literature (Noam Chomsky comes to mind), and doing your own research into the sources used by "intellectuals" whose views contradict your own, and then perhaps you will understand better where some of the rest of us are coming from.

I hate it when people accept the media's "uncritical reiteration of official statements" to be facts. Have people forgotten the American Truism "Politicians Lie" ?!?! If you base your opinions on "official sources" or media sources that use only "official sources" (not to name names REUTERS), or on other peoples opinions that are based solely on the aforementioned sources, then your opinions are GOING TO BE INHERENTLY WRONG based on the fact that they were formed based on misinformation. That is not a judgemental statement to the effect that "my opinion is better than yours," it is just a statement of fact.