Iraq - what are the "militias?" I thought the bad guys were

[treestar]

the "insurgents?" How come now the attacks are made by "militias?" Does the MSM have some sort of point by changing the terminology?

[featherman]

1. Good point...perhaps "insurgents" are Sunni and "militias" are Shiite?

[treestar]

3. Could be. To my current understanding, Shiites are a minority

everywhere but Iran.

Lucky for the Shiites they get a better sounding, more legit label than "insurgents," if that is so.

[spanone]

2. Listen to Bush*, there are no more insurgents, they are all terrists.

This keeps up the EVIL factor.

[annabanana]

4. MSM broadcasts are content-free zones...

"Insugent" has ALWAYS been a useless word. .. The apparent need of corpomedia to have one, simple, single term for the "bad guy" has made their coverage of this conflict incomprehensible.

[treestar]

5. I remember when they made the effort to change the term to

"insurgents" from "resistance" merely because "resistance" echoed of "good guys" of WWII.

They were so blantantly trying to alter our perceptions it was amazing they were telling us outright that they were.

[dkofos]

6. When did they stop calling them DEATH SQUADS??

[stillcool]

7. this article might help...

Published: Monday, 16 October, 2006, 10:28 AM Doha Time

By Patrick Cockburn

The fact that there is a civil war in Iraq should no longer be in doubt, with the UN saying that 3,000 Iraqi civilians are being killed every month and the dramatic claim last week by American and Iraqi health researchers that the true figure goes as high as 15,000 a month.
Baghdad has broken up into a dozen different hostile cities, in each of which Sunni and Shia are killing or expelling one another. The city is like Beirut at the height of the Lebanese civil war. The wrong identity card, car number plate, or even picture on a mobile phone, is enough to get a driver dragged out of his car and killed. Militias are taking over. Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods that lived peaceably together for decades now exchange mortar fire every night.

But the occupation of Iraq by US and British armies over the past three years has deepened the divide between these communities. The Sunni Arab community fought back against the occupation in arms; the Kurds largely supported it; the Shia did not like it but used it to take power at the ballot box. Tony Blair’s thesis - that the insurrection in Iraq is the work of some Islamic Comintern operating across the Middle East - was always nonsense.

The guerrillas in Iraq are strong because they are popular. A leaked Pentagon poll last month showed that 75% of the 5mn-strong Sunni community support armed resistance.
The present slaughter in Iraq is taking place because the existing ethnic and sectarian hostilities have combined with animosities that have been created by the occupation. For instance, a Sunni ex-army officer supporting the resistance now sees a Shia serving in the Iraqi army or police force not just as the member of a different Islamic sect but as a traitor to his country who is actively collaborating with the hated invader.

The last excuse for the occupation was that at least it prevented civil war, but this it very visibly is not doing. On the contrary it de-legitimises the Iraqi government, army and police force, which are seen by Iraqis as pawns of the occupier. When I’ve asked people in Baghdad what they think of their government, they often reply: "What government? We never see it. It does nothing for us."
In the eyes of Iraqis, the occupation goes on despite the supposed handover of power to Iraq in June 2004. Baghdad is full of signs of this. For instance, the main government intelligence service, essential in fighting a guerrilla war, has no Iraqi budget because it is entirely funded by the CIA.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=113001&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

[treestar]

8. Thanks, I'm still confused though, is the "militia" the

government the US alleged to be "democratic" etc.?

[stillcool]

9. no...the militias are not part of the government

maybe more like the mafia...protecting their own.

here's another article from last week....which gives you an idea of why the militias are necessary...

3000 Iraqi police get the sack
Iraq’s National Police is being completely reorganised and over 3,000 officers have been dismissed, the Iraqi interior ministry spokesman said yesterday. Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf told reporters at a press conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone that 1,228 had been sacked for breaking the law while nearly 2,000 more were dismissed for dereliction of duty.

http://www.7days.ae/2006/10/18/3000-iraqi-police-get-the-sack.html?comment_add=1

and then there's this:
The costs of the 2003 invasion and insurgency, reported by British newspaper The Times yesterday, include: 72 Iraqi civilian fatalities on Thursday alone; 2784 US personnel killed, including 71 this month; 4000 Iraqi police killed and 8000 wounded in the past two years; 200 doctors and pharmacists murdered; $US30 billion (nearly $40 billion) to $US40 billion spent on reconstruction; no hospitals built since the 2003 invasion; 15,000 doctors have fled abroad; 3000 out of 18,000 schools have been refurbished but 5000 extra schools are needed; and 24,000 pupils have fled abroad.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20616813-2703,00.html

[treestar]

10. Interesting that they have such a "good" label as "militia"

I'm thinking the MSM is trying to direct us to thinking of them as the "good guys?" I'm assuming they are different from the "insurgents."

Looks like there are more than two sides to this civil war, too.

[stillcool]

11. I edited to add ...

but the "media's" choice of using 'militia's', rather than 'insurgents'...I think is a way to emphasize the cohesiveness of the resistance?

[treestar]

12. Right, it does sound like they are more organized when you

call them a "militia." "Insurgents" sound like random rebels without military rankings.