Newspeak

[LiberalNation]

What do ya think. This makes sense to me.

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary from George Orwell's 1984

Cowardly Act - The president called the 9-11 attacks cowardly. Let's take a quick look at the definition of 'Cowardly'.

cowardly \Cow"ard*ly\, a. 1. Wanting courage; basely or weakly timid or fearful; pusillanimous; spiritless.
"The cowardly rascals that ran from the battle." --Shak.
2. Proceeding from fear of danger or other consequences
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

When somebody plants a bomb, then proceeds to put as much distance between himself and that bomb as possible, it is permissible to call that person a 'coward'. (Although the term that I would most likely use is 'smart') However, you cannot - if you wish to use the English language correctly - say the same of a suicide bomber. It takes a lot of balls to do what these guys did. You may call this attack a lot of things, but taking control of an 'enemy' plane and smashing it into a skyscraper -- sacrificing your own life to defend your ideas -- can not under any circumstances be considered 'cowardly'. Fanatical?... yes. Suicidal?... Yes. Horrendous?... yes. Cowardly?... No way. Our enemies may be a lot of things, but cowards they are not.

Attack on Freedom - People that use this phrasing are probably simply regurgitating the words used in some of America's previous wars. When Nazi Germany attacked a country, the subjugated people lost many of their freedoms. When the U.S. joined WWII, we did so to prevent the same thing from happening to us. Had the Nazi’s conquered all of Europe, they would have undoubtedly turned their attention towards us, and the freedoms we cherished would have been threatened. So, when you are describing WWII, it is correct to say that we were 'Defending our freedom'.

In this war, it is America that is the occupying force. We are the ones with troops stationed oversees, and it is the Muslims which are fighting for their 'freedom' - freedom to practice their religion without interference from the outside world. So if anybody is attacking anybody's 'freedom' it is us. The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on American Capitalism and Multi-Nationalism. These are the ideas were are defending. We Americans need to understand that and stop pretending to be so god-damned 'holier-than-thou'.

America is not under threat of invasion. The Arabs are not trying to conquer our land - they only want to remove our influence from their land. But unfortunately, our way of life - the high standard of living we all enjoy - rests entirely on the flow of oil from the Middle East. It is imperative that this oil continues to flow. And to make sure that it does, it is necessary for the U.S. to keep troops stationed in this highly volatile area in order to maintain order... or at least try to maintain order. But of course, our presence in the Middle East upsets some Arabs -- Just as the US was upset when the Soviets wanted to put a few missiles down in Cuba. Just as we would be upset at the Canadians if they allowed Iraq to build a base on North America.

Oil is why America must maintain a presence in the Middle East. Although this presence is not without its costs, the alternatives would end up costing more in the long term. It is imperative that America continues to collect oil from their lands, no matter how much they whine about it. And to me, whether the Arabs live on top of that land or not is irrelevant. But unfortunately, genocide is probably not one of the options on the table.

In any case, the recent attack - in and of itself - was not an attack on our freedom. We are not under any threat on invasion (unless you consider immigration by Arabs to be the same thing as invasion). The only group that can attack our freedoms is our own government. And you can expect scores of new security regulations to be precipitated by these attacks. Our government wants to do everything it can to 'prevent this from happening again' - which will most likely result in laws that erode our constitution rights. But even so, the attacks themselves were not an attack on 'Freedom'.

You can call these attacks many things. An attack on human life?... yes. An attack on America's way of life?... Yes. An attack on America's symbols (capitalism, Military Strength, and a failed attack on our leadership)?... Yes. An attack on Freedom?... Not necessarily. Sure... if we didn't have oil we would loose our ability support the high standard of living we have now, but that is not the same as loosing of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Whether or not this attack succeeds in destroying our Freedom is entirely up to us - and our politicians.

But our politicians aren't interested in keeping us free, they only want to keep us safe.

[LiberalNation]

Few more

Terrorist Attack - As opposed to what other kind of attack? A peaceful, friendly attack? It is safe to say that anybody in the process of being bombed succumbs to a certain degree of terror. I'm sure the Iraqis felt some serious terror when US bombs were falling on them for weeks on end. These recent attacks on the east coast may have killed thousands of people, but American bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs over the last decades - So what do we call those attacks that have killed at least 10 times as many? Why, we call it 'peacekeeping', of course.

This phrasing is a perfect example of the natural tendency to see our side as the 'Good Guys', and the other side as the embodiment of evil. Now, don't get me wrong - I support our side. I just want to make sure everybody else that supports our side understands exactly what are side is. This is not, as president Bush claimed, a battle between 'Good and evil'. This is a battle between Islamic Nationalist on one side, and the Capitalist that want access to the resources of the Islamic nations on the other side. You may call it 'evil' to kill thousands of innocent civilians, but just remember that America killed as more Arabs during Desert storm than 20 World Trade Center attacks combined. And there is no way to claim that every single Arab we buried in the desert was guilty of some crime. America has committed just as many 'evil' acts, if not more, than Usama bin Laden.

If we do go to war, it will have nothing to do with 'Freedom and Democracy' -- We will be going to war over Oil -- and America's right to protect that oil by having troops stationed around the world. This is why America has troops in the Middle East. And this is why a lot of Arabs don't like us -- and why they feel they must fight against us.

It is imperative, for the well-being of America, that we protect our interest. I just wish our leaders would have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is instead of lying to the American people. It's no wonder that most Americans have no idea what the word 'Freedom' really means. The only freedom being defended here is the freedom of the American Military to occupy land in 100+ countries. I have a high level of respect for the term 'Freedom', and I hate to see it misused.

So don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't have any problem with America occupying all these nations. I just wish we would admit to what we're doing, and stop acting so damned surprised when the people we are subjugating try to fight back.

Iraqi Terrorists-All terrorists are generally fighting against some sort of occupation. Irish Terrorists want the U.K. out of Ireland ... Palestinian Terrorists want the Jews out of their land ... and Islamic Terrorists want the US out of the Middle East. Generally, the thing that qualifies these "resistance fighters" for the "terrorist" moniker is that, instead of focusing their "resistance" against government forces, they attack the general population (The people who actually live in the occupied lands, or the citizens of the occupying force's home country).

But recently, our government has been using the word "terrorist" to describe those Iraqis who are attacking the American military. Since when are resistance fighters called terrorist? The word Terrorist is often misleading enough, but I'm fairly certain that under no circumstances is it permissible to use it when describing attacks on occupational forces.

I suppose the motivation behind this linguistic stretch is to somehow tie Iraq with Al-queda -- the terrorist who were actually responsible for 9-11. The odd thing is that we know that almost all the hijackers on September 11th came from Saudi Arabia. Knowing that it was a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists who attacked the U.S., many sensible people are wondering...

Why did we retaliate against Iraq.

And perhaps a better question is, why we have remained allies with the country which actually spawned the terrorists ... Saudi Arabia??

All this is even more confusing when you consider the fact that Al-Quada and Saddam are enemies. (Al-Quada wants an Islamic state, but Saddam is a secular leader) In fact, in 1990 bin Laden offered to use his “army” to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

[Dilloduck]

Few more

Terrorist Attack - As opposed to what other kind of attack? A peaceful, friendly attack? It is safe to say that anybody in the process of being bombed succumbs to a certain degree of terror. I'm sure the Iraqis felt some serious terror when US bombs were falling on them for weeks on end. These recent attacks on the east coast may have killed thousands of people, but American bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs over the last decades - So what do we call those attacks that have killed at least 10 times as many? Why, we call it 'peacekeeping', of course.

This phrasing is a perfect example of the natural tendency to see our side as the 'Good Guys', and the other side as the embodiment of evil. Now, don't get me wrong - I support our side. I just want to make sure everybody else that supports our side understands exactly what are side is. This is not, as president Bush claimed, a battle between 'Good and evil'. This is a battle between Islamic Nationalist on one side, and the Capitalist that want access to the resources of the Islamic nations on the other side. You may call it 'evil' to kill thousands of innocent civilians, but just remember that America killed as more Arabs during Desert storm than 20 World Trade Center attacks combined. And there is no way to claim that every single Arab we buried in the desert was guilty of some crime. America has committed just as many 'evil' acts, if not more, than Usama bin Laden.

If we do go to war, it will have nothing to do with 'Freedom and Democracy' -- We will be going to war over Oil -- and America's right to protect that oil by having troops stationed around the world. This is why America has troops in the Middle East. And this is why a lot of Arabs don't like us -- and why they feel they must fight against us.

It is imperative, for the well-being of America, that we protect our interest. I just wish our leaders would have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is instead of lying to the American people. It's no wonder that most Americans have no idea what the word 'Freedom' really means. The only freedom being defended here is the freedom of the American Military to occupy land in 100+ countries. I have a high level of respect for the term 'Freedom', and I hate to see it misused.

So don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't have any problem with America occupying all these nations. I just wish we would admit to what we're doing, and stop acting so damned surprised when the people we are subjugating try to fight back.

Iraqi Terrorists-All terrorists are generally fighting against some sort of occupation. Irish Terrorists want the U.K. out of Ireland ... Palestinian Terrorists want the Jews out of their land ... and Islamic Terrorists want the US out of the Middle East. Generally, the thing that qualifies these "resistance fighters" for the "terrorist" moniker is that, instead of focusing their "resistance" against government forces, they attack the general population (The people who actually live in the occupied lands, or the citizens of the occupying force's home country).

But recently, our government has been using the word "terrorist" to describe those Iraqis who are attacking the American military. Since when are resistance fighters called terrorist? The word Terrorist is often misleading enough, but I'm fairly certain that under no circumstances is it permissible to use it when describing attacks on occupational forces.

I suppose the motivation behind this linguistic stretch is to somehow tie Iraq with Al-queda -- the terrorist who were actually responsible for 9-11. The odd thing is that we know that almost all the hijackers on September 11th came from Saudi Arabia. Knowing that it was a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists who attacked the U.S., many sensible people are wondering...

Why did we retaliate against Iraq.

And perhaps a better question is, why we have remained allies with the country which actually spawned the terrorists ... Saudi Arabia??

All this is even more confusing when you consider the fact that Al-Quada and Saddam are enemies. (Al-Quada wants an Islamic state, but Saddam is a secular leader) In fact, in 1990 bin Laden offered to use his “army” to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

I guess you would have no idea how many times we've has to go over this crap. Wanna pick your favorite and go with it?

[LiberalNation]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

[Dilloduck]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

What is so brave about leaving a crappy world to meet a mess of virgins? What is so brave about killing unarmed people on an airplane? What is so brave about killing yourself and taking as many people with you as you can? People who have no chance of striking back or trying to stop you?

[LiberalNation]

What is so cowardly about how they fight?

[Dilloduck]

What is so cowardly about how they fight?

They don't have to live with the shame of LOSING.

[LiberalNation]

Yes they do. They could be stopped, their bombs could fail to explode or only explode somewhat injuring them but not much else.

[Dilloduck]

Yes they do. They could be stopped, their bombs could fail to explode or only explode somewhat injuring them but not much else.

ya---fat chance

[jimnyc]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

I say cowardly, because they chose to attack innocent civilians instead of those they feel they have a problem with. No different than a sucker punch, IMO, and that's cowardly too.

[LiberalNation]

They are no more cowardly then our bombers and tank drivers.

[Dilloduck]

They are no more cowardly then our bombers and tank drivers.

Bullshit-----they're sneaky scum attacking women, children and unarmed people minding thier own business----ON PURPOSE !!!!!

[LiberalNation]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

[Dilloduck]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

If these scum were so bad ass why didn't they kick the shit out of thier Saudi government.

[LiberalNation]

Ask them.