September 17, 2004 - The Boston Globe's front page article this morning, captioned U2 US workers seized in Baghdad, describes another successful military operation carried out by the Iraqi resistance - but in the Globe's own carefully-chosen terms:

"Kidnappers seized two Americans and a Briton from their central Baghdad villa at dawn yesterday, in a bold raid that could further limit the mobility of foreigners in the Iraqi capital."

At length the Globe article describes the enclave in Baghdad where the raid took place:

"the fancy Mansour neighborhood, considered comparatively safe and placid by Baghdad standards, where many diplomats, Iraqi politicians, and local and international businesspeople live."

The article states that the three captured men worked for, "... Gulf Supplies and Commercial Services, a construction firm based in the United Arab Emirates" and adds, "More than a hundred Westerners have been kidnapped this year ... About two dozen victims have been killed, and some hostages have turned up dead with no explanation ..."

Of interest is the language consistently employed by the corporate press, describing this military operation by the Iraqi resistance and the way they end the article by describing a military statement of a successful U.S. military operation, killing 60 people yesterday.

The corporate press identifies those who captured the U.S. oil contractors as "resistance groups who have issued political demands and some by gangs that have demanded ransom"

The Globe adds: "A parallel business of kidnapping Iraqis for ransom money flourishes, and police officials believe that political kidnappers work in tandem with profit-motivated criminal gangs".

"Kidnappers", "Insurgents", "gangs", "profit-motivated criminal gangs" ... These characterizations are words carefully and purposefully used to portray the massive Iraqi resistance in terms of criminality. Is it a crime to defend one's country? The Globe could just as easily and accurately describe those taken as "captured", the captors as Iraqi soldiers and those captured as Iraq's enemies. But they chose otherwise. Given the massive Iraqi resistance, these terms would be far more credible than the Globe's implication that they are criminals.

The Globe article also quotes Suhaila Hassan, a woman who has lived on the same Mansour street for 40 years who complained that these foreign "contractors" should not be living in places like Monsour because they place the residents in danger:

"What happened today is outrageous. All we want is security. Where is the government? It would be better, she said, if foreign contractors were required by law to live in the Green Zone or in other fortified areas removed from regular Iraqis. Why should they live next to this family, next to that family?"

Is this to leave the impression that Ms. Hussan approves of the occupation and the real problem is the location of the U.S. troops and contractors?

Finally, the corporate media almost puts a stamp of approval of the U.S./British invasion and occupation of Iraq by ending the story with a description of a separate U.S. military operation against Iraq in which 60 Iraqi people died:

"Also yesterday, American forces carried out attacks in the Sunni insurgent strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi west of Baghdad, killing up to 60 insurgents in strikes against suspected allies of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a military statement said, according to the Associated Press."

"Also"? We ask what this report has to do with the headlined story? Killing "60 insurgents"? ... "suspected allies of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi"? Those defending their country against occupation are "terrorists"? Were all 60 of those killed Iraqi resistance fighters? Was there no "collateral damage" (i.e. civilian deaths)? The implications of this language are obvious. The same language was employed by the corporate press during their support of the U.S. war on the Vietnamese people during that period. The effect is one of garnering and ensuring support for the war and occupation of the U.S. population.

The Iraqi resistance forces are fighting back with guerrilla military tactics just as promised by Iraq's then Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Azia in March, 2003. In an interview with Dr. Toby Dodge, University of Warwick, Mr.Aziz made the famous statement:

"People say to me, you (the Iraqis) are not the Vietnamese. You have no jungles and swamps to hide in. I reply, let our cities be our swamps and our buildings our jungles."

At the time, Christopher Bellamy, writing for The Independent (UK) stated:

"Four centuries before Christ, China's Gen. Sun-Tzu wrote in his Art of War: 'The worst policy is to besiege cities.' Nearly two and a half thousand years later, the Americans and British invading Iraq and trapped outside Baghdad and Basra have again become aware of this."

Indeed, the valiant Iraqi resistance has been mounting a growing and successful guerrilla force against the real "profit motivated criminal gangs" - the U.S. and British military along with their mercenary soldiers and contractors. Indeed, the cities have become the swamps for the U.S./British soldiers and the buildings, their jungles. Does the corporate press remind us of the words of Tariq Aziz, a Christian, who has presumably been in prison and probably tortured (my assumption) - since he surrendered to U.S. forces in April, 2003? Why not? Are sins of omission as destructive as sins of commission?

© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com