From the AntiWar.com, we find that Centcom is getting shifty with the language again:
April 19, 2004
Release Number: 04-04-18
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ANTI - IRAQI FORCES FIRE ON MARINES FROM MOSQUE
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq - Anti-Iraq forces took up military positions in a mosque and a nearby building in Fallujah April 18.
Anti-Iraqi forces occupying a building adjacent to a mosque attacked the crew of an M1-A1 tank. The crew returned fire with the tank's main gun, destroying the structure and killing one enemy who was armed with a rocket-propelled grenade. Multiple secondary explosions were observed.
Language - as we've noted previously - is very important. The specific terminology that one chooses to deploy is one of the primary skills of propganda-making. I just thought this case was particularly ridiculous. If an anti-Iraqi fighter is actually fighting a US Marine, then an anti-US fighter would actually be fighting...an Iraqi? It's hilarious! Of course, the Bushies were making the case that anyone fighting the US in Iraq is actually fighting against Iraqis' best interests, but of course, it's confusing as heck - which is why they shouldn't have said it that way in the first place.
This situation reminds me of when the Bush Administration first trotted-out the homicide bomber term, instead of using the alternate suicide bomber (who killed 'x' number of people). The obvious problem here is that 'homicide bomber' takes away the fact that the suicide bomber was willing to give his life to make a political change - so either the suicide bomber was really dedicated, or he was extremely desperate. We want to know if people are desperate to attack us so we can prevent them from getting desperate. This reasoning is why we went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and loose a capitalist democracy that would give young Muslim children other options than joining a madarassas - an Islamic school that can teach a profound hate of America.
