| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Newsweek's opinion of the American public is on display:
The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government. Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.
At a time when Newsweek's ad sales are off, you'd think its editors would be smart enough not to insult their own readers.
By the way, Newsweek's argument that those born in Iraq who are fighting against Iraqi democracy cannot be considered terrorists is based on Newsweek's wild assumption that they aren't involved in suicide bombings targeting civilians:
Most dictionaries define insurgents as members of an organized revolt against a recognized government, usually through harassment or subversion. Terrorists, on the other hand, generally target civilians, using violence for intimidation or coercion, often for ideological reasons or under cover of religion. It's clear that both are operating in Iraq at the moment, and equally clear that there are times when the line is blurred.
Newsweek presents no evidence that those born in Iraq aren't involved in suicide bombings, and, as quoted, even admits that it is "clear that there are times when the line is blurred."
What makes Newsweek think it can make a profit by insulting its readers and making stupid claims it can't back up? Note that this comes after a lot of other questionable behavior by this magazine this year.
