October 24, 2005

Symbolic Victory?

Today, the insurgents attacked the Hotel Palestine in Bagdad. This is the Hotel where a large number of journalists stay while covering the war in Iraq. Here is the meaning of the attack from journalists perspective:

[Headline]Briefing: hotel bombing a coup for insurgency [Subheading]Stephen Farrell, Middle East correspondent for The Times, explains why the attack on the Palestine Hotel is a symbolic victory for the insurgents

..."The hotel is also symbolic because it was from their that the old ministry of information used to give its briefings to the Iraqi people. During the closing days of Saddam's era, the roof of the Hotel Palestine was where 'Comical' Ali would hold some of his briefings.

"It was outside, in Paradise Square, that the statue of Saddam was toppled signifying the end of his rule.

"This would be a prize scalp for the insurgents; the next best thing to hitting the Green Zone - one of the highest profile American targets in Baghdad.

"My guess is that they were killing Iraqi soldiers, whom they consider to be collaborators, alongside American soldiers - and doing so on live TV."



I guess this war isn't about actual victories, it is about the symbolic ones. And, if it is about the symbolic, it has to be something the Left choses as their symbol. It wouldn't actually be a powerful symbol, like a large scale attack during an election, it would be an attack on a big building that harbors journalists. They define the symbol, you swallow.

Hate to tell you, Stephen Ferrell, but the Iraqis have been at the business end of a few more of these bombs than you have, and they probably won't be amused at the implicit symbolism you've assigned. Specifically, over 200,000 of them have signed up to defend their country from these murderers.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at October 24, 2005 12:53 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Actually, they're attacking the hotel because that's where the journalists are. They know that half this war, or more, is being waged in the American media.

By attacking the journalists' "home base," they believe that they'll produce a new wave of "Things Are Going Badly" slant from journalists who feel personally endangered and who routinely let their personal atitudes and situations color they're reporting. And they're probably right.

The reporters won't see that because 1) they believe they're unbiased and 2) they suffer from the arrogance of the overeducated, which won't allow them to believe that the terrorist enemy has a grasp of media warfare.

Posted by: Ian Wood at October 24, 2005 04:57 PM

Agh. "Attitudes" and "their."

Posted by: Ian Wood at October 24, 2005 04:59 PM

I think the left is just having one big crazy moonbat frat party to celebrate the 2000th death of an American soldier in Iraq. And they just won't stop hazing Cindy Sheehan. Now they are making her tie herself to the White House before they will let her in the the sisterhood. Yes, liberals call it a frat but to be pc refer to each other as sisters. Anyway, let's just hope they let her in soon cause I am not looking forward to seeing that woman bent over with her panties on her head getting spanked with a paddle by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Posted by: Rik at October 24, 2005 05:00 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?




Please enter the numeric code you see below:





Search
Blogroll
Archives
Recent Entries