"Intensifying" violence

I'll tell you, the violence in Iraq has apparently been intensifying since Saddam Hussein was toppled. I mean, I keep hearing about it on the news.

30 killed one day. 7 killed another. 14 another day.

Why, only weeks ago it was more like 0.5 people here, 0.25 there.

Not to take away from the folks that are dying, but come on, people. In WWII we'd lose 6,000 in one battle sometimes. Now THAT's intense violence.

When I hear it repeated that "insurgents", al-Queda, and the Taliban are showing themselves to be "capable" -- capable of what, excatly? Hit and run attacks or suicide bombings that kill or injure a few people at a time? This is not a potent military force. And judging by its preferred tactic of killing citizens and blaming it on the citizens or the US/Brits (and having the Western Left buy it) makes them far from even a respectable, if less capable force.

You'd think they were quite the military force if you listen to the news. What they are is a PR force. The intent is not to militarily defeat the liberating forces -- it is to turn public opinion -- especially here at home -- against them. A little at a time.

With salivating news reporters waving their microphones at every bombing -- and there are few enough of them that they can be reported on individually -- the "insurgents" have the mouthpiece they need right where they want them to be. The language of the news reports is one of a country's general population rising up against an occupying force, romanticizing and legitimizing the killing of civillians (as that is one of their main tactics). By giving a soap box to a "grieving" mother with an obvious political vendetta ... it is clear which side the press is on.

So next time you hear about "intensifying" violence, ask yourself just what constitutes "intense", and why that word keeps being chosen.

If the violence has been intensifying for so long, we should have huge, full blown battles by now.