Willravel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...445924,00.html
Actually, they ARE insurgents, and rebels, as well. Rumsfeld is seeking to remove any measure of sympathy anyone has for those Iraqis who are against the current occupation. Those who rebeled under Saddams rule were also insurgents (often the same people!!).

I don't want Rumsfeld to be able to backpeddle again. I'm sick of it. Write your ficticous story and stick with it. Anyone who's paying attention already knows what's going on.

Psycho Dad

Terrorist?

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

Willravel

Actually, if we're posting about semantics, they are not terrorists. The rebels in Iraq are not specifically using techniques to induce fear in the troops. They are simply attacking and trying to loosen our grip of control. If they are terrorists, then everyone who was ever violent or threatened violence is a terrorist, and the word losses it's meaning. They are no more terrorists than our soldiers.

Psycho Dad

Not all the attacks are against troops. Many attacks are aimed at putting fear into the Iraqi people.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

Willravel

What I mean is that their intention is to take actions that will directly result in non-Iraqi troops leaving. They don't do scare tactics. There is no psychological warfare. All other concerns are secondary to that for the moment.

djtestudo

It seems to me their purpose has to do more with trying to weaken the resolve of America as a whole through violence in order to make us change our actions.

In other words, terrorism.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

samcol

I always think of the word terrorist as targetting civilians mainly, whereas an insurgency attacks a military force. I think the correct word for them would be insurgent.

Psycho Dad

But they do try scare tactics. Not all the attacks are against young men like this. Many of them do target civilians and one has to suspect that the same lot of them that practice in insurgency also participate in terrorism. But then again I suppose were troops from another country here, I would likely see the friends of my enemy as my enemy. And thus I suppose I would consider myself to be an insurgent.


BTW, I will admit I am biased as the young man in the link I posted is my son. If the link results in a threadjack I'll edit it or a mod can.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

alpha phi

Well it depends on what the definition of is, is
Rumsfeld knows very well the meaning of insurgents.
He is no fool, he has been playing this game....as long as I've been alive.
While 9 out of 10 rocks are smarter than Dubya'
The same can't be said for Rummy'
He is a genius....(an evil criminal mastermind genius)
This word play is another weapon of mass distraction
designed to disguise todays real issues....Iraq, Afghanistan, CIA clandestine opperations under investigations ect.

Seems it is working well

__________________

roachboy

those fine folk at the redon group have undoubtedly told rumsfeld that the word "insurgent" represents a perception management issue. he was also no doubt informed that it may well be too late to really solve this perception management issue, but that he should nonetheless try because, as lenin teaches us, few things are more important tactically than clear boundaries look at what happened to the mensheviks for gods sake.

without things like this, there would be no way to know why those fine folk at redon get such big big cash for their services.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

Also, when I think of "insurgents", I think of the established population, not foriegn fighters from the region.

And I also agree that those who are attempting to start a civil war by targeting civilians are not insurgents, but terrorists.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

The reality is that a majority of the Iraiqi's do not like the American presence in Iraq...


Fortuantly they voted in a peaceful and democratic way twice now.

The reality is, that the Sunni MINORITY and the FUNDAMENTALIST SHARIAN AL QAEDA/ FOREIGN influence fights us. Largely the news carries of the suicide bombings (which mainly targets civilians) as well as the operations targetting the outtings of aforementioned factions.

You are ignorant if you think Iraq is wholely "insurgent". It is not, I am not arguing that the vast MINORITY of the population is unheard of, that merely it is not the majority.

People here really need to get past the cut your nose to spite your face phase. Just because some asshole drives a car packed with explosives killing several people, doesn't mean the country is sprialing(sp) downwards. There are many historical and real world facts that point clearly to the opposite, such as the fact that the majority of the violent opposition compromises a vast minority of the population, it only holds a few fingers of the 18 Iraqi provinces such as Al Anbar (Fallujah/Ramadi sharing a border with Syria/Jordan).

Then you go talk about the word insurgent. The reality is that SC precedent has dated back 60 years with the legality of combatants, or the lack of legitimacy thereof. You just can't expect Rummy to bow down to some narrow definition, even you (non-mojos) know this.

We are fighting three factions of the population. The American presence there is fighting a small fraction of insurgents, a small fraction of foreign terrorists, and a small fraction of local terrorists. The uprising within Iraq does not compromise a majority, and against many of your secret hopes it never will. Please don't skew the facts to say so.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Locobot

Who here is "skewing facts?" To me this thread is about the orwellian use of language in the DoD's continual attempts "market" this war to the U.S. populace. It turns out "insurgent" is a completely correct way to refer to the people making attacks in Iraq.

kutulu

Who cares what we call them. They are the enemy, plain and simple. It's a waste of time and manipulative by both sides to bicker over what we want to call them.

xepherys

I'm not certain why we are so swayed by the semantics involved anyhow. As kutulu says, they are the enemy. I don't care if they are terrorists, insurgents or giraffes... if they are against what we are for, and they are willing to kill us over it, what difference does it make as to what we call them?

Mojo_PeiPei

The PC crowd likes to blur the issue with semantics, that's why we don't have one blanket term, the enemy, like you pointed out.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

kutulu

yes, it's only the PC crowd (homocide bomber)

Charlatan

Give me major break. The only one tweaking the language here is the Administration and its supporters in an attempt to make what they are doing more palatable.

Politically Correct? More like Politically expedient.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke