It's facinating to me that the US uses the "insurgent" attacks as a basis for continuing the war, calling the insurgents terrorist.

Let's turn it around. Say for example the US had some crazy ass leader who was arbitrarily killing tons of innocent people, forcing the country to conform to his political and religious idealogy and calling all that didn't agree traitors and some benevolent country came round and decided to save us from the freak who was leading our country but, in the process, this invading nation decided not only to take out our leader (who most actually did want to be taken out) but also hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children, old people, non-military fighters of any sort. What if they just bombed the hell out of our "bad" cities that held the most "insurgents" with white phosphrous...take Atlanta or Birmingham for example. What would we do?

Of course I have my own opinion, but I want to hear what some of you all have to say before I put my two cents in.

--Left

Insurgent is a spin word used to make "the bad guy" sound like someone from outside.

The bulk of the antagonists in Iraq are Iraqis.
This means they are REBELS!
And in fact this IS a civil war!

Sky,

What do you think would happen in my hypothetical situation?

--Left

Well Insurgent is used for the correct purpose the media uses it as.

Insurgent=Rebel

They mean the same thing...






So you see it really depends on your point of view. The only real difference is that a rebel is a citizen of said government where an insurgent is not. With America being the fought against Nation, along with our allies, the Iraqi freedom fighter are insurgents, until they attack an Iraqi policeman or military, then they become a rebel.

So in away, yes it is a word game of the Media, but a horse is a horse.

I would just like to mention here that at America's roots is Terrorism. It was the main tatic of the "Patriots" at the time. It worked so well we got a country out of it!

Oh and we are in the situtation you describe, there was no hypothetical situtation.

We, the people, would not stand for outside influence and would defend our country.

Then we'd publicly hang the leader!

I agree. Never, ever, ever would we let another country come over here without an all out war in the streets. Every Tom, Dick and Harry would try to kill, blow up and otherwise destroy each symbol, person and representative of the invading government, and we would have every right and reason to do so as the occupied group (oh, but wait, we aren't "occupying" Iraq, we are "rebuilding" it...sometimes I forget.)

Why then is it so difficult for people to look at the "insurgents" in Iraq as people who just don't want to be fucking forced to accept a goverment they didn't want, allow their own people to be murdered needlessly and in cold blood and to otherwise be occupied????
(Sorry about the long run-on sentence)

It's just surprising to me that when I try to talk to someone about the war they sort of echo bush's "THEY (some alien force, I suppose) are trying to hurt US, therefore we must first destroy them". Maybe I slept through some huge event where the people of Iraq came over to the US and killed a couple hundred thousand americans for no good reason. But I don't think so. So seems like to me that we should get the hell out of there before we kill more innocent people and more of our troops die for a stupid circular reasoning cause.

The rebels are trying to protect what they beleive in. GOOD. At least they have some backbone and stand up against things they don't believe in.

--Left

Preaching to the choir Lefty.

If in fact the Iraqi's wanted us there, and this was evident,
then we would indeed be liberators!

I don't see roses on those tanks like they were in Paris in 44.


That means we are an occupying army.
And for most Iraqi's, we are quite unwelcome.

I know, I know. But I don't have anywhere else to vent.
Humor me?

--Left

Humor?

Poor Rethugs!


Hows that?

It really depends on who is asking.

The British would call Wasington an insurgent, while Americans say Patriot.

Same thing.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FREEDOM FIGHTER AND A REBEL(INSERGENT) IS WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE YOUR STANDING ON

Exactly.