Iraq: "insurgents" or terrorists?


PDA






Monkeyleg
July 8, 2004, 11:59 PM
Over the past couple of years there's been much discussion here about how gun owners got outfoxed by the anti's when it came to the use of language. Despite our now-belated protests, the term "assault weapons" is now part of the public jargon, and one we have to struggle against.

In the last few weeks I've noticed a shift in terminology in the wire stories--usually from the NY Times or Washington Post--in describing the likes of Al-Zarqawi and his ilk as "insurgents," or "rebels."

It seems to me that these thugs' daily routine is to bomb and kill innocents. On their best days, they take delight in cutting off the heads of people they don't even know.

That sounds a lot like "terrorism" to me, yet the media is now applying newer, softer and gentler characterizations to their motives.

How much longer before Al-Zarqawi and his band of Merry Pranksters are referred to in the media as "freedom fighters?"

BTW, did anyone notice that there's a group in Iraq that has promised to go after Al-Zarqawi and his thugs and do the same to them that ol' Al has done to others?

Of course, the media referred to that group as "vigilantes." :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq: "insurgents" or terrorists?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
thefitzvh
July 9, 2004, 12:16 AM
the term depends on if you're a rational human being or a leftist extremist.


James

Hkmp5sd
July 9, 2004, 12:30 AM
...they are patriots.

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.”

- Michael Moore

capt_happypants
July 9, 2004, 02:02 AM
I'm rather sad to report that Mr. Moore's ersatz "revolutionaries" aren't growing in number, especially after a GBU-12 detonated right on top of about 30 guys in Fallujah.

WARNING: Graphic gun-camera footage.

http://www.misplaced.net/~obremski/stuff/CAS.wmv

G1FAL
July 9, 2004, 02:14 AM
You like that too, huh, how they've been called 'insurgents' instead of what they really are, which is terrorist coward scumbag f*&!s?

Another thing I really like (NOT!) is how any groupd of killers, anywhere in the world, is automatically a militia. Doesnt matter if they're rogue military units, mercenaries, or soldiers with the full support of their .gov (several African nations come to mind), in the eyes of the media, they're 'militias'.

Nice way to completely pervert a word and poison the minds of people toward it.

cz75bdneos22
July 9, 2004, 07:03 AM
if invading forces were invading your state, what would you be called as you put up armed resistance??

Rebar
July 9, 2004, 12:44 PM
if invading forces were invading your state, what would you be called as you put up armed resistance??
Fact is, the vast majority of these people are not Iraqis, they are Syrians and Iranians, being funded by outside sources.

That makes them mercenaries in my book.

bountyhunter
July 9, 2004, 03:12 PM
The "insurgent" handle was actually started by the current admin to differentiate them from the regular generic "terrorists". The admin is also fond of the term "foreign fighters" because it telegraphs a message that the problems in Iraq are being brought in by outsiders, not inherent in the region due to the many warring ethnic factions.

No liberal media conspiracy here.....

bountyhunter
July 9, 2004, 03:16 PM
Fact is, the vast majority of these people are not Iraqis, they are Syrians and Iranians, being funded by outside sources.

That makes them mercenaries in my book.. No actually, the term "mercenary" is generally used to refer to a soldier with no allegiance who will fight for whomever pays him. From the dictionary, mercenary is defined as "working or acting merely for money or some other reward." The foreign fighters in Iraq are primarily Al Qaeda and they have a very strong allegiance to a single cause and most are not in it "for the money".

spartacus2002
July 9, 2004, 07:23 PM
An insurgent is someone trying to de-legitimize and/or overthrow the government of a country.

A terrorist is someone who is trying to use directed violence to achieve certain political goals -- not always the delegitimization or overthrow of a government.

The insurgent has a certain goal, the terrorist uses a method. In fact, terrorism can be a tactic of insurgents.

targetshootr
July 9, 2004, 07:42 PM
Whatever you call 'em, it was awfully clever to lure them there. Most likely they were all headed here to take hostages and do battle in our streets. We sure outfoxed those boys. Now if we only knew what to do with them all. For some reason there seems to be a whole lot more of 'em than there used to be.

ksnecktieman
July 9, 2004, 09:53 PM
For future reference? Michael Moore is referred to as "mike" in person, and I think that is a "four letter word"? This is "The High Road", right?

Standing Wolf
July 9, 2004, 10:08 PM
He who defines the terms usually wins the argument.

VaniB.
July 9, 2004, 10:33 PM
Those we're fighting in Iraq are "terrorists". Those here who denounce their own country and aid and abet the enemy are "insurgents". Got it? ;)

(Art's Grammaw wuz here.)

targetshootr
July 9, 2004, 11:03 PM
It's funny that we have so many true-blue patriots here that are, well, here, at a time when our military is in dire need of them. But if we have learned anything from our fearless leaders, it's that even 'good' wars are best fought by others.

Monkeyleg
July 10, 2004, 12:02 AM
Oh, c'mon, Targetshootr. The people I'm talking about are blowing up oil pipelines, civilians, women, children...for the most part they're not trying to engage our troops.

You don't like the war policy. Fine.

What I don't like is the media's selective terminology. That's what this post is about. Yes, one side's terrorist is another side's freedom fighter, as the old saying goes. But which side is the media on?

In the immediate aftermath of the WTC attacks, the mainstream media was discussing the possibility of the attacks being the work of "home-grown" terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or perhaps anyone who was just too "outside the mainstream" for the NRA.

Now that very kind of dirty work is being conducted in Iraq by "rebels", or "insurgents."

The NY Times and the Washington Post are giving these cretins legitimacy by those labels.

This is a major election year. Both papers, and the major TV networks, are using their subtle words to communicate positions.

Surely you recognize that by now.

mrapathy2000
July 10, 2004, 12:10 AM
mix of both.

just look at the new organization threatening to cutoff saddams lawyers heads.

while some consider the new government illegitimate other like it though want elections. its brilliant example of what the colonies went through back before a country was made.

people argueing and fighting. its a good thing we didnt have the diversity iraq has otherwise this country would be a mess.

you can read iraqi english translated blogs if you look for them.

MeekandMild
July 10, 2004, 12:46 AM
Actually I think the proper term is "holdouts" like the Nazi and Japanese soldiers who had to be hunted down and disposed of one by one for the decade after the official close of WW-II. American body count for the first five years after the war was numbered in the thousands.

G1FAL
July 10, 2004, 04:40 AM
It's funny that we have so many true-blue patriots here that are, well, here, at a time when our military is in dire need of them. But if we have learned anything from our fearless leaders, it's that even 'good' wars are best fought by others.

I did my time, thanks.

What about you?

bountyhunter
July 12, 2004, 01:33 PM
Fact is, the vast majority of these people are not Iraqis, they are Syrians and Iranians, being funded by outside sources. Actually, the Bush admin released info over the weekend that proves the vast majority of the insurgents are Iraqi's (primarily Sunnis). They stated that less than 1% of the insurgents in custody are from outside of the country. Bottom line, about 45% of the population there is Sunni and they enjoyed the control of the country under Saddam. Now the Shiite majority wants to put them under the boot heel. They are going to fight to stop that (and they are).

No question that Al Qaeda is there ( and probably directing some of the operations) but most of the manpower is local.

Hawkmoon
July 13, 2004, 12:40 AM
The "insurgent" handle was actually started by the current admin to differentiate them from the regular generic "terrorists".
I hate to break this to you, but the current administration has no claim to being the first to use this term. I have a couple of medals stuffed in a bureau drawer from Vietnam, and I clearly remember that the language in the citation awarding them said something about the "Allied counter-insurgency effort..."

Thus it would appear that any group which does not like a puppet government supported by the United State gummint, and acts accordingly, is "insurgents."

roscoe
July 13, 2004, 01:25 AM
If you call someone a terrorist you can pretty much justify doing anything you want to them. Using that terminology is just a way to justify pretty disgraceful behavior.

If this country were occupied by a military force and their civilian contractors, I would probably be ambushing their patrols, blowing their pipelines and offices, and killing as many as I could. I bet a few like-minded individuals would go overboard and kill collaborators and their families. Would that mean I would stop my resistance because of the shame? I doubt it.

When you are outgunned you are a fool to engage in any sort of direct combat. We can call it terrorism as a way to demonize it, but they have little choice (other than capitulation) and we have to accept that it is one of the costs of this type of military adventure.

another okie
July 13, 2004, 08:25 PM
By my understanding of the terms, there are some of both in Iraq.

There are "terrorists" who want to create chaos and fear so that a radical Islamic state can be established and for the pleasure of killing infidels, and then there are native Iraqis who mainly want the foreigners out, who I would class as "insurgents." When we talk about the Phillipine fight against U.S. occupation we use the term "insurrection" for the same reason.

That doesn't mean I agree with the insurgents - if they'd just shut up and have a little patience and stop cutting off their nose to spite their face, we would fix their country up, start a democracy, give them freedom, and leave. I think many of the "insurgents" know we will leave soon, but they want to be able to go on TV and say they drove us out, whether they did or not, and they need to fight a little bit now to be able to say that later.

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq: "insurgents" or terrorists?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!