You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why are they called insurgents? I prefer enemy, murderer and/or scum
- Thread starter Ptown Beretta
- Start date
If the American people are opposed to drug gangs, why is it that the drug gangs are able to operate in America?
Same reason, terror and intimidation. Plus, small bands of terrorists don't need an extended supply chain, as real military units do. They likely bring most of what they need from where they come from, Syria or Iran, after that they need very little, food and water.
Same reason, terror and intimidation. Plus, small bands of terrorists don't need an extended supply chain, as real military units do. They likely bring most of what they need from where they come from, Syria or Iran, after that they need very little, food and water.
If the American people are opposed to drug gangs, why is it that the drug gangs are able to operate in America?
I think that analogy has a fatal flaw. Drug gangs are not suddenly eliminated by a military unit if an anonymous call is made that gives their location.
A terrorist cell must stand out in the neighborhood they are "hiding" in, and one anonymous call will end their existence violently and permanently.
If the Iraqi people are opposed to the terrorists, why is it that the terrorists are able to operate in Iraq?
Good an easy question to answer.
The press, for the most part, does not report the "terrorist body count". What they do report is every U.S. and civilian casualty. They go light on the rebuilt schools and hospitals and report on every pipeline that goes bang. Find a credible terrorist body count and then come back and tell me that the Iraqi people aren't reporting these guys. I understand that The Iraqis are not particularly thrilled when foreign terrorist blow up their kids and friends. Do you really think that these guys aren't being turned in? Remember that only one-third of Iraq suffers under this "insurgency". Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes. Who do you want out of the country? Do you want the folks that are giving you billions of dollars and take some care in who they kill, or do you favor the folks that randomly kill Iraqi civilians? Anyway, the Islamic fundamentalist cross into Iraq and they are being killed. Secondly, that is one less terrorist that we need to worry about.
The insurgents are targeting soldiers, but they end up killing many civilians due to the nature of improvised explosives. Technically, I'm fairly sure that doesn't make them terrorists. They're only killers in the same way that any soldiers in wartime are killers. Calling them scum is fair, though, if you strongly disagree with what they believe in. "Enemy" is more vague than "insurgent."
Mike Irwin
Staff
I use the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language...
"The action or an instance of rebellion; an insurrection."
"The action or an instance of rebellion; an insurrection."
Good an easy question to answer.
Find a credible terrorist body count and then come back and tell me that the Iraqi people aren't reporting these guys.
Not precisely an answer, but then again my question was somewhat vague as well.
Since there aren't any reliable terrorist body counts, does that nullify my question? Or did you try to set it up so that it would appear that I couldn't support my question because there is insufficient data?
Or could it simply be that terrorists are operating with some impunity within Iraq; and the Iraqi's, for whatever reason(s), are not doing much to hinder them?
Wayne and Rebar.....
The poll was conducted by Oxford Research International not the BBC.....
Oxford Research has a list of clients that include Braun AG, Coca Cola, Colgate Palmolive, ect.....
I think they know what they are doing when it comes to polling.
Rebar, Thats what the text says but if you click on the java script window on the web page you get the poll results......
The poll was conducted by Oxford Research International not the BBC.....
Oxford Research has a list of clients that include Braun AG, Coca Cola, Colgate Palmolive, ect.....
I think they know what they are doing when it comes to polling.
Rebar, Thats what the text says but if you click on the java script window on the web page you get the poll results......
Either way, it still does not support the idea that the "vast majority" of Iraqis want the coalition out now.Rebar, Thats what the text says but if you click on the java script window on the web page you get the poll results......
Lets turn the question on it's head: if it were true that the vast majority of Iraqis support the terrorists, I would say that the coalition would have been driven out of Iraq by now. There would be no way to hold the country, period.
Add to that the poll I posted, and every veteran who has actually been there stating that just about every Iraq wants the coalition to stay and finish the job. This MSM/DNC talking point myth has been busted.
I would submit that the coalition does not own the country.....
there are stable areas in the country , but the irregulars bomb and attack pretty nuch at will killing coalitions soldiers and Iraqis. This could not be done without some support from the locals.
I guess we agree to disagree....
I just know that the current administration had no understanding of the Iraqis which is shown about Cheney's remarks about the red carpet being rolled out for the Coalition and the failure to secure the country after the Iraqi Army was defeated.
Democracy in Iraq must be won by Iraqis....
there are stable areas in the country , but the irregulars bomb and attack pretty nuch at will killing coalitions soldiers and Iraqis. This could not be done without some support from the locals.
I guess we agree to disagree....
I just know that the current administration had no understanding of the Iraqis which is shown about Cheney's remarks about the red carpet being rolled out for the Coalition and the failure to secure the country after the Iraqi Army was defeated.
Democracy in Iraq must be won by Iraqis....
OStateFlyer
Inactive
I've lurked but haven't posted much here. But this one reminded me of something I read a few days ago by Michael Yon. I highly recommed his blog at http://michaelyon.blogspot.com if you haven't read it. This is an excerpt from one of his dispatches.
"The enemy’s operating practices for overcoming delivery and timing problems speaks volumes about their predatory nature. They use human bomb delivery devices—the miss-labeled "suicide bombers"—who become organic elements of primitive weapon systems. They call these temp workers "martyrs," in a shameless exploitation of the naïveté and narcissism of certain young men. These so called “martyrs” are not unlike men volunteering to steer torpedoes into the hulls of ships. The "martyrs" allow themselves to be used as targeting and acquisition systems. More than just "allowing" they actually see the act of mass murder as the fulfillment of a glorious plan.
Let's start with the BIG words: suicide-bombers and martyrs. Suicide is a term that should evoke empathy, if not sympathy, for a lonely and despairing act. A distressed soul, harboring a crushing, agonizing lebensmude, weary of the strain of a terrestrial existence, perhaps seeking mere relief, or just an end to psychic pain, may be contemplating suicide. If this person straps a bomb to his or her chest and walks out into the solitude of the desert and detonates, they would then be properly called a "suicide bomber." But when the media reports every day on "suicide bombers," they are talking about different people.
A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders. Calling these human bomb delivery devices "suicide bombers" is simply incorrect. They are murderers. A person or media source defending or explaining away the actions of the murderers supports them. There is no wiggle room.
Calling homicide bombers martyrs is a language offense; words are every bit as powerful as bombs, often more so. Calling murderers “martyrs” is like calling a man "customer" because he stood in line before gunning down a store clerk. There's no need to whisper. I hear the bombs every single day. Not some days, but every day. We're talking about criminals who actually volunteer and plan to deliberately murder and maim innocent people. What reservoir of feelings or sensibilities do we fear to assault by simply calling it so? When murderers describe themselves as "martyrs" it should sound to sensible ears like a rapist saying, “It’s God’s will.”
The word martyr is derived from the word "to witness." It is used to describe a person who is killed because of a belief or principle. Given the choice to recant, martyrs chose instead to face their murderers and stand in witness to their beliefs. True martyrs do not kill themselves, but stand their ground and fight in the face of death to demonstrate the power of their convictions, sometimes dieing as a result, but preferably surviving.
The only martyrs I know about in Iraq are the fathers and brothers who see a better future coming, and so they act on their beliefs and assemble outside police stations whenever recruitment notices are posted. They line up in ever increasing numbers, knowing that insurgents can also read these notices. The men stand in longer and longer lines, making ever bigger targets. Some volunteer to earn money to earn a living. This, too, is honorable. Others take risks because they believe that a better future is possible only if Iraqi men of principle stand up for their own values, for their country, for their families. Theses are the true martyrs, the true heroes of Iraq and of Islam. I meet these martyrs frequently. They are brave men, worthy of respect."
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_michaelyon_archive.html
"The enemy’s operating practices for overcoming delivery and timing problems speaks volumes about their predatory nature. They use human bomb delivery devices—the miss-labeled "suicide bombers"—who become organic elements of primitive weapon systems. They call these temp workers "martyrs," in a shameless exploitation of the naïveté and narcissism of certain young men. These so called “martyrs” are not unlike men volunteering to steer torpedoes into the hulls of ships. The "martyrs" allow themselves to be used as targeting and acquisition systems. More than just "allowing" they actually see the act of mass murder as the fulfillment of a glorious plan.
Let's start with the BIG words: suicide-bombers and martyrs. Suicide is a term that should evoke empathy, if not sympathy, for a lonely and despairing act. A distressed soul, harboring a crushing, agonizing lebensmude, weary of the strain of a terrestrial existence, perhaps seeking mere relief, or just an end to psychic pain, may be contemplating suicide. If this person straps a bomb to his or her chest and walks out into the solitude of the desert and detonates, they would then be properly called a "suicide bomber." But when the media reports every day on "suicide bombers," they are talking about different people.
A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders. Calling these human bomb delivery devices "suicide bombers" is simply incorrect. They are murderers. A person or media source defending or explaining away the actions of the murderers supports them. There is no wiggle room.
Calling homicide bombers martyrs is a language offense; words are every bit as powerful as bombs, often more so. Calling murderers “martyrs” is like calling a man "customer" because he stood in line before gunning down a store clerk. There's no need to whisper. I hear the bombs every single day. Not some days, but every day. We're talking about criminals who actually volunteer and plan to deliberately murder and maim innocent people. What reservoir of feelings or sensibilities do we fear to assault by simply calling it so? When murderers describe themselves as "martyrs" it should sound to sensible ears like a rapist saying, “It’s God’s will.”
The word martyr is derived from the word "to witness." It is used to describe a person who is killed because of a belief or principle. Given the choice to recant, martyrs chose instead to face their murderers and stand in witness to their beliefs. True martyrs do not kill themselves, but stand their ground and fight in the face of death to demonstrate the power of their convictions, sometimes dieing as a result, but preferably surviving.
The only martyrs I know about in Iraq are the fathers and brothers who see a better future coming, and so they act on their beliefs and assemble outside police stations whenever recruitment notices are posted. They line up in ever increasing numbers, knowing that insurgents can also read these notices. The men stand in longer and longer lines, making ever bigger targets. Some volunteer to earn money to earn a living. This, too, is honorable. Others take risks because they believe that a better future is possible only if Iraqi men of principle stand up for their own values, for their country, for their families. Theses are the true martyrs, the true heroes of Iraq and of Islam. I meet these martyrs frequently. They are brave men, worthy of respect."
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_michaelyon_archive.html
Let's start with the BIG words: suicide-bombers and martyrs. Suicide is a term that should evoke empathy, if not sympathy, for a lonely and despairing act. A distressed soul, harboring a crushing, agonizing lebensmude, weary of the strain of a terrestrial existence, perhaps seeking mere relief, or just an end to psychic pain, may be contemplating suicide. If this person straps a bomb to his or her chest and walks out into the solitude of the desert and detonates, they would then be properly called a "suicide bomber." But when the media reports every day on "suicide bombers," they are talking about different people.
A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders. Calling these human bomb delivery devices "suicide bombers" is simply incorrect. They are murderers. A person or media source defending or explaining away the actions of the murderers supports them. There is no wiggle room.
God, not this crap again. All (or almost all) bombers do so with the intent to kill, which is why "homicide bomber" is a redundant and stupid term. Regardless of what emotions the author thinks suicide should evoke in others, the fact that the suicide bombers are committing suicide is absolute. Furthermore, it is the definitive aspect of their bombing. They could be putting bombs in mailboxes or cars or garbage cans, but instead they strap bombs to themselves. Thus, it is a useful descriptor.
If you read in the news, "Two people were killed by a mass murderer today," you would wonder about the circumstances. If you read, "Two people were killed by a suicide bomber today," you would know exactly what happened.
So, while it sounds very righteous and thought-provoking to protest the term "suicide bomber," it's actually dumb. End of story.