An Insurgency By Any Other Name...

What would you call them then?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29324413.htm
from JoeUser Forums
From Reuters:
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued on Tuesday that the guerrillas fighting U.S.-led foreign forces and the American-backed government in Iraq do not deserve to be called an "insurgency."
Asked at a Pentagon news conference why he did not think the word insurgency applied to enemy forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld said he had "an epiphany."
"I've thought about it. And, over the weekend, I thought to myself, you know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."

If calling them insurgents lends them too much legitimacy, I would call them "the enemy". They're shooting at our people. They're trying to destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians. If that isn't an "enemy", then I don't know what is.
4,689 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I prefer the term "bacteria" myself... Maybe Rumsfeld can pick up on that term... I'd be happy to let hiim use it. ;~D
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like Ted's term too!  But Insurgency implies that you have a native people that does not like the current set up.  Since most of the terrorists are imports, that really does not qualify.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Insurgency implies that you have a native people that does not like the current set up.


From Dictionary.com:
in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt) adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Doesn't say anything about having to be native-born... but "freedom fighters" (the worst one, IMHO) absolutely implies the opposition is local.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Doesn't say anything about having to be native-born...

True, but invaders comes to mind for non-native people.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Inverted PC silliness.

Insurgency works fine. Enemies. Terrorists. Or as my kids call them, "the bad guys."

Same thing.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
to me an Insurgent would be attacking either the Iraqi government and the US troops. When they attack civilians the word "insurgent" seems wrong to me. That's a terrorist. Had they only been attacking infrastructure and troops, then it would make sense.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or as my kids call them, "the bad guys."

Yeah I like "bad guys" too. But that would make them... well, bad!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Could you imagine the uproar from the far left if Rumsfeld got up and called them "Bad Guys". 8~0
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
We can't call people "bad" in this world where morality is neither black nor white... just a shade of grey.

Let's call the insurgents what they are, for crying out loud. Evil.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since most of the terrorists are imports, that really does not qualify.
Such as the French in the American Revolution.

Had they only been attacking infrastructure and troops, then it would make sense.
Think again: they can always claim "collateral damage" as we do.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's call the insurgents what they are, for crying out loud. Evil.


Oh? just black, not white, eh? Where's the gray?

Could you imagine the uproar from the far left if Rumsfeld got up and called them "Bad Guys".
Ramsey, you mean, not even Dean would call them good guys.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"bacteria" is good, "bad guys" relates well, but I prefer "thugs." [and that's from the "far left"]
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh? just black, not white, eh? Where's the gray?


To paraphrase the X-Files, "The Gray Is Out There..."? ::

Define evil for me, Steven. If evil is murdering civilians, blowing up valuable infrastructure, prolonging civil unrest, and setting booby-traps for passing soldiers, then yeah, they're evil. But if in your mind, this is justifiable, then I feel sorry for your sense of morality.

Apparently we've gotta define "BAD", "EVIL", and "WRONG" in order to work from a common foundation now?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Such as the French in the American Revolution

All 2 of them?

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Think again: they can always claim "collateral damage" as we do.


I could be wrong but wouldn't collateral damage mean those who died that weren't the targets? Innocent bystanders? They can not claim collateral damage if they are actually trying to kill them on purpose. Civilians I mean. When you attack a police station with a lot of people in line to sign up they are still civilians and it wasn't just a coincidence that they just happen to be there when the attack was done. JMO.