I just had to swipe this off my honey's myspace page!
"What Webster says:
Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to authority.
Terrorist: a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence.
Rebel: a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
All three look pretty similar, almost interchangeable. So why are the Iraqis who are "resisting" the American occupation of their country called insurgents or terrorists and not rebels? Has anybody heard anything about the Iraqi Rebellion?
Now let's go one step further:
Webster says:
Revolutionist: a radical supporter of political or social change.
Sounds like a dead-on description of an Islamic Terrorist/Insurgent, but why are they not referred to as Revolutionist? Why is this not the Iraqi Revolution?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Because "God Is On Our Side." That's "better" than "Allah is on our side."
Yet, both are self appointed keepers of the Holy Grail.
I would also like to hear the term Iraqi Resistance just ONE frigging time. Because that is what lot of it is. Resisting the occupiers.
Yeah, but we wouldn't want to use any language that would allow sympathy for them. That would make it much more difficult to accept the fact that we're blowing them up and taking over their country to get their oil.
*scowl*
I am so glad that at least the president's approval rating is through the floor. Unfortunately, the Iraqis seem to be smarter than us because we haven't rioted, yet.
In any other country, the dictator would be overthrown by an angry mob. Instead, we're arguing over whether Miss America should lose her crown or whether so-and-so or so-and-so is going to win on American Idol.
We suck.
Hello ma'am! Thought I would drop in fora few minutes. Hope all is well.
You guys know the answer to this, at least if you applied some objective reasoning. It isn't a revolution because they aren't resisting us, per se. There are two groups who want control of the government and its philosophy. There is no revolution, because there is no stable government to revolt against. They are fighting an ideology.
I hardly think there are valid comparisons between the "resistance" to Nazi Germany and the current situation. Notice I said valid - I am sure that you equate it morally.
You wage war with the words you want not the words you should have used.
Or something like that. :)
EXACTLY!
Perhaps the biggest part of war is the language used to sell it and the methods used to justify it.
If all that is true, then perhaps we will never beat the terrorists, because we will never go back to the way things were.
We will forever have to take our shoes off at the airport, go through multitudes of checkpoints and present 3 forms of ID.
The terrorists have gotten to us, and, I'm afraid to say it, but we may never "win".
"Terrorist: a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence."
Hmmmm...sounds like a certain arrogant commander-in-chief I know...
Post a Comment