It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
why are the Iraqis who fight the invading army insurgents
and not freedom fighters?


The Iraqis themselves call the insurgents terrorists. That's
what they are ... murderers and terrorists and insurgents.
Look up the word insurgent. It fits. They are fighting the
government of Iraq and the Iraqi people. THAT is who they
are killing over there.

Look here. Blogs from Iraq. The Iraqis HATE the insurgents.
They love their freedom. They are speaking and expressing
themselves without fear of Saddam and LOVING IT. This is
what the insurgents are fighting against ... that's why the
Iraqis call them insurgents and terrorists.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I reallly haven't heard the insurgents call themselves freedom fighters so why should we?

I'm confused though. How is blowing up civillians, police, army recruits, and others who are doing their best to turn theirs and your country around forcing the "occupiers" to stay even longer.....how is that "freedom fighting"?
That's doing the exact opposite.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I reallly haven't heard the insurgents call themselves freedom fighters so why should we?

I'm confused though. How is blowing up civillians, police, army recruits, and others who are doing their best to turn theirs and your country around forcing the "occupiers" to stay even longer.....how is that "freedom fighting"?
That's doing the exact opposite.


Ditto



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
blowing up civillians, police, army recruits ... forcing the
"occupiers" to stay even longer.


Exactly. The insurgents aren't the brightest bulbs on
the tree, are they? The more they murder iraqis, the longer
it will take for us to leave the country.
Wingnuts.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I reallly haven't heard the insurgents call themselves freedom fighters so why should we?

ThatsJustWeird, the media, such as Reuters, the BBC, New York Times, etc. are 'toying' and playing with the words and using them interchangeably in their news reportings. It seems that "political correctness" has become the norm.



I'm confused though. How is blowing up civillians, police, army recruits, and others who are doing their best to turn theirs and your country around forcing the "occupiers" to stay even longer.....how is that "freedom fighting"?
That's doing the exact opposite.

I explained myself on this in my initial post. Its all word play and political correctness speech/use. They can be identified and categorized by their methods used and goals, again, as posted in my initial post.




seekerof



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
As much as I don't beleave in this war I don't see how anyone could call the insurgents freedom fighters. seems to me they are fighting to keep some form of dictatorship. We came for the wrong reason, we came over on a lie but they are not fighting for they're freedom.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
During WWII in German Occupied France French Resistance Fighters were turned in by citizens that accepted the German Occupation. The French even signed the Franco-German Armistice that forbid French citizens from fighting back. Funny thing they called them Insurgents too.


ARTICLE X.
The French Government is obligated to forbid any portion of its remaining armed forces to undertake hostilities against Germany in any manner.

French Government also will prevent members of its armed forces from leaving the country and prevent armaments of any sort, including ships, planes, etc., being taken to England or any other place abroad.

The French Government will forbid French citizens to fight against Germany in the service of States with which the German Reich is still at war. French citizens who violate this provision are to be treated by German troops as insurgents.


In fighting againt the Occupying German Force, the French Resistance blew up trains that had French citizens on them, killed French German sympathisers, and did what would be considered terrorist actions.

Because the War was won by the Allied Troops they have gone down in history as French Resistance. If the Axis had won we would today call them French Insurgents.

In the end, whoever wins will decide what they will be known as in history.

Phae



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Not only do the Victors get the spoils, they get to write the history books....... So, they target anything they can. How do you think the American Troops die? Shot themselves in the foot? No, last I checked they were killed by the "insurgents". So they are attacking the invading army.

I like that lion hunt saying, and it is true. So, whats the news from Iraq? Are they saying "Please America, stay here and kill more of our people." How many beheadings of US/European citizens before this war? None. How many troops killed before this war?(Not including GW) None. How many citizens killed by US airforce dropping bombs on them, troops being jumpy and shooting someone when the glasses they are wearing shine in the light before the war? None. Now? I heard 40,000, but that was awhile ago, probably is 100,000 by now. Also, if we have the tech to hit a dime from 5 miles away, why do we blow up schools and hospitals and houses that we weren't aiming at?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I'm just not getting the point Lesser....

Are you trying to convince us these people are freedom fighters? Well, that's not going to happen. The sooner you realize these morons aren't fighting for freedom, the sooner you'll realize how (funny) your posts are.

It's hillarious how you completely ignore the thousands of their own people these insurgents have purposely killed but focus on nontargeted civillians that have died as a result of coalition actions.



why do we blow up schools and hospitals and houses that we weren't aiming at?

Got any links?
I'm sure some were probably damaged during our initial campaign, but I honestly can't recall any being blown up, especially since then. You got anything?
Last thing that has happened at a hospital was this:
Suicide bomber kills 19 outside Iraqi hospital

Hmm...not the U.S.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
You simply have no idea what "Fighting for your Freedom" would entail do you? Just how far are you willing to go to fight for your own freedom?

Lets put this into perspective for you then:

The US is invaded, by an Equal or greater military force (Lets just say for arguments sake Hypothetically one exists).

You are a Civilian, who is against the occupying army.

Joe Nobody owns a store that sells goods to anyone, citizen or occupying military personell without discrimination. He's in business to make money at all costs.

John Doe Hospital treats the wounded of the occupying military force.

You consider Joe Nobody and John Doe Hospital doctors traitors for helping the enemy.

You find in your possession enough explosives to destroy his store and a portion of the hospital.

You monitor the local occupying military force and learn the time of when a large group goes shopping.

You decide to blow up the store and the hospital at the same time killing as many occupying soldiers as possible, to make a statement. You plant the bombs and set them on a timer.

The time you select the military force shows up at the store but so does a buss full of school children. Also a local church has decided to visit the hospital to pray for the dieing.

The bomb at the store goes off killing half the soldiers and all the children.

The bomb at the hospital goes off killing none of the military as thier ward was on the far side of the building, but the maternity/baby ward was directly above your bomb and none survive.

Are you a Terrorist/Insurgent or a Freedom Fighter?

Phae



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phaethor

Are you a Terrorist/Insurgent or a Freedom Fighter?

Phae



What if I come from a neighboring country because I just want to kill infidels?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The point of my earlier posting was simply this...any indigenous people fighting a foreign invader of their homeland IS a freedom fighter. A freedom fighter is one who fights to "free" his homeland from the boot of the foreign invader who has killed his brother, raped his sister, and assaulted his grandmother. An "invader" can NOT make a legitimate claim of "liberation" when the invader has killed, indiscriminantly, some 100,000 of the people (men, women, children, grandmothers, and grandfathers) whom they claim to be "liberating". If China invaded America under the guise of "liberation", and Chinese troops broke into your home at 2 A.M. and carried off your 15 year old sister, your 70 year old grandmother, and your brother...all because you had served in the Alabama National Guard, and the Chinese were convinced that your were an "insurgent/terrorist". Holding your family members as "bargaining chips", so that you would turn yourself in; all the while gang-raping your 15 year old sister; stripping your 70 year old grandmother naked, and making her crawl around the cell block on all fours while a Chinese soldier rode her back calling her a "donkey"; and beat your brother to death (later returning his bruised and battered body to the family along with a death certificate which lists his cause of death as "Cardiogenic Shock of Unknown Etiology"). Well, would you take up arms against the Chinese "liberators" and try to kill as many Chinese as you could? Yeah...so would I. And you would be a freedom fighter. The situation I just described to you is a recounting of actual occurences committed by U.S. forces in Iraq...each factually documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as the British Government's Human Rights envoy in Iraq.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
But if China won, then we would still be terrorists in the history books. In China the news would be how the evil insurgents are killing the freedom force of troops.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Phaethor,
Interesting scenerio that you have posted.
Reminds me of some very early ATSNN pieces that I wrote. You, as with others, may be interested in reading/viewing them on this matter that is being discussed? Multitudes of links to be had, again, if one is truly and earnestly seeking to understand the difference(s).

TA-ANALYSIS: Terrorism: Can You Decide? (Part 1 of 4)
TA-ANALYSIS: Terrorism: Brief Historical Perspective. (Part 2 of4)
TA-ANALYSIS: Terrorism: Western Perspective (Part 3 of 4)

And some links of further interest:
TERRORISTS AND FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?

The reason why I am posting this material, among others that could be posted, as well, is because I think this topic thread that James the Lesser has started is genuinely a terrific topic thread and worthy of considered and an objective research and commentary.

For us all:

Let us not turn this into a ideological slugfest or another rhetoric ridden topic thread. We can all learn from this. This is a fascinating exploration into what is and what is not. What truly separates an insurgent from a Freedom fighter or are the separable? What separates a terrorist from an insurgent or freedom fighter or guerilla? This is and can be a serious discussion and fruitful at that.


Shall we? I am game. Are we all?






seekerof

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I am, why I started this. For as I see it, they are only terrorists/insurgents because we are fighting them. If they were allies/freinds and a enemy of ours invaded and they did the same thing, they would be freedom fighters on the news, they would be fighting the evil invaders, so forth. Thats how I see it. It is semantics on what we call them or anyone, how the media and politics portray them. If CNN, Fox, MSNBC, whoever, cam on tv and said "The freedom fighters have attacked another American base." then they would be freedom fighters, but since they call them terrorists/insurgents, that is how we portray them, see them.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Yes, James, but my point is simply that ANY people fighting on their native soil against a foreign invader is fighting to free their homeland from the foreign invader, and is, therefore, a "freedom fighter". This is an objective designation...applicable to all conflicts and geography. If an Iraqi man detonates a car bomb near a "Coalition" convoy, and the detonation also kills 10 innocent civilians nearby, our government declares this to be an act of "terrorism". Yet, when we drop a 2,000 pound laser guided bomb on a "terrorist safehouse" in the middle of a residential neighborhood...destroying not only the "terrorist safehouse", but 8 neighboring houses along with the innocent families inside, our government declares this act to be "collateral damage". Viewed objectively and factually, "terrorism" is an act which indiscriminantly results in the deaths of innocent civilians. There is no doubt that the devastating destruction which our government wrought upon the ENTIRE city of Fallujah was an act of terror designed to terrorize the civilian populace into submission, and discourage any further attacks on armed mercenaries (sorry but that's the appropriate definition under the Laws of Land Warfare for armed combatants who are not uniformed members of a nation's armed forces...which is exactly what those "civilian contractors" from Blackwater Corp. were). And what of the "terror" tactics employed by our government against Iraqi civilians held captive (in criminal violation of the Geneva Accords) by our forces in Iraq? Rape, sodomy, electric shock, murder ("We're talking about rape and murder, people", Sen. Shelby Graham (R) SC). Aren't these acts designed to "terrorize" the civilian populace into submission and discourage support for the resisitance? If one commits acts which are intended to instill terror, then aren't those forces, in fact, "terrorists"? Rape, torture, child rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder. Sounds like terrorism to me...only problem is WE are committing these horrible acts...and not by accident, but as a matter of policy (let's not forget the "Top Secret" leaked Justice Dept. "Torture Memo", authored in part by now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales which stated that the use of "cruel, inhuman and sexually degrading" treatment of Iraqis held captive could be authorized by President Bush. I repeat, anyone fighting on their native soil to resist "by any means necessary" a foreign force which has occupied one's country following an "aggressive invasion", is in fact fighting to "free" their homeland of the oppressive boot of the foreign invader, and is, therefore, a "freedom fighter".



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
So they are attacking the invading army.


How can Iraqi children and police recruits be defined as an invading army?


30 September 2004 (terrorism)--In the al-Amel neighborhood of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded near a public ceremony marking the opening of a new water treatment plant. A smaller bomb on the ground exploded at nearly the same time. The explosions occurred in crowds attending the ceremony, including children gathered to receive candy from U.S. soldiers. Those killed included 35 children and 7 adults; 141 were injured, including 69 children, 10 U.S. soldiers in a nearby convoy, and 62 other adults.



Residents sit by the vehicle of the suicide bomber, now sliced in half by the explosion that blasted a crowd of police and national guard recruits outside a clinic in Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
wwrfla said it best. If the Iraqi blows up a car killing soilders and a couple civillians they are terrorists, we na[alm a city to kill 3 "terrorists" and end up killing a few thousand Iraqis, it is collateral damage, no harm, no foul. It is a double standard.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Iraqi civilians were the sole target at the recruiting station. How does that make them collateral damage?

In the other incident, if the terrrorists waited until the convoy moved away, then attacked it, I could see your point. But no, they detonated the explosives in the crowd. 35 iraqi children were killed, and only 10 U.S. soldiers were even wounded.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think............

Who actually cares what 00ps thinks.............................silence

That's what I thought.

Freedom Fighters are probably few in Iraq.

Thugs are probably a lot in Iraq. I wouldn't even call them insurgents. That's too great a name for them. These people are just criminals working for crime bosses to get a hold of power in the vaccum.

Freedom Fighters are people who stand up for what they believe in and fight no matter the cost. At the same time they are fighting they are educating the masses on what they are fighting for and how they are going to achieve it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join