Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

So, why are the Iraqis who fight the invading army insurgents and not freedom fighters? The home country of these people was invaded, and they are fighting the invading force, when someone else does this, they are a freedom fighter, but in Iraq they are insurgents, terrorists, evil characters of chaos.

I know we are there to bring "freedom" after WMDs, 9/11 threat/connection, mass murders, all those fell through as lies and cover in a war for oil, but still, why are they terrorists/insurgents? If say, Canada invaded us and we fought back are we terrorists? Are we insurgents? Or are we defending our country from an invading army? I know, they are Arab, we white, we are better then them. That is racist bs, but that seems to be the main reason they are evil terrorists/insurgents, not freedom fighters or defending army.

So, again, if a country invaded us and we defend, are we insurgents/terrorists, or are we defending our country? If we are defending, not terrorists/insurgents, then why are the Iraqi people who fight the invading army terrorists/insurgents? Because they are Islamic and we are christian?(well, not all christian..) Because we are a first world country and they are not? Because we have power and they don't? Don't say because the pop. in Iraq support us, they don't, they want us gone. They want to stop having planes drop bombs on houses and schools and hospitals, they want to stop being afraid of being shot if their watch gleams in the sunlight. They don't want to be taken to Abu Gharib(sp?) and tortured for not bowing down before Bush.

Know how many "terrorist" attacks happened in Iraq before the war? None, there were none. But then we invade them for oil, and look at that, people start fighting back, and they are terrorists.

I think you should know the answer to this question.

The insurgents are fighting against the Iraqi police, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi people, and the newly elected Iraqi government.

If they wanted power maybe they should've ran in the election. Or maybe, atleast, voted.

I'm reminded of a George Carlin quote - "If crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?"

Call them want you want, they have no honor.

I wonder Lesser, about that, but I though that US is the one that defined how was who.

Occurs it depends the situation and when is better to call them insurgent over freedom fighters.

In Iraq it can not be freedom fighters because US liberated them Right?

Now if somebody invade us we will call ourselves freedom fighters. But now wait a moment if we were invaded for liberation we will be Insurgents?

I am getting confused now.

We are bringing them freedom. We brought them a democratic election. If these savages are really "freedom fighters" then why are they fighting the very people trying to make them free? Why are they fighting their own civilians and their own police and their own army?

I'm sorry but the term freedom fighter does not apply to these terrorists and insurgents. They are there not for the sake of freedom but for the sake of terror and bloodshed. They are fighting to undermine a responsible, democratic government that will refuse to harbor terrorists and will bring a peace and stability to the middle east that will, and has already begun to, spread like wildfire!

Originally posted by quango
Call them want you want, they have no honor.

And I'm not saying the US is better or worse. The US, after all, was founded by an insurgency.


But these insurgents we're talking about in Iraq deserve no respect. They drive cars into crowds and blow them up.

They're fighting for freedom? For Iraq? For the Iraqi people?

Then where were they while Saddam was in power?


edit-spelling.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by quango]

Saddam wasn't the great satan, he was one of them, he didn't invade them and start blowing up hospitals or schools on "accident" with planes that are suppose to be able to hit a dime from 5 miles away.

Also, we didn't invade to bring them freedom until about a month before the US elections, until then it was Saddam has Nukes, Saddam has Nukes, Saddam supported 9/11, Saddam has Nukes. Also, we are forcing democracy on them. We didn't say hey, want us to help bring democracy? No, we went, we slaughtered over 40,000 over all, and then we told them vote or we will kill you. The people don't want us there, they want us gone, they are tired of being shot for not bowing down to Bush, for not converting to Bushism/christianity, for accidently wearing something shiney.

Still like that, first Saddam has nukes, and helped in 9/11. 9/11 report comes out, no Saddam involved. Saddam has Nukes. Nope. Uh, Saddam has nukes we just haven't found them. Nope. Uh, freedom! We came to bring democracy! Vote or die! And not the way Snoop meant.....

You certainly are saying the U.S. is the same, without distinguishing the freedoms you enjoy here with the government by gangsterism the U.S. always finds itself opposed to.

We imposed democracy on Japan and Germany; it worked.

It's pretty simple. Might equals right!

If these savages are really "freedom fighters"

Savages? Are we spreading democracy or christianity? It's starting to turn into a very blurred line which only benefits Bush and his followers.

Once we've destroyed Iraq enough we'll be able to send in the "Food for Christ" Missionaries and our plan will be complete.

Hahaha, so, when we invade canada for oil we will be fighting terrorists and insurgents? So when we go to "liberate" them from their PM we will be the great army of democracy and they will be insurgents? Or when we invade Iran, Syria, Jordan, and any other country that has oil we will be the army of freedom while the people in the countries we are killing will be insurgents/terrorists?

Also, Germany had democracy before we got there, that is how Hitler gained power, he was voted in by the people. Like Bush......

hehehe James I was getting worried there when you said "voted in". Thankfully you said Like Bush. Now if only Bush had some sort of Reichstag to bring in new laws and take away freedoms.

Oh and lets not forget a racial stereotype to unite hatred.

Hmmmmm, anyone else worried?

Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

Why not throw in 'guerrillas' also?

In the technical sense of the term and definition, they are essentially both the same depending on the source used to gain the definition.

Basically, as i see it, a:
terrorist is someone who employs terror as a political weapon.
an:
insurgent is someone who takes part in an armed rebellion against authority.

The difference comes into play once terrorism is defined.
As defined and implied, terrorism is a means and freedom is a goal. If defined and implied correctly, then the analogy of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," would be false. It would be false because it is the methods used that are thought of as terrorism (ie: terrorist), not the goals (ie: freedom fighter).

Some here may state that if terrorist methods used are a means to freedom, then they are legitimate. Well, they are not, and if using such methods achieves freedom, they are in no way legitimate.

In the applied case of Iraq, the freedom fighter (ie: insurgents, guerrillas) are deemed, claimed, and asserted to be 'resisting' occupation or whatever else they are doing, and yet, they are doing so by targeting innocent civilians, police officers, recruits, and anyone else that they essentially can. In fighting a "war," freedom fighter (ie: insurgents, guerrillas) should be fighting the army that is doing the occupying. By targeting and killing innocent civilians, they are engaging in acts of terror, as is the goal of terrorism. If your not buying this or simply wishing to debate it, then keep in mind that during the Revolutionary War, those men who also claimed to be freedom fighters, and were likewise labeled terrorists and insurgents by the British, targeted only the British Army, not innocent civilians.

Other than what I have mentioned above, the label freedom fighter and insurgent are simply terms used in media political correctness and personal political correctness word play/games.
This (linked below) may or may not give illustration and clarity to what I mention?
On the Difference Between Murderers and Freedom Fighters





seekerof

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Guerrillas? Seekerof I though guerrillas was only what we call them in the Spanish countries. And they are the equivalent of Freedom fighters.

The term 'guerilla' has been utilized in various regions, Marg.
Vietnam comes to mind here real quick.
As to them being freedom fighters, as I already mentioned, they are all essentially the same in definition, it is the methods used and their goals that separate them. Hence me saying:

Why not throw in 'guerrillas' also?

seekerof

Just to clear the air on this, we should not be forcing democracy on other people. That's because WE don't have a democracy here in the US. We are a democratic REPUBLIC.

Anyway, this whole insurgent/freedom fighter terminology is designed to polarize us against the Iraqis who oppose the coalition. Hmmm, is there another case where this type of semantics is used? Israeli soldiers vs. Palestinian militants, hmm...

Funny how we are the good guys when we're doing all the bad stuff over there. I've seen stories where the Iraqis wish SADDAM was still in control! Then again, with air raids taking out your friends and family, soldiers raping you in front of your kids, beating your kids in front of you, general torture, etc., I don't think you can blame em.

What happened to the WMD?? Wait, Rumsfeld said that it's a conspiracy theory that the war was about WMD. Oh, ok. And as for the "savages" who are ungrateful about the "election," chew on this. If we didn't even have a straight up, honest election, why in the HELL would they have one over there?

I've seen reports where many Iraqis (Sunnis mostly) weren't even allowed to vote. Sound familiar? OH, and why were there secret ballots over there? The people didn't know who was running against the interim candidates until the day of the election. Sounds like freedom to me.

But, we can't laugh at all. We have NEW freedom here. Forced psychological testing of people, kids mostly, constant surveillance, those twisted Patriot Acts, you name it. I love new freedom, and you should too.

Does it not spread terror to threaten your own people with bombings and murders for the simple act of voting in an election? How is that fighting for the freedom of the people?

Should we consider a white rebellion, that would want to bring back apartheid in South Africa, freedom fighters?

Minority Sunni are fighting to keep control of the Shia & Kurds.

Listen to the Anti-Bush crowd justify oppressing the majority.

truthseeka- Where do you get this stuff? Got links?

Again, we "forced" democracy on Germany and Japan, seems to have worked.

"Any people would prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power." Mahatma Gandhi

"We have no quarrel with the policies of a foreign power so long as they do not attempt to export them." Thomas Jefferson

A joint U.S.-Iraqi survery has determined that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by our armed forces since the invasion of Iraq. And let's not forget the "torture chambers and rape rooms"...the ones at Abu Ghraib prison...first they were Saddam's, and then "W" hung out his sign "New Management, but same great service".

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator...so despicably brutal that in 1998 (7 years after the Gulf War, after the gassing of the Kurds, the bloody suppression of the marsh Shiites in southern Iraq, etc.) while CEO of Halliburton Corp. Dick Cheney was doing tens-of-millions of dollars worth of business with the butcher-of-Baghdad...at the same exact time that Hussein's Republican Guards were trying, on a daily basis, to shoot down our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. I guess in Dick's eyes, a butcher ain't so bad, so long as there's a buck to be made.

German General Alfred Jodl, at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, was convicted and hanged for the sole charge of "Planning and Waging Aggressive War". By the way, aggressive war is a war waged when the other nation has NOT committed any act of aggression against the attacking nation. Yes, our invasion of Iraq is a war of aggression...no different from Germany's trumped up invasion of Poland in 1939. Yes, Gen. Jodl...sorry...our mistake..."aggressive war" ain't such a bad thing after all...guess you weren't such a bad guy after all...well, hope it's not too late for our apology.

Let's support our troops...let's bring them home...NOW. Not another single American soldier should die for the lies of George Bush and his minions.

Please stay on the topic!
The topic of this thread is:
Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter.




seekerof

"Until the lion's have their scribe, the tale of the hunt will always be told by the hunters"

There is no honor standard that Iraqi insurgents need be held to, because the violation of decency was brought upon them continuously & unabated since 1991. This was not an immediate cause & effect to the Dim Son invasion.....over a quarter million bombing sorties occured since the patriarch of the Kennebunkport Mafia started Gulf War I as political cover over failed domestic policy....Dim Son is simply running off of the same script; especially since almost all of the players are the same.
It continued throughout the Clinton years, when the less honorable & equally egregious policy of "feeding the war monkeys & their cash crop(warfare & weapons manufacture)" was adopted to make nice so that domestic deals on other fronts can move forward.
So what you have now , again, is the narrative being dictated by the US. The facts are crystal clear: in Iraq, the US is completely guilty of terrorism against the Iraqi people. We have killed, maimed & mutilated, through terrorist tactics, in order to push our agenda.
British history in Iraq after the Ottoman Empire should be a capper to this discussion as to a reality check; Or, as I'm sure some will attempt, We can disallusion ourselves and paint the pretty picture of US goodwill and benign action in shaping Iraq.