Seems to me that the Americans and the Brits are the insurgents
2006-08-27 05:42:06 · 11 answers · asked by rumpled 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They are not insurgents. Looking at the dictionary definition of the word:
"a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel."
The US does not have lawful authority -- they are illegal invaders, since the war was illegal from the start. Since they are forcibly resisting an unlawful troop presence, they cannot be deemed insurgents. They are simply resisting occupation by a foreign country, which is perfectly OK.
2006-08-27 05:52:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the terrorist combatants are entering the country from other countries such as Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. People who would fight against (or for) a government of a country they are from would not be insurgents. The US and GB are sacrificing a great deal to bring democracy to a country that has been, for too long, under the thumb of a relentless, genocidal dictator. The only thing that Islamofascists understand is force and, brother, they're seeing plenty of it. Here's hoping for their decimation.
2006-08-27 05:52:50 · answer #2 · answered by canela 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, revolt, or insurrection against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land.
2006-08-27 06:02:02 · answer #3 · answered by Buzzy360comeCme 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, if you look at the definition of the word it would make sense. The U.S. and Britain set up a government, the enemy are insurgents because they are trying to subvert the establishment.
2006-08-27 05:45:16 · answer #4 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the rustic has consistently been commonly used to its very own persons as Iran; although, to the exterior international, the respected call of Iran from the 6th century BC different than 1935 grew to become into as quickly as Persia or an comparable distant places language translations (l. a. Perse, Persien, Perzie, and a number of different others.).In that 12 months, Reza Shah asked the international community to call the rustic by using utilising the % out "Iran". a number of years later, some Persian pupils protested to the federal government that changing the % out had separated the rustic from its past, so in 1949 Mohammad Reza Shah presented that each words might formally be used interchangeably. Now each words are known, yet "Iran" is used maximum in all probability interior the well known-day political context and "Persia" in a cultural and historic context.
2016-11-05 21:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An insurgent is a militant who fights against or resists are legitimiate authority. Legitimate in the legal sense, not in the moral or popular sense.
2006-08-27 05:51:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans were once insurgents too.
Long ago in the new world.
Loyal patriots loved their king.
More beer!
2006-08-27 05:51:54 · answer #7 · answered by Truth Erector 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the Americans are the oppressive invaders, and the Iraqis are freedom fighters.
2006-08-27 05:53:34 · answer #8 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason christians are called infidels.
2006-08-27 05:57:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Enemy is to harsh! And citizenship is not quite established yet !
2006-08-27 05:48:37 · answer #10 · answered by honker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋