to the occupying force I am sure I would be a insurgent, but to my own people I be a resistance fighter and a hero.
2007-03-06 13:07:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The French Maquis were formed as a result of Germany invading France in WW2. The Stern Gang formed during Britain's rule in Palestine. Boadicea was a queen of the Brythonic Celtic Iceni people of Norfolk in Eastern Britain who led a major uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Wherever there have been invasions there have arisen, as a consequence, resistance to the occupation. All of these were, to use a modern idiom, insurgents.
However as Shakespeare wrote|: What's in a name? That which we call a rose , by any other name would smell as sweet
2007-03-07 00:30:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Rainman 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
1. Terrorism is a tactic that makes attacks on defenseless civilians rather than military targets, regardless of the motive.
2. The "insurgents" of Iraq are Saddam's old partisans; freedom is not part of their agenda.
3. Sure, if I were running the country and somebody took me out of power, I suppose I'd resist. But I hope I wouldn't be the kind of leader these Baathists were.
4. What about the millions of Iraqis that voted in their first ever election, in defiance of terrorist death threats? Do they deserve any consideration?
2007-03-06 14:28:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by The First Dragon 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
That does depend.
If the invader took away a burtal dicator.
Allow free elections and was protecting the best they can from the those people who are trying to kill me.
I won't be an insurgent.
I guess you think that 9/11 was a blow for freedom of the oppessed Muslims in the world right.
2007-03-06 13:27:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yeah, totally agree. It's all about perspective.
My opinion of what's normal may be viewed as abnormal by others ...
One man's meat is another man's poison ...one man's just cause is another man's injustice worth fighting and dying for.
The Israelis think they are right, but on the other hand, the Palestinians think they are right too ...
The only thing we can do is to agree to differ, live and let live, then maybe the world would be a much more peaceful place to co-exist in.
2007-03-06 12:58:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
To be honest,as a Canadian, I always considered the"Minutemen" to be somewhat akin to insurgents. Thank G-d for good old Ben Arnold, for seeing the errors of his ways. Came back, and subsequently got to be entombed at Westminster Abbey. Jolly good what? pip-pip & all that crap. I know exactly what you mean and I agree 100%. Sorry about my foolish rant, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2007-03-06 13:55:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Insurgents are people, possibly part of a group, who rebel against a recognized authority such as a government. Insurgents can act singly or be part of an insurgency, which is a group of people with similar goals attempting to destabilize a recognized power. The use of the term insurgent is a loaded one, since it has an implied negative connotation that does not always exist.
For example, Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War for the US were insurgents. However, US textbooks tend not to refer to these individuals as insurgents. Instead they may be called patriots or rebels. However, their act of defying the laws of the British monarchy constitutes insurgency.
Currently the US defines people rebelling against the newly established government of Iraq as insurgents. However, these people do not define themselves as such. According to their own definition, they are freedom fighters attempting to free Iraq of occupation by infidels.
By labeling Iraqi freedom fighters as insurgents, one makes a definite political statement which defines how one feels about US and UK presence in Iraq. Since some of these insurgents have killed American soldiers, they are also enemies of the US directly. An insurgent or freedom fighter might argue that it would be impossible to kill an American soldier who was not present in Iraq. Their goal is to eliminate US presence in their country.
This is not to say that the tactics of Iraqi insurgents are laudable. They are killing their own countrymen, political leaders, and religious leaders as well as Americans and other country’s military forces. However, the insurgent Iraqi finds his or her position defensible, because of what he or she feels is an intolerable way of life.
In extreme uses of the label, some governments may classify those who speak out against certain governmental policies as insurgents. However, since being an insurgent usually involves waging violence or warfare of some kind, peaceful protest is difficult to label as insurgency.
2007-03-06 12:48:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by rrrevils 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
No, it would make me a member of the UK Resistance Army. An insurgent is a person who has come in from outside to fight in a war which has nothing really to do with him.
2007-03-06 18:52:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
During the last war we would be known as the resistance, depends who's side you are on.
2007-03-07 00:00:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Plato 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am an insurgent..i do resist differing concepts to my own...
I vote,...i write,.. i speak my mind...
i am also a rationalist,..i consider functionality,..practicality,... consequence,.... and results,....
i am American,...and respect the ideology that America is insurgency in constant motion ...and FUNCTIONING as its constitution is meant to do.
My appoints capitulate to reforms,...to rationality's,...to logic,...to majority consent...
and I am in constant capitulation as well.
2007-03-07 03:40:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by olddogwatchin 5
·
0⤊
1⤋