Look at this, and see what you think:
http://apifar.blogspot.com
Have you considered that before this?
2007-10-09 01:23:46 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To "grips" -- There are a LOT of honest websites out there. And I keep mine *meticulously* so.
2007-10-09 01:34:26 · update #1
[[[[ NOTE: A few of your comments caused me to realize that an important point that should have been included in the above-linked article, wasn't. If you return to the article, the **middle** paragraph corrects that oversight. The rest of the article remains the same as originally presented. Thanks!! ]]]]
2007-10-09 02:50:43 · update #2
This war is the same as NAM - nobody is winning.
Nobody has respect for GW Bush - or any Bush now
The troops should have been out 1 year after 9/11
It's a oil war again - not 9/11 war on terror
2007-10-09 01:39:18 · answer #1 · answered by cgriffin1972 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
The exact terminology always depends on your point of view, of course. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter," and one person's "insurgency" is another person's "resistance."
I will respectfully disagree with you that either term is any more "honest" than the other...it all depends on which side you are. Also, the French "resistance" during WWII were native Frenchmen defending their own land...whereas in Iraq, just about all of the "insurgency" are Islamic fundamentalists who have slipped into the country to fight. (Because we did not secure the borders with Syria and Iran...one of Rumsfeld's many screwups.) Also, the French resistance did not launch terrorist attacks against French civilians...unlike the Iraqi insurgents.
The biggest difference, to me, is that right now in Iraq...regardless of whether we ever should have invaded or not (I personally think we should NOT have)...the U.S. is fighting to instill democracy and a form of government in which everyone...including women, who are otherwise nothing but property under Islamic law...is treated with equal respect. I don't think we can succeed, because their society (especially the Shiite/Sunni division) is too fractured for that ever to happen.
But the motives, I think, are more decent than that of Al Qaeda (most of whom are NOT native Iraqis, but who...themselves...are "invaders"), who wish to see Iraq under the same brutal, ruthless Islamic law that governs Iran. (In which women are little more than some man's property, and there is absolutely NO religious freedom.)
And the U.S. is at least TRYING to limit damage to actual insurgents...whereas your "resistance" is planting a lot of explosive devices of the "to whom it may concern" variety...in some cases, even TARGETING civilians.
To me, there is a big difference.
2007-10-09 08:54:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
cgriffin... Your Wrong about the vietnam war..
So wrong , because the North Viets won. Because a newly elected democratic majority in the US congress refused to go to the aid of the South viets
But to answer the question the so called insurgents are nothing more than killers of inocent civilans, ie: terrs. Mate
2007-10-09 09:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by In-sane 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Dumb.
You judge the worthiness of a cause by the actions and goals of its members. Committing mass murder of civilians in an attempt to become a dictator is not a noble cause.
Anybody ever notice how liberals seem to just love genocidal dictators?
2007-10-09 09:20:23 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
So we could call them guerrillas as the Spanish called the patriots who resisted French Imperial rule?
2007-10-09 08:45:23 · answer #5 · answered by chrisvoulg1 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iraqs insurgents consist of the old guard and Islamic fanatics...to equate them as patriots is a slap in the face to those Iraqis who are willing to give their lives for a free and unsupressed life.
2007-10-09 08:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by Aymee L 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
French resistant didnt kill french people or at least only those who actually worked with Nazis , Iraqi insurgents or what you call them ( RESISTANCE ) attack all iraqi people ...what resistance is this ?!!!!!!!!
2007-10-09 08:58:29 · answer #7 · answered by Peiper 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Still whining about 2000?
Your "resistance" bombs public markets, churches, and schools. That really doesn't fit in with what a "resistance" does. It does fit in very nicely with the definition of terrorist though.
2007-10-09 08:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
They are terrorists,they attack unarmed civilians far more than they do military.
They murder people for political gain and religious differences.
2007-10-09 08:43:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
You can always find a website to support your view.
2007-10-09 08:31:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋