• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Insurgents means nothing, how about Saddamists

How about freedom fighters. That's what we would call our insurgents if we were invaded, while being fed propaganda about how corrupt our government is. Kind of remind me of a pretty good game called Freedom Fighters.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: mikeford
Insurgent is such a weak meaningless term, there must be something better.
Click to expand...
You mean it doesn't dehumanize our enemies enough?
Click to expand...


or the less it tells you about them the better ? ? ? the less you want to know about the specifics,
the more enobled you must feel to carry on the usual hack job that only the most self-pleasing
liberals are capable of.

former saddamists are what these savages mostly are. there are many varieities of former
saddamists (fedayeen, special security, hardcore political ba'athists, etc) but their agenda
has not changed. despite the change in regime, whether under alawi or saddam, their primary
targets have been and will continue to be . . . . (drum roll) . . fellow iraqis.

i suppose if you want the sympathetic love of a liberal you need the following:

a- socialist tyrant, deposed.
b- high body count, numerous mass graves, all in the name of your ideology
c- you - need - to - piss - off - world - community (read 'ruling corporate multinational hydra') ! !
d- in your campaign against 'occupation', specifically target and murder many civilians, the more
the better, which is simply a continuation of your crimes under different regime.

your reward ? liberal love. eh.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: mikeford
Insurgent is such a weak meaningless term, there must be something better.
Click to expand...
You mean it doesn't dehumanize our enemies enough?
Click to expand...


or the less it tells you about them the better ? ? ? the less you want to know about the specifics,
the more enobled you must feel to carry on the usual hack job that only the most self-pleasing
liberals are capable of.

former saddamists are what these savages mostly are. there are many varieities of former
saddamists (fedayeen, special security, hardcore political ba'athists, etc) but their agenda
has not changed. despite the change in regime, whether under alawi or saddam, their primary
targets have been and will continue to be . . . . (drum roll) . . fellow iraqis.

i suppose if you want the sympathetic love of a liberal you need the following:

a- socialist tyrant, deposed.
b- high body count, numerous mass graves, all in the name of your ideology
c- you - need - to - piss - off - world - community (read 'ruling corporate multinational hydra') ! !
d- in your campaign against 'occupation', specifically target and murder many civilians, the more
the better, which is simply a continuation of your crimes under different regime.

your reward ? liberal love. eh.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should address your childish rant to a Liberal instead of me:laugh:

FYI if dehumanizing them makes it easier to kill them that's fine with me. Trust me, I'm not wringing my hands over Iraqis being killed. Hell they kill a lot more of themselves than we do.

On the other hand I am upset that our guys are dying over the Dub's ill conceived and ill planned excellent adventure in Iraq. I could give a sh!t that Hussien had his thumb down his own people, their freedom is up to them to earn, not for us to earn for them.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: mikeford
Insurgent is such a weak meaningless term, there must be something better.
Click to expand...
You mean it doesn't dehumanize our enemies enough?
Click to expand...


or the less it tells you about them the better ? ? ? the less you want to know about the specifics,
the more enobled you must feel to carry on the usual hack job that only the most self-pleasing
liberals are capable of.

former saddamists are what these savages mostly are. there are many varieities of former
saddamists (fedayeen, special security, hardcore political ba'athists, etc) but their agenda
has not changed. despite the change in regime, whether under alawi or saddam, their primary
targets have been and will continue to be . . . . (drum roll) . . fellow iraqis.

i suppose if you want the sympathetic love of a liberal you need the following:

a- socialist tyrant, deposed.
b- high body count, numerous mass graves, all in the name of your ideology
c- you - need - to - piss - off - world - community (read 'ruling corporate multinational hydra') ! !
d- in your campaign against 'occupation', specifically target and murder many civilians, the more
the better, which is simply a continuation of your crimes under different regime.

your reward ? liberal love. eh.
Click to expand...

Never has so little been said in so many words.

I could counter that you cannot be a conservative unless you get off on slaughtering Iraqis to free them so you can be their little tin god.

Fair is fair. Not true (like your attack) but fair.
 
Originally posted by: digiram
How about freedom fighters. That's what we would call our insurgents if we were invaded, while being fed propaganda about how corrupt our government is. Kind of remind me of a pretty good game called Freedom Fighters.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the term used be based on the support of the population? It's my understanding that the insurgency in Iraq does not have overwhelming support among Iraqis and most Iraqis would rather they participate in the political process rather than in a violent rebellion.
 
I'd call them freedom fighters if most of them were Iraqis... but from what I've read, they are mostly foreigners.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Maybe you should address your childish rant to a Liberal instead of me:laugh:

FYI if dehumanizing them makes it easier to kill them that's fine with me. Trust me, I'm not wringing my hands over Iraqis being killed. Hell they kill a lot more of themselves than we do.

On the other hand I am upset that our guys are dying over the Dub's ill conceived and ill planned excellent adventure in Iraq. I could give a sh!t that Hussien had his thumb down his own people, their freedom is up to them to earn, not for us to earn for them.
Click to expand...

Heh, I found his post rather amusing myself...He's so blinded by partisan politics that he mistook you for a liberal. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
I'd call them freedom fighters if most of them were Iraqis... but from what I've read, they are mostly foreigners.
Click to expand...

I have read quite the opposite. I do, however, question their motives since it's unclear whether or not they have the support of the Iraqi people behind them. My gut tells me that they are more of a "fringe". But of course that brings up the point that there sure are a lot of them. Sort of like how non-Bush voters are a fringe group that makes up 49% of the country 😉

Ok, not really. But the question still stands...where do the Iraqi people stand on the insurgents? Do they support their efforts to get rid of our soldiers there? Or do the Iraqi people support our efforts? Getting a straight answer to this question seems pretty tough, probably because both sides would rather assume than find out.
 
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Maybe you should address your childish rant to a Liberal instead of me:laugh:

FYI if dehumanizing them makes it easier to kill them that's fine with me. Trust me, I'm not wringing my hands over Iraqis being killed. Hell they kill a lot more of themselves than we do.

On the other hand I am upset that our guys are dying over the Dub's ill conceived and ill planned excellent adventure in Iraq. I could give a sh!t that Hussien had his thumb down his own people, their freedom is up to them to earn, not for us to earn for them.
Click to expand...

Heh, I found his post rather amusing myself...He's so blinded by partisan politics that he mistook you for a liberal. 😛
Click to expand...

But arguments sure are eaiser when you can make sweeping generalizations about people and argue against those...right? 😉
 
how about OVER-BOMBED OVER-FUNDED TERRORISTS

OVER-BOMBED: for each terrorists killed, 2 civilians are killed, precision?
OVER-BOMBED^2: they now have 700,000+ lbs IAEA grade explosives

OVER-FUNDED: they now have access to $500 million, not to mention we are paying them to be in the new iraqi army
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about Iraqis?
Click to expand...

I think we need to be more specific than that, because there ARE Iraqis that are helping us. The important question is what percentage they represent.
 
'Saddamists' would structuralize the fallacy of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', and make explicit the false assumption that anyone opposed to Americans in Iraq must be a Saddam supporter. So I guess that's the best one.
 
That's all we need is more propaganda. Demonizing the enemy doesn't really help much, except for the blind followers have a new name to chant.
 
Aren't you being a bit harsh calling the Saddamists "enemy"? "Blind followers"? I get the feeling you don't understand much of whats going on at all.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about Iraqis?
Click to expand...

I think we need to be more specific than that, because there ARE Iraqis that are helping us. The important question is what percentage they represent.
Click to expand...

Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Iraq.cfm?StartAt=8

So we know the Shi'a majority along with the Kurds want an election and the Sunni miniorty doesn't.Furthermore the Sunni's shared alot of the power in Saddam regime which now they won't have because they are not the majority the more attacks we see to disrupt the interim government.I don't know how to bring them onboard but even if they don't there will be a big percentage of Iraqi's wanting an election.
 
Originally posted by: mikeford
Aren't you being a bit harsh calling the Saddamists "enemy"? "Blind followers"? I get the feeling you don't understand much of whats going on at all.
Click to expand...


I'm calling the armchair warriors in the US "blind followers." Their enemy are the "insurgents." Changing the name of the insurgents would only give the armchair warriors in the US a new name to chant.
 
Re support of the People: Even the American Revolutionaries didn't have the support of the People, they had approx 30% support
 
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about Iraqis?
Click to expand...

I think we need to be more specific than that, because there ARE Iraqis that are helping us. The important question is what percentage they represent.
Click to expand...

Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Iraq.cfm?StartAt=8

So we know the Shi'a majority along with the Kurds want an election and the Sunni miniorty doesn't.Furthermore the Sunni's shared alot of the power in Saddam regime which now they won't have because they are not the majority the more attacks we see to disrupt the interim government.I don't know how to bring them onboard but even if they don't there will be a big percentage of Iraqi's wanting an election.
Click to expand...

Then again the Shiites want a Islamic theocracy and they know they have the numbers to get what they want in a election. Oh and the Kurds joinied the Sunnis Arabs in calling for the elections to be held back along with Christian Iraqis because the voter turn out will favor the pro-Iranian/pro-Islamic Shiite radical loving mulahs. The Shiites are being low key because they will get what they want in the end or else it will be a freaking madhouse if they are denied. They'll do it the nice way and if it don't turn out the way they want it to turn out then they'll raise hell in the South. All signs point to them gearing up for the elections and for a violence if need be if they feel like they have been robbed in the elections.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...raq_election_surprises


So your choices are a radical Islamic Shiite goverment controling Iraq or radical Sunni goverment along with former Baathists playing a minor role in goverment if any. The Kurds well they have their part of Iraq wrapped up but they don't have the numbers to effect a election not to mention that they are loathed by both Shiite Arabs and Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top