Wait...Now they're rebels?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Yah I saw CNN refer to them as "Resistance Fighters" this morning, which tends to give them some respectability, rather than the terrorist scum they are.

errr they ARE resistance fighters...not terrorists...you seem to have them VERY mixed up...
"ter·ror·ism

ter·ror·ism (ter??-riz´?m) noun
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved."

"re·bel (ri-bel?) verb, intransitive
re·belled, re·bel·ling, re·bels

1.   To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.
2.   To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.
3.   To feel or express strong unwillingness or repugnance: She rebelled at the unwelcome suggestion.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved."

see...they opfor in iraq are rebels or resistance fighters (not really any difference in this case...)
even if they are attacking civilian/aid targets there still rebels (this has been accepted as "acceptable" military tactics since ww2 when germany started pounding london...)

[Frogm4n]

well if you want to get technical, saddam is still out and about. SO technically they are rebels.

[john9001]

what is ironic is as long as the terrorists keep killing people the US will stay in Iraq, when the terrorists stop the killing the US troops will leave, but the terrorists are too stupid to know that.

[vorticon]

^^^^ agreed...maybe "one of those terrorist loving liberals" will send a note about it to there "freind"

[Frogm4n]

Actually john, even if the rebels stopped attacking. We would be in iraq for at least 4 more years. Look at any country we have conquered. History isnt too kind to us when it comes to what to do after we won the war.

[lord dolf vader]

hmm rebels hiding in their own home while we occupy and get killed by the dosen.


sound familiar?


how are we gonna win in a no win situation again ?

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by john9001
what is ironic is as long as the terrorists keep killing people the US will stay in Iraq, when the terrorists stop the killing the US troops will leave, but the terrorists are too stupid to know that.

Ironically you're wrong, America will stay long term but with troops based there not occupying. Like Kuwait, American bases there for a good strategic reasons. It is quite clear that this terrorist and/or guerrilla campaign, which is organized and coordinated very well is designed to disrupt the re-building of Iraq and the move towards democracy. It's an unholy alliance of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda like zealots. A Saddam general was named by the US as the suspect behind it. Essentially they do not want a stable democratic Iraq. They want to restore the status quo. They want Saddam back and the extremists just want to attack the US. Their problem is that in fact Iraq is gradually improving, schools are open, hospitals etc. It's slow but it's happening. A truth that is in fact reported by so called 'liberal media' if you care to look.
The attacks on the UN and the Red Cross are very carefully designed to disrupt progress. The leaders of the campaign realise that shooting as soldiers is all very well but to put it brutally soldiers are there to be shot at. They can't kill enough soldiers to force a pull out but by disrupting the re building of Iraq they hope to cause discontent among Iraqis and increase support to bring back Saddam and the Baathists.

It won't work of course at least in part because most of the attacks happen in only a few areas of Iraq but it does mean more terrorist attacks, many more dead Iraqis and more dead and wounded American soldiers in the medium to long term.   Only a tiny number of people with little or no popular support can maintain a campaign for years. Until Iraq is able to take care of them by itself American troops will remain in the firing line.