Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on October 30, 2003, 07:28:15 AM
-
Rebels Attack; Int'l Groups Bolt Baghdad
18 minutes ago
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents blasted a freight train west of Baghdad and exploded a bomb near a convoy in a northern city, injuring a U.S. soldier, on Thursday as international organizations continued their exodus from Iraq
HUH? Don't you need a formal government to have a rebellion?
Maybe I'm oversensitive, but this reads to me like Yahoo is trying to paint the terrorists as a more organized force. Another bleak portrayal by the AP, IMO.
-
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.
-
RTFM!!! :mad:
"Terrorists, Rebels, and Freedom Fighters"
Page 201, Appendix A, Glossary and Terms.
When the leader has a military title... they become "rebels"... not "terrorist"...
when they are fighting a communist governement they are "Freedom Fighters"
It's all there in the Glossary.
"Recent intelligence reports point to Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the Iraqi military's former northern regional commander, as the key figure behind the attacks, possibly with help from Iraqi regime loyalists and "foreign fighters," according to officials. "
I'd loan you my book, but I've already given to someone else... forget his name... Ben Osama... or something like that.
-
More left wing bias as usual.
-
muckmaw: HUH? Don't you need a formal government to have a rebellion?
Sure they do - ours. Who do you think they rebelled against? They want to seccede from US which is clearly illegal.
Yahoo is trying to paint the terrorists as a more organized force.
Why are you so worried about that? What does organised/unorganised has to do with good/evil?
Vermillion: ...rather than the terrorist scum they are
I though "terrorists" were those attacking civilians, not military convoys.
miko
-
I've got a couple names for them, but the language filter... well, you understand.
-
DmdNexus, what does your glossery call people who murder Red Cross/Red Crescent workers?
-
Hmmmm...
I've got them here as..."Murderers"
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I believe there are more than one group of Iraqis (and possibly foreigners) fighting in Iraq. Some are resistance fighters fighting the US military while others are full out terrorists attacking any foreign or non-Islamic influence in Iraq.
So how do the reporters tell them apart?
-
Originally posted by john9001
DmdNexus, what does your glossery call people who murder Red Cross/Red Crescent workers?
Islamic extremist.
-
Originally posted by john9001
DmdNexus, what does your glossery call people who murder Red Cross/Red Crescent workers?
Moslems
-
There I've re-written to your taste:
Terrorist Murderers and Traitors Attack; Cowardly Int'l Groups Bolt Baghdad
18 minutes ago
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer and Commie
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Terrorist murderers blasted a freight train carrying vital aid, west of Baghdad and exploded a bomb near a convoy in a northern city, injuring a U.S. soldier, on Thursday as international organizations continued their exodus from Iraq
Yes you are being oversensitive. The rule of thumb in all these conflicts is that if they're not on your side and not an actual army then your propaganda calls them terrorists. Doesn't matter what war or when.
If you're a neutral or on their side you can call them what you like. Guerillas, insurgents tend to attack military and infrastructure targets. So attacks on military convoys and railways etc constitutes guerilla warfare. Essentially low intensity warfare.
Terrorists attack undefended civilian targets and soft targets. Rec Cross compounds etc. This causes terror not surprisingly and creates an athmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
Needless to say there is considerable blurring at the edges between the two.
I read that report as a simple description of several events. You and others read it as another example of left wing media bias. This is all absurdly paranoid. Just because the war hasn't gone perfectly to your taste and some Iraqis, misguided or not object to having foreigners controlling their country and are prepared to fight and die for this you get upset at the bad news coming out of the country. The truth of the matter is that this was never going to be easy. You cannot invade another country no matter how noble the reason and expect the everyone to shower you with flowers and kisses. History teaches us that.
-
cpxxx: Terrorists attack undefended civilian targets and soft targets. Rec Cross compounds etc. This causes terror not surprisingly and creates an athmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
So do the actions of common criminals and they are not called "terrorists". Terrorists have a political purpose.
Insurgents rise in revolt against established government authority - which is not the case in Iraq, since US is not an established authority there but technically an usurper of power.
Guerillas may have no political purpose beyong evicting an occupying force. They do not necessrily have to attack only military targets but also the supporting infrastructure of the enemy.
miko
-
That clarifies it Miko, on the point of criminals and terrorists using similar methods with different aims. It is noticeable that many of the terrorists in this country moved seamlessly into criminality, similar methods, different aims. Even working with their former enemies for profit for themselves. No surprise that.
As someone said before somewhere, 'It's difficult to define terrorism but you know it when you see it'.
-
Rebel
re·bel Pronunciation Key (r-bl)
intr.v. 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.
But in todays world the only distinction between a rebel and a terrorist is which side you are on.
-
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...)
-
well if you want to get technical, saddam is still out and about. SO technically they are rebels.
-
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.
-
^^^^ agreed...maybe "one of those terrorist loving liberals" will send a note about it to there "freind" :rofl :lol :rofl
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.