Call Me An Insurgent
We invaded a country we had no business attacking in the first place. The country posed no threat, our leaders lied to justify an invasion, and now we have created the quagmire of a full-blown civil war in Iraq.
Then there are the insurgents! The suicide bombers, the bad guys. Yeah, they are bad guys, actually. And gals. Extremism always brings out the worst in folks. George W. Bush comes to mind, as well. But the constant bombardment of the term “insurgents” in the media pisses me off. In countries that are, or were, our friends (there are so few anymore), or even in our own country, folks that would be willing to sacrifice their own lives for sake of country or cause would probably be labeled “freedom fighters” in the media. The difference? Per Merriam Webster:
Insurgent: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially, a rebel not recognized as a belligerent.
Freedom Fighter: a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment.
Hmm. Well, the “insurgents” in Iraq have certainly proven to be belligerent, that goes without question. Doesn’t really fit the definition of an insurgent, but it’s as good a name as any to pin on the bad guys by the media and the administration. Sounds evil. Other than the media spin, though, I really don’t see any difference between the two. Except that the insurgents “revolt.”
Revolt: 1: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)
2 a: to experience disgust or shock b: to turn away with disgust.
So call me an insurgent. Against my own government. Doesn’t mean I’m going to blow myself up and kill innocent people. That would be wrong, and somewhat belligerent, which is very uninsurgent-like according to Merriam-Webster. Probably painful, as well. But I’m not an extremist, unlike this country’s leaders, and a few crazy folks across the pond.
Still, I don’t understand the difference between an insurgent and a freedom fighter. I guess only Republicans know, so I apologize for my ignorance.
The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering - more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called “freedom fighters.” This is how Ronald Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua: “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”
iraq war, george bush, insurgent, freedom fighter, suicide bombers, ronald reagan
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Okay may I ask where you got the coment about Reagan causing one of most bloody eras in the western hemisphere? Obviously they were not taking into account: the Civil War, the atrocities against the Native Americans, what happened to the Myans and Incans and many more occurances. Of course because Reagan was a Republican he was much worse I am sure.
And you are right, Clinton should have invaded Iraq a long time ago with UN backing when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors. Remember that was part of the treaty and once again the UN showed that they have no real importance to the world. And this was also another showing that Clinton lacked a backbone; another is when he left Samolia when we were attack.
One thing I don’t follow is what is Bush a radicalist in? Obviously he isn’t a radical Christian or he would target other Muslim countries and he would call it a religious war.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:57 am
1. I don’t remember exactly where I originally read Reagan’s comment. It’s public record, though, Google it.
2. Believe me, I’m one of those anti-war folks, and have read much about the Civil War. I love history. I’m very aware. And I might add, one of the worst atrocities is, indeed, what this country did, and continues to do, to Native Americans. That matters probably most, since had we not taken their country in the first place, things in the world might be better now.
3. Don’t know what post you were reading, but I never said Clinton should have invaded Iraq. But you’re right that apparently the UN has no real importance in the world. That only became apparent, though, under this GW admin, which completely ignored, well, anything they had to say. And as far as Somalia, at least Clinton is man enough to admit that yes, he made some mistakes and would have done certain things differently. I’m sure we can all say the same. Everyone, of course, but GW, who can’t even admit he’s made any mistakes, when, really, the rest of the world, and any American with a brain, would be happy to give him a list.
Finally, WTF??? He isn’t a radical Christian? Of course he is. He’s as radical as the crazy radical Muslims that are killing innocent people, too. Extremism is always a bad thing… I’m a Christian, but don’t condone “Christian” Bush’s killing fields, nor do most Muslims support their extremist killers, either.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
[...] hate the crass rhetoric of hawks in America who say that anyone who opposes the president’s war does not support the troops. It is patently absurd to say that I cannot hope that soldiers stay [...]