I don't get it. For Years now I've been listening to all the news outlets talking about the people we are fighting in Iraq. They all call them Insurgents.

From Dictionary.com:
in·sur·gent –noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.

If someone comes into your country with guns a-blazing how do they qualify as "lawful authority"? Are they not invaders or an ocuppying force? Am I the only one confused about this? The French Risistance in the 40's wern't called Insurgents. They were not fighting "lawful authority". I guess you could say that if they are fighting Jalal Talabani and co. that they are now the lawful authority, but obviously that is in dispute. The tag of insurgent predated any post Sadam local goverment. Also, those who cross borders into Iraq to fight us are not "rising in forcible opposition", they are going off to fight in a foreign war. My issue is semantic, and not about any of the fine reasons we are in this mess. Thanks, Lop

They are called "insurgents" to try to perpetrate the myth that the resistance to the US and UK troops comes from countries outside of Iraq.

It would never do to admit that the Iraqis don't actually like having an invading force in their country.

This is because "insurgent" is not being used in any proper sense of the word. It is being used as a "not-us" label. The history of warfare isn't about politics or religion it's about "us" and "not-us" regardless of the cause or the justice of it.
This kind of labelling always goes on. After all, as wiser heads have observed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
By labelling you remove the need to have a meaningful dialogue with your enemy.

I'll add that all sides do it. Whether it's our lot banging on about an "Axis of Evil" or Al-Qaida labelling us (in Arabic) with something along the lines of "Axis of Evil", or the Communists labelling people as Capitalist Running Dogs or whatever , it doesn't matter. The meanings of the word have no relevance. They are simply a way to separate "us" from "not us" and give a specious reason to perpetuate the conflict.

Bob and Richard,
Yeah, I know. I guess my question was why is no one calling them on it? If just Fox was doing it it would be funny, but when Fox, NPR, and the Economist all do it it validates the term. Richard, it seems to me that your argument is backwards. If I wanted to give the idea that it was outside agitators I would not use insurgent. My reading of the definition implies raising up, not moving in. I did hear a funny one on the web yesterday. The guy was talking about invading Iran. He said it would be the start of WWIII, and this time we (US) got to play Germany.

I confess I had never used the term in the way that it seems to be used in modern politics. I have only ever used it as Dictionary.com's fourth definition "...surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore...."

And it was the "surging and rushing in" sense that I was referring to when I made the reference to outsiders.

With all due respect, Richard, you have a breathtaking way of stating your views as if they were fact.

You say, "the Iraqis don't actually like having an invading force in their country." In fact, the Iraqi government consents to us being there. (It is not seriously disputed that it was fairly elected; this distinguishes the Vichy case.) So in what sense are we an "invading force" or "inappropriately in the country"?

(Of course, the 2002 Hussein government did not so consent. But I trust you do not view it as having been duly elected.)

---

Quote: "I guess you could say that ... Jalal Talabani and co. ... are now the lawful authority, but obviously that is in dispute."

Disputed? In what sense? It was duly elected.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

This is a political argument, and shouldn't be here.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
With all due respect, Richard, you have a breathtaking way of stating your views as if they were fact.

You mean they aren't?

quote:

You say, "the Iraqis don't actually like having an invading force in their country." In fact, the Iraqi government consents to us being there

I suppose one could assume that the views of the Iraqi Government represent the views of the average Iraqi; one could make the same inference about the present US or UK Government.

But I am not trying to make political point; as Arnie says, this has no place in this thread. But it seems clear enough to me that the allied presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is not welcomed by a significant number of native Iraqis or Afghans.

Quote: "I am not trying to make political point."
Then why do you make one in your very next sentence, about what "seems clear" to you?

Quote: "I suppose one could assume ..."
The difficulty is that you "assume" the opposite, and state it as if it were fact.

quote:

"I am not trying to make political point."
Then why do you make one in your very next sentence, about what "seems clear" to you?

It's nothing to do with politics. It's clear enough to me that significant numbers of Iraqis and Afghans don't welcome UK and US troops. If they wanted the troops there they wouldn't keep trying to kill them.

It most certainly is political. And factually wrong.¹ And repeated once more.

It is also wrong-headed illogically. E.g., the British criminal class is (as you say) a "significant number" of Brits who "don't welcome UK [policemen]". So what? That minority, though non-trivial, is no argument for disbanding the constabulary.

Basically, your argument comes down to saying, "I am right because some of the natives agree with me."

---

¹ subject to the ambiguity of your term "significant". 10,000 Iraqis (hypothetically) is a "significant" number absolutely, but is a trival portion of the country's population.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

...

I am ashamed that my country ...

[remainder of post deleted by Wordcrafter]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordcrafter,

[deleted by Wordcrafter]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordcrafter,

Quote: I am ashamed that my country ...

I glean from this that the post was political, as was the response.
As such, each is outside the scope of this board and, being contentious, was deleted.

Thank you.