Iraqi insurgents offer to halt attacks.

[Fred_Fury]

It depends on the point of view and you must understand that there are some iraqi's who believe these insurgents are freedom fighters becuase theyre fighting for the way of life they had before the US rolled in. I agree that theyre fighting to do horrible things, but thats our point of view. Thus, why the one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter argument always comes up in these discussions.

If you're not fighting for freedom, but fighting against freedom, how are you a freedom fighter? The "one mans terrorist" argument is a stupid argument.

 

[Superman79]

In all fairness I think the big difference that makes the Iraqi insurgents "insurgents" as opposed to "freedom fighters" is that they lack major support from the Iraqi citizens. In the US invaded by China example...we'd assume that almost all Americans would be behind the freedom fighters, where in Iraq no more than 5-10% or so (at least as far as I can gatehr from news reports) of Iraqis support the insurgents...most jsut want to get on with their lives under the new government.

At least that's how it seems to me...more or less...[Shrug]

 

[Darthphere]

If you're not fighting for freedom, but fighting against freedom, how are you a freedom fighter?

Its a point of view Fred, get that in your head, some Iraqi's believe they are fighting for the freedom to do all those bad things youve pointed out. Its not that hard to figure out.

 

[Darthphere]

In all fairness I think the big difference that makes the Iraqi insurgents "insurgents" as opposed to "freedom fighters" is that they lack major support from the Iraqi citizens. In the US invaded by China example...we'd assume that almost all Americans would be behind the freedom fighters, where in Iraq no more than 5-10% or so (at least as far as I can gatehr from news reports) of Iraqis support the insurgents...most jsut want to get on with their lives under the new government.

At least that's how it seems to me...more or less...[Shrug]

Exactly.

 

[Fred_Fury]

Its a point of view Fred, get that in your head, some Iraqi's believe they are fighting for the freedom to do all those bad things youve pointed out. Its not that hard to figure out.

Thats the most ******ed "point of view" Ive ever heard. "Hey im a freedom fighter, fighting for the freedom to kill the infidel!" It makes no sense. One mans terrorist is not another mans freedom fighter, a terrorist is a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a freedom fighter, the difference between the two is clearly defined.

 

[Darthphere]

Thats the most ******ed "point of view" Ive ever heard. "Hey im a freedom fighter, fighting for the freedom to kill the infidel!" It makes no sense. One mans terrorist is not another mans freedom fighter, a terrorist is a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a freedom fighter, the difference between the two is clearly defined.

Continue believing that then, I see its not worth the effort discussing anything with you.

 

[Spidey Rules 2]

I think we should take the deal. Finish helping the Iraqi government get stablized. Who knows, maybe in a couple of years Iraq might be able to stand on it's own two feet. If not, we'll stay longer. As long as it takes, then if someone asks "Didn't you agree to leave in two years" We say, "We don't make deal with terrorists." Of course the terrorists might start causing trouble again, but who cares, they are doing that now. At least we get two years of peace and quiet and time for the Iraqi government to get its feet on the ground.

 

[jaguarr]

The U.S. has no intention of leaving Iraq. There's much evidence pointing to a very large, permanent military base (or bases) being built there.

jag

 

[Fred_Fury]

"hey americans, we'll stop attacking you if you leave in two years, then it'll be easier for us to undo everything you did!"

No thanks.

 

[War Lord]

Sorry, but thats naive and doesnt take into account a different point of view.

It's not naive when the terrorists are largely focusing their attacks on the civilian population.

 

[War Lord]

Not really, if some occupying force came into the US and there were rebels fighting lets say China, what would you call them?

If they're targetting the military, than they're guerilla fighters. If they're targetting civilians, than they're terrorists.

 

[Zaed]

Make a deal with the insurgents? F**k no.
How could we ever even begin to trust anything they say?

 

[Superman79]

Dark Helmut: "Leave and we'll stop the violence"

USA: "Ok we'll leave...just don't do anything bad."

Dark Helmut (as he and the insurgents overthrow the Iraqi Government): Haha...fooled you!!"

USA: "What!? Hey you said you'd stop!"

Dark Helmut: "Hahaha...That's why Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb."

p

 

[deemar325]

I missed a bit.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Thats the most ******ed "point of view" Ive ever heard. "Hey im a freedom fighter, fighting for the freedom to kill the infidel!" It makes no sense. One mans terrorist is not another mans freedom fighter, a terrorist is a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a freedom fighter, the difference between the two is clearly defined.

when the exact same thing happened back in the 80's in the middle east, Ronald Reagan, the president of the USA, called the insurgents, freedom fighters. you're correct, the difference between the 2 is clearly defined.
the USA is engaged in an occupation, It has chosen time and time again to throw the middle into turmoil when it suits its needs, these attorcities that have you all sooooooo outraged have been happening for decades, in many cases with the aid of the US, and all of a sudden the USA is the "freedom giver" ha! give me a break. reap the whirlwind friends, reap the whirlwind......

 

[Aqua Is Forever]

Can't everyone be nice?

 

[deemar325]

Oh....who lives on a artificial planet in Space!?

MJolnir Master Chief!!


Armored and combat ready is he!!

MJolnir Master Chief!!