Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2005, 06:01 PM   #1 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Rummy doesn't know what "insurgent" means....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...445924,00.html
Quote:
Rumsfeld: Don't Call Them 'Insurgents'

Tuesday November 29, 2005 9:16 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 2 years into the Iraq war, Donald H. Rumsfeld has decided the enemy are not insurgents.

``This is a group of people who don't merit the word `insurgency,' I think,'' Rumsfeld said Tuesday at a Pentagon news conference. He said the thought had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend.

``It was an epiphany.''

Rumsfeld's comments drew chuckles but had a serious side.

``I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe,'' he said. ``These people don't have a legitimate gripe.'' Still, he acknowledged that his point may not be supported by the standard definition of `insurgent.' He promised to look it up.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term ``insurgent'' as ``rising up against established authority.''

Even Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stood beside Rumsfeld at the news conference, found it impossible to describe the fighting in Iraq without twice using the term `insurgent.'

After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, ``I have to use the word `insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now.''

Without missing a beat, Rumsfeld replied with a wide grin: ``Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government. How's that?
Actually, they ARE insurgents, and rebels, as well. Rumsfeld is seeking to remove any measure of sympathy anyone has for those Iraqis who are against the current occupation. Those who rebeled under Saddams rule were also insurgents (often the same people!!).

I don't want Rumsfeld to be able to backpeddle again. I'm sick of it. Write your ficticous story and stick with it. Anyone who's paying attention already knows what's going on.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:15 PM   #2 (permalink)
Mulletproof
 
Psycho Dad's Avatar
 
Location: Some nucking fut house.
Quote:
After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, ``I have to use the word `insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now.''
Terrorist?
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.
Psycho Dad is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:18 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Dad
Terrorist?
Actually, if we're posting about semantics, they are not terrorists. The rebels in Iraq are not specifically using techniques to induce fear in the troops. They are simply attacking and trying to loosen our grip of control. If they are terrorists, then everyone who was ever violent or threatened violence is a terrorist, and the word losses it's meaning. They are no more terrorists than our soldiers.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:25 PM   #4 (permalink)
Mulletproof
 
Psycho Dad's Avatar
 
Location: Some nucking fut house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
They are simply attacking and trying to loosen our grip of control.
Not all the attacks are against troops. Many attacks are aimed at putting fear into the Iraqi people.
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.
Psycho Dad is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Dad
Not all the attacks are against troops. Many attacks are aimed at putting fear into the Iraqi people.
What I mean is that their intention is to take actions that will directly result in non-Iraqi troops leaving. They don't do scare tactics. There is no psychological warfare. All other concerns are secondary to that for the moment.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
What I mean is that their intention is to take actions that will directly result in non-Iraqi troops leaving. They don't do scare tactics. There is no psychological warfare. All other concerns are secondary to that for the moment.
It seems to me their purpose has to do more with trying to weaken the resolve of America as a whole through violence in order to make us change our actions.

In other words, terrorism.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
I always think of the word terrorist as targetting civilians mainly, whereas an insurgency attacks a military force. I think the correct word for them would be insurgent.
samcol is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:47 PM   #8 (permalink)
Mulletproof
 
Psycho Dad's Avatar
 
Location: Some nucking fut house.
But they do try scare tactics. Not all the attacks are against young men like this. Many of them do target civilians and one has to suspect that the same lot of them that practice in insurgency also participate in terrorism. But then again I suppose were troops from another country here, I would likely see the friends of my enemy as my enemy. And thus I suppose I would consider myself to be an insurgent.


BTW, I will admit I am biased as the young man in the link I posted is my son. If the link results in a threadjack I'll edit it or a mod can.
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

Last edited by Psycho Dad; 12-05-2005 at 07:07 PM..
Psycho Dad is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:51 PM   #9 (permalink)
seeker
 
Location: home
Well it depends on what the definition of is, is
Rumsfeld knows very well the meaning of insurgents.
He is no fool, he has been playing this game....as long as I've been alive.
While 9 out of 10 rocks are smarter than Dubya'
The same can't be said for Rummy'
He is a genius....(an evil criminal mastermind genius)
This word play is another weapon of mass distraction
designed to disguise todays real issues....Iraq, Afghanistan, CIA clandestine opperations under investigations ect.

Seems it is working well
__________________
All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
"The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.
alpha phi is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 07:40 PM   #10 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
those fine folk at the redon group have undoubtedly told rumsfeld that the word "insurgent" represents a perception management issue. he was also no doubt informed that it may well be too late to really solve this perception management issue, but that he should nonetheless try because, as lenin teaches us, few things are more important tactically than clear boundaries look at what happened to the mensheviks for gods sake.

without things like this, there would be no way to know why those fine folk at redon get such big big cash for their services.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 08:40 PM   #11 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Also, when I think of "insurgents", I think of the established population, not foriegn fighters from the region.

And I also agree that those who are attempting to start a civil war by targeting civilians are not insurgents, but terrorists.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 09:18 PM   #12 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
The reality is that a majority of the Iraiqi's do not like the American presence in Iraq...


Fortuantly they voted in a peaceful and democratic way twice now.

The reality is, that the Sunni MINORITY and the FUNDAMENTALIST SHARIAN AL QAEDA/ FOREIGN influence fights us. Largely the news carries of the suicide bombings (which mainly targets civilians) as well as the operations targetting the outtings of aforementioned factions.

You are ignorant if you think Iraq is wholely "insurgent". It is not, I am not arguing that the vast MINORITY of the population is unheard of, that merely it is not the majority.

People here really need to get past the cut your nose to spite your face phase. Just because some asshole drives a car packed with explosives killing several people, doesn't mean the country is sprialing(sp) downwards. There are many historical and real world facts that point clearly to the opposite, such as the fact that the majority of the violent opposition compromises a vast minority of the population, it only holds a few fingers of the 18 Iraqi provinces such as Al Anbar (Fallujah/Ramadi sharing a border with Syria/Jordan).

Then you go talk about the word insurgent. The reality is that SC precedent has dated back 60 years with the legality of combatants, or the lack of legitimacy thereof. You just can't expect Rummy to bow down to some narrow definition, even you (non-mojos) know this.

We are fighting three factions of the population. The American presence there is fighting a small fraction of insurgents, a small fraction of foreign terrorists, and a small fraction of local terrorists. The uprising within Iraq does not compromise a majority, and against many of your secret hopes it never will. Please don't skew the facts to say so.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 12-05-2005 at 09:25 PM..
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 11:46 AM   #13 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The reality is that a majority of the Iraiqi's do not like the American presence in Iraq...

You are ignorant if you think Iraq is wholely "insurgent". It is not, I am not arguing that the vast MINORITY of the population is unheard of, that merely it is not the majority.

People here really need to get past the cut your nose to spite your face phase. Just because some asshole drives a car packed with explosives killing several people, doesn't mean the country is sprialing(sp) downwards. There are many historical and real world facts that point clearly to the opposite, such as the fact that the majority of the violent opposition compromises a vast minority of the population, it only holds a few fingers of the 18 Iraqi provinces such as Al Anbar (Fallujah/Ramadi sharing a border with Syria/Jordan).

Then you go talk about the word insurgent. The reality is that SC precedent has dated back 60 years with the legality of combatants, or the lack of legitimacy thereof. You just can't expect Rummy to bow down to some narrow definition, even you (non-mojos) know this.

We are fighting three factions of the population. The American presence there is fighting a small fraction of insurgents, a small fraction of foreign terrorists, and a small fraction of local terrorists. The uprising within Iraq does not compromise a majority, and against many of your secret hopes it never will. Please don't skew the facts to say so.
Who here is "skewing facts?" To me this thread is about the orwellian use of language in the DoD's continual attempts "market" this war to the U.S. populace. It turns out "insurgent" is a completely correct way to refer to the people making attacks in Iraq.
Locobot is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 12:14 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Who cares what we call them. They are the enemy, plain and simple. It's a waste of time and manipulative by both sides to bicker over what we want to call them.
kutulu is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 12:32 PM   #15 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
I'm not certain why we are so swayed by the semantics involved anyhow. As kutulu says, they are the enemy. I don't care if they are terrorists, insurgents or giraffes... if they are against what we are for, and they are willing to kill us over it, what difference does it make as to what we call them?
xepherys is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:11 PM   #16 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
The PC crowd likes to blur the issue with semantics, that's why we don't have one blanket term, the enemy, like you pointed out.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:20 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
yes, it's only the PC crowd (homocide bomber)
kutulu is offline  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:24 PM   #18 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The PC crowd likes to blur the issue with semantics, that's why we don't have one blanket term, the enemy, like you pointed out.
Give me major break. The only one tweaking the language here is the Administration and its supporters in an attempt to make what they are doing more palatable.

Politically Correct? More like Politically expedient.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
 

Tags
insurgent, means, rummy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360