To: golas1964
I'm tired of the word "insurgents".
They are "terrorists". It can't be prettied-up.
3 posted on
11/09/2004 3:15:49 AM PST by
GOP_Proud
(Can I git me some morals here?)
To: GOP_Proud
Here's hoping all those who are able will keep the cubicle-bound updated. Yesterday was great.
4 posted on
11/09/2004 3:16:52 AM PST by
GOP_Proud
(Can I git me some morals here?)
To: GOP_Proud
Why should they be branded terrorists?
Surely they are the equivilent to a resistance force?
They are objecting to the continued occupation of their country. Admittedly, if they laid down their arms the elections could go ahead much more smoothly. But, to brand them all as terrorists, when they are clearly not, is wrong IMHO. They are clearly demonstrating as Insurgents and that is what they are.
They are rising in revolt against established authority. This is the dictionary definition. This is what they are doing.
To: GOP_Proud
"I'm tired of the word "insurgents". They are "terrorists". It can't be prettied-up."
INSURGENT = 1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent 2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
TERRORIST = 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity ter·ror·ist / lower than cockroaches.
91 posted on
11/09/2004 7:04:20 AM PST by
Gucho
To: GOP_Proud
196 posted on
11/09/2004 10:49:28 AM PST by
Orlando
(www.mensnewsdaily.com, www.mensactivism.org (Support Fathers/Veteran Rights)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson