Posted on 11/29/2005 1:23:43 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
More than 2 1/2 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?"
What I call em in private would get me banned from the site.
What a lame article. "Webster's New World College Dictionary defines 'insurgent' as..." Who writes this? A high school student preparing to give a speech at graduation?
Yes, the media changed the terminology. They are called the terrorists, cowards, and thugs they are by most of us.
How about mass serial killers?
*- Pig Copulators.
Without missing a beat, Rumsfeld replied with a wide grin: "Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government. How's that?"
LOL! Right on! These "insurgents" are nothing more than Islamic murderers who want to control Iraq and are using these attacks to try to do so. They are trying to drive the US out so they can then take over Iraq.
"It was an epiphany."
More like someone has been listening to Michael Savage.
Score one more for the man no one listens to!
So this dripping sarcasm is now part of the news too?
How about "Heroes of the Left"?
barbarians works for me.
How about dead men walking?
How about homicidal maniacal swine?
Primitive subhumanoid barbarian swine?
Homicidal swine?
Porcine swine?
(I like the swine imagery.)
How about "wedding bombers"? Mr. Zarqawi seems pretty sensitive to that one these days!
Call them DOGS it's the lowest term you can call one of their murdering kind Dog is a term they dont take lightly and start coating our ammo with swine blood !
This is not a confusing issue. Insurgents fight unelected dictatorial regimes. Terrorists fight democratically elected human rights based governments.
Violence is not necessary in democracies as peaceful avenues exist to make change....to change attitudes....to win over public opinion. Heck, with enough support and persuasive enough arguments, the Iraqi's can vote the US military out of town.
In Democracies, legitimate power is earned at the ballot box, period. If they can't convince people to vote for them, then their concerns are not shared by enough people. Shooting at people who don't agree with you is simply sick.
Anything but insurgents. I prefer terrorists, but what Rummy says will do.
More than 2 1/2 years into the Iraq war, the MSM has decided the enemy is still the Bush administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.