Rumsfeld: Don't Call Them 'Insurgents'

AP (via Yahoo) ^ | 11/29/05

[kenavi]

Why not call them what they are: Jihadists?

Excellent suggestion, it puts Jihad out there as the dirty word it is.

[PMCarey]

How about:

Enemies of
Voters and
Iraqi
Lawmakers

[PureTrouble]

Could be that the US will have to kill a generation or 2 of the Muslims to get the point across.

There has been a couple generations of Muslims that have been taught to hate the US.

I do agree with your synopsis.

[Recovering Hermit]

How about murderous scumbag camel-humping low-life criminal raghead rapist muslim terrorist nutbag?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

It was AP and their ilk that started legitimizing them by calling them insurgents in the first place. Rummy had a good term for many of them in the beginning -- dead enders.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

Sorry, Savage didn't coin that term either. Not to say Rummy doesn't enjoy listening to him. I certainly do.

[Prost1]

Savage has been against the use of the word "Insurgents" from day 1. That is what I was referring to.

They are the Enemy. That is the word Savage uses, among Islamofacists and occasionally Terrorists. But, he points out, we cannot have a War on Terror. It must be a War on Islamofacism. Once we get the terms right, we can identify the Enemy.

Small, but important points in psychological warfare.

And, let us not forget, the MSM went to school on Goebbels!

[gopherbaroque]

OOOORRAAAAAAA

[GermanBusiness]

Don't the troops call them AIF's? Anti-Iraqi-Forces? I guess that term got voted off the island.

Most truthful would anti-Shiite whatever. Insurgents would be OK if it was "Anti-Shiite Insurgents" or "Pro-Baathist Insurgents". To just say "insurgents" is a loaded word that implies broad public support and no sectarian loyalties.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Okay, then why are we negotiating with them?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

"Illegal enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government" sounds better to me.

[river rat]

Perxactly!!

You are precisely and exactly on target...

Folks need to think of Iraq as a huge shit magnet..
It's attracting all the nearby Islamist turds who desire to kill Americans in their holy jihad -- and to kill them instead..

These freaking Jihadists are much better suited to killing themselves and harmless women, children and the unprepared/unarmed innocents...

By going to Iraq - we have thrown down a challenge they can never deal with..
We are on their turf, destroying them there - rather than allowing them to choose the place, time and manner of engagement...

By being in Iraq -- we have threatened and challenged another Bathist/Islamist trouble making bunch of bastards in Syria and Iran to toe the line or suffer the same consequences.. Syria would drop faster that a lead fart - and they KNOW it.

They prefer bombing trains in Spain -- and getting results.
They prefer bombing trains in England - and getting attention.
They prefer killing school children in Russia -- and broadcasting fear throughout the land..

But -- their alligator mouthes have overloaded their hummingbird asses, when they attempt to take on a professional armed force..

We will kill them as the cockroaches they are.
We NEED to kill enough of the bastards to drive them back into the caves, to huddle about their campfires in the dark and whisper about the time when Americans answered their challenge to Jihad and kicked their freaking asses..

Semper Fi

[Triggerhippie]

"Terorist"...that's a better word.

I think "terrorist" is a better word still...

[GermanBusiness]

I was once OK with "War on Islamofascism" but now I see why the President chose to be more general in the naming. Baathists are more like hard-core leftists than Islamists. Bush has centered the war on terror, wisely, on the Godless socialist Baathists...leaving a "way out" for the Islamists to "save face". The way the western left has come to support the socialist Baathist terrorists is so shocking that many Islamists must be shaking their heads and wondering if they, the Islamists, really want a world in which they are allied with such nutcases plus the Godless Baathists. We can defeat the socialists and the Islamists can pretend to thank us for it...thus surrendering to us by making it look like they wanted the Baathists gone all the time. Our naming the WOT would be quite important.

Similarly, it is good that the President didn't call this WW3. That would have invited the enemy to make this more of a world war than it has been. WOT is a good name that gives everyone a chance to end hostilities at any time conditions are right and terror is renounced.

[Hildy]

How about EVILDOERS...PIGS...SCUM OF THE EARTH...LOWLIFE DIRTBAGS....

[dljordan]

Maybe we should call them "undocumented political activists"?

[Prost1]

Good thoughts...

So there are several enemies. Islamofacists, Baathists, Terrorists, Arabs and Turks....and vile Imans...

[One Proud Dad]

Someone who gets it!!!

[brushcop]

Jihadists is the correct label. That label will always refer to the psychopathic religion they murder others in the name of, very important. This needs to be promoted.

"War on Terrorism" is such a misnomer, after all, terrorism is, as Robert Spencer said, a tactic, not an opponent, we fight opponents, we use various tactics in doing so. Time to get smart, use words correctly and clearly define our enemy, which "Jihadists" does. It puts the correct focus on our efforts, less confusion.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Perhaps Rumsfeld is pulling his punches because he is well aware the U.S. is now negotiating with these "jihadists" (see here), thus, of course, adding the "confusion" you are you trying to clear up.