One man's resistance fighter

[Richard III]

To rephrase the old line, one man's resistance fighter is another man's guerilla...


Wired news copy of a Reuters story on the LA Times banning "resistance fighter" as a description of Iraqi irregulars

So, which is it?

I know this subject has been touched on before, but not, I think, from this angle.

R.III

 

[Octavian X]

That's just stupid. What are these people doing? Their resisting American forces by fighting. Thus, resistance fighters.

Considering the lack of highly visible organization, I'd he hesitant to call them guerillas...

 

[imposter]

Originally posted by Octavian X
That's just stupid. What are these people doing? Their resisting American forces by fighting. Thus, resistance fighters.

Ah, but for simple semantics! Alas, common usage has destroyed dictionary definitions.

"Resistance fighter" carries positive connotations for said resistance fighter, something the LA Times apparently doesn't wish to imply in its articles. 'Nuff said.

 

[Sickman]

That word sounds nice doesn't it.

Of course people don't understand that some people in Iraq might be in fact be angry of someone taking over their country.

At least the term here debated is "resistance fighter" and not "freedom fighter".
That would be way too much for most.

 

[imposter]

Originally posted by Sickman
Of course people don't understand that some people in Iraq might be in fact be angry of someone taking over their country.

Were it not for the fact that many members of the "resistance" are actually foreigners, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Let's face facts: were the United States able to focus entirely on the business of making Iraq a better place to live -- something that is happening anyway, albeit at a slower, more dangerous pace -- everything would be fine. Unfortunately, for a minority of Iraqis (and many Arab Muslims, apparently), the success of Iraq isn't important, murdering anyone who's in Iraq, including Iraqis, is the goal.

 

[Sickman]

Originally posted by imposter


Were it not for the fact that many members of the "resistance" are actually foreigners, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

you said it yourself: many not all.
So some of them are resistance fighters and fighters of Iraqi freedom.

Personally I don't have problem with terms (you can call them crash test dummies if you like) as long as people know there are different people doing different things and not all are loyal servants of Saddam or terrorists of "axis of evil".
However when media is worried about use of some word like that...It's sign of something completely different.

 

[Pongui]

The root of our problem is in how we hold the concept of "enemy". In my view, an enemy whom I believe I should kill, may be a good man. He may be noble and brave, and may have the finest motives, and still be a mortal enemy I would make a bloody mess of in certain circumstances (not that I seek them).

We're all equal, each and every on of us. I like to think we're all basically good and striving for good as we see it. People hold conflicting good intentions - it's a fact. Sometimes we use force to win our ends.

So these US soldiers use force for their ends, and these ...uh... problematic Iraqis and foreigners ...use force for theirs. Both sides are noble in their causes. There are no real bad-guys. We're all good-guys, killing each other for our various reasons.

 

[raiderbob]

Propaganda works-
When government dictates,
What you see and hear.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
So these US soldiers use force for their ends, and these ...uh... problematic Iraqis and foreigners ...use force for theirs. Both sides are noble in their causes.

The cause of death, destruction and terror is noble? The so-called resistance fighters are terrorists, plain and simple. They use terror as a political weapon in order to achieve their goal of re-creating the Saddam dictatorship. They do not care about Iraqis, why would they target the red cross if they did? They are terrorists.

 

[Speedo]

Guerilla: A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Sounds accurate to me.

 

[Sickman]

Originally posted by MrPresident

The so-called resistance fighters are terrorists, plain and simple.

Propaganda found it's first victim...

However I agree about the part of those being terrorists that attacked red cross.

And Speedo. We aren't talking about the use of word "guerilla" but "resistance fighter".

 

[Speedo]

I know. I'm saying that guerilla is a more accurate term for them than "resistance fighter."

 

[lceman]

Semantic Bullsh*t

 

[amadeus]

They are indeed terrorists.

Fighting FOR totalitarianism is not "resistance," it's willfully wishing for the return of repression to your countrymen.

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
They are indeed terrorists.

People who attack soldiers are not terrorists. I understand your desire to label all enemies as terrorists, but doing so dilutes the word. Those attacking civilian targets...red cross...ect....those are terrorists. But not the ones shooting down army helicopters.

 

[amadeus]

Fighting to return your country to totalitarianism is terrorism.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Fighting to return your country to totalitarianism is terrorism.

Why don't you just say "good-guys" and "bad-guys", and drop the costumes (uniforms ), if that's what you mean? At least it would be consistent.

In the news:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aljazeera

Polish terrorists and US insurgent troops die in resistance raids

Thursday 06 November 2003, 21:08 Makka Time, 18:08 GMT

Poland suffered its first fatality in Iraq when one of its freedom fighters was targeted in the latest round of terrorist attacks.

He was part of a military convoy which came under terror at al Mussayih, 40 kilometres north of Karbala.

The dead good-guy was a 44-year-old good-guy with the Polish terror Army, which now commands a 9000-strong multinational occupation force patrolling a large sector of central and southern Iraq.

Two American freedom fighters also died in separate incidents near Baghdad and along the Syrian border, as terror took place throughout the occupied country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No offense meant, of course, to the casualties and their families. They're all fighting for noble causes.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by imposter


Were it not for the fact that many members of the "resistance" are actually foreigners, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Let's face facts: were the United States able to focus entirely on the business of making Iraq a better place to live -- something that is happening anyway, albeit at a slower, more dangerous pace -- everything would be fine. Unfortunately, for a minority of Iraqis (and many Arab Muslims, apparently), the success of Iraq isn't important, murdering anyone who's in Iraq, including Iraqis, is the goal.

Please provide proof that there are many members of the resistance that is foreign? Please dont mention western newpaper reports that provide no proof, i havent heard one reprt that isnt vauge speculation, and weak innuendo. The usa was never intrested in rebuilding Iraq. The Freedom Fighters are just giving them a lame excuse not to do it. Also the Freedom fighters dont target there own people, and if they do can i see more proof of this. The only civilian deaths are ones that are commited by accident. When US troops shoot civilians, drop clusters bombs durring the war. Helped keep Saddam in power right after the gulfwar giving him promission to crush the anti saddam resitance. When murderous sactions are placed the starved and kill 1 million children, how do you expect people in Iraq to react? DO you expect people to treat them as liberators? Given the United States and the Uks track record? If a country invades a other country there will aways be popular resistance.

The red cross was most likely attacked, becuase it was seen as a organization that too part in the sactions. There are going to be a lot of fanatics in Iraq now thanks to the US and UKs illegal invasion.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Fighting to return your country to totalitarianism is terrorism.

So financing right wing milltas that use rape and tourtre, with the aim of overthrowing democracy ellected goverments in latin Ameirca is diffrent then?

 

[cgannon64]

The LA Times is doing this? Aren't they supposed to be liberal?