# Clairfication of Three Terms Used Frequently on This Board.



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did you have a point, or did you see yourself as merrily educating the great unwashed and ignorant masses?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, it wasn't an attack. It was a case of being offended by someone who thinks everyone else is so stupid that you have to point out the obvious. There are a whole bunch of us on here that can add too. I guess I'm just not in the mood for aloofness tonight.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Just for clarification what do you call the people that plant a car loaded with explosives in a shopping area or place of worship that is aimed at killing civilians? Now the road side bombs that explode and kill our people (military) I would suspect are done by insurgents. But in my opinion the car bombs that kill civilians are done by terrorists. This leads to a second question, where have you seen these terms misused or better yet how have these terms been misused that bothers you so much? Just curious&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Gohon, right here, in these boards. The insurgents have been mentioned as terrorist on occasion, when in fact, they better fit the category of freedom fighters or guerilla fighters.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Gohon, right here, in these boards. The insurgents have been mentioned as terrorist on occasion, when in fact, they better fit the category of freedom fighters or guerilla fighters.


And a BJ isn't sex, so what differance does it matter, isn't possible to be ALL 3?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Gohon, right here, in these boards. The insurgents have been mentioned as terrorist on occasion, when in fact, they better fit the category of freedom fighters or guerilla fighters.


Maybe, maybe not............ some things are so insignificant most people simply pay then no mind. Especially when one considers that the insurgents in Iraq are for the most part ex-Bathists that were nothing more than government terrorist under Saddam. So in a sense these freedom fighters, your term, not mine are just hold over terrorists from a fallen dictator.

Still I didn't get an answer about what do you call the people that plant a car loaded with explosives in a shopping area or place of worship that is aimed at killing civilians. Just want to know if you think they are terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters, or guerrilla's. Not looking for a pissing match, just want to know where you stand with these guys.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Well, IMHO, a terrorist is somebody who kills innocent civilians in order to advance their agenda, while freedom/guerilla fighters fight an actual force (the United States Military, for instance), and are thus called insurgents. I won't disagree that there are terrorist in Iraq, just that our main "mission" it seems there is fighting the insurgents, which aren't terrorists in my book, just an enemy force.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41

So you are *ASSUMING* that when the terrorists attack a mosque,or police station of a freely elected Gov they are freedom fighters!!!!! ?

You and MT should get together and forum your own country! You can buy an island for little or nothing! There you and MT can debate and set up what ever type of Government you would like. You will have complete freedom to select and apply meanings to words used by others in your country.

But back to the word terrorist, those who are causing the unrest in Iraq and not freedom fighters, ore rebels, they are without a doubt by your own posted definition *TERRORIST!!!!!!*

You are a prime example why public education is failing the students and the people of the United States!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

More unnecessarily offensive statements. For shame Ron.



> But back to the word terrorist, those who are causing the unrest in Iraq and not freedom fighters, ore rebels, they are without a doubt by your own posted definition TERRORIST!!!!!!


As to this, you (like many others) need to make the separation between foreign jihadists and insurgents. They are not one in the same. The insurgents will not follow us home.


----------



## Scoonafish (Oct 9, 2005)

What if they want to call themselves "freedom fighters"?
I would call them terrorists also. Some of you guys are trying to split hairs. If they are killing innocent people, police or our millitary.. THEY ARE THE ENEMY! Anyway around it, they need to die. I am sick of all the pussyfooting around with all the PC crap. KILL THEM! Then, when they are done, kill them again. Man this gets old.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You're welcome to kill them if you please, but at least quantify them properly.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

This thread was a joke. should be locked.....


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Thanks Kid, I will write that one down. NOT :eyeroll:


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> Talking to MT?


What?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

What civilians has the US attacked. Where is your proof? I am surprised you are old enough to have a wife much less know what to do if you had one...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> How many civilians have been killed in Iraq by accidental fire? Would you refresh my memory???


Keyword ACCIDENTAL, damn dude come on get your story together...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

You cant prove that........


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Where are your stats?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.


Just a sentence out of your paragragh from your link.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> Quote:
> On 12 December, US President George W Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed since the war began.


Where did you get that crap?


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

If you want to refer to it as crap, you can, as to where I got it from, in that little article I posted. You obviously didn't read it if you didn't pick up on it. Seriously now that you've dragged my discussion way off base, just take it with a grain of salt and leave before this thread is locked by your rash and irresponsible comments.

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/ ... 7045.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq/


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Would that be the same President that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? So we see just cause he says something dont always mean it is right, :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> Would that be the same President that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? So we see just cause he says something dont always mean it is right, :eyeroll:


He says about 30,000 and so does every other reasonable estimate. Why shield yourself from the facts?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said Bush was basing his statement on media reports, "not an official government estimate."


Also from same paragraph....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So your defense is that Bush was using false numbers because he was put on the spot?

There is no official estimate, and for good reason...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I know there is no official estimte, but this guy thinks since Bush said 30,000 he can take it to the bank....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So when all reputible counts show 30,000 but the president also says 30,000, we should assume it is wrong? I'll remember that in the future.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Who is counting, US and Britain arent counting civiliain casualties....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> Who is counting, US and Britain arent counting civiliain casualties....


Saddam didn't keep records of how many people he killed either, I suppose we should assume that any numbers regarding that are false too.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> You've effectively ruined my thread, if that was your goal. Either consider the information, or leave. The choices are that simple.


Yes Sir


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> You've effectively ruined my thread, if that was your goal. Either consider the information, or leave. The choices are that simple.


I read the original post. Thanks. To me it just came off as condescending. IMO


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> So when all reputible counts show 30,000 but the president also says 30,000, we should assume it is wrong? I'll remember that in the future.


Mt, use whatever number you want your propaganda here has ZERO credability anyways :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think people all understand what a terrorist, or an insurgent is. However, people see these fighters differently. Many try to candy coat what is real because they feel that everyone is essentially a nice person and we should be tolerant. Others think this is a one way ticket to the grave.
Because there are different attitudes people will place the same fighter in different categories. To assume that everyone is going to listen to one persons categorizing is not realistic. That is why I seen this thread as condescending to begin with. Definitions was all it was with no point. I was not trying to be sarcastic, I was offended that some one thought I was so stupid I didn't know these things. Evidently others felt the same, longshot for example. 
This thread served only to divide people and get everyone hot under the collar. This is a political form not grammar 101. I don't see this thread going anywhere but down. Turn it into something useful or forget it. 
It started out with no hope, and went down hill from there.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

For the life of me ...

I don't recall any of those three terms being used "frequenty" on this board ...

Could someone show me who has been using these terms "Frequently?"

Did this thread have a Single Merit from it's onset ... ??????

Or is this just some "Cock and Bull" thread??????


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. As mentioned everyone knows the difference between a insurgent, a terrorist, a soldier or a civilian, and so on and so on. All these terms are used lightly depending on whose ox is being gored. I see no insurgents in Iraq. If they were true insurgents they would not only be attacking the US forces and the new Iraqi government but the Jihadists who have a goal of defeating them also. As I said before these so called insurgents are nothing more than old government terrorist that want their perks and easy life style back that they had under Saddam.

Hilly billy, in all honesty you must remember that we (USA) do not have clean hands when it comes to targeting civilians. Have you forgotten Nagasaki or Hiroshima. We violated every rule in the book when we dropped those bombs. Did it really save all the American lives it was claimed as an excuse? Most historians today say no, that the estimates were blown out of proportion but at they same time they will tell you it brought the war to a screeching halt.

To me it brings up a question of is there really such a thing as rules of war or engagement. I do know that in Iraq we changed the rules from the past to purposely go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. These 30,000 claimed civilian casualties in Iraq are not all from American guns. Actually only a small percentage is. For this reason, because of the rule change we have taken more casualties than we would have if we had simply invaded with blazing guns. There is nothing pleasant or really honorable about war itself and people need to realize that. Only thing that matters in war is if you win or lose and how honorable you conduct yourself in that war.

Bottom line is call them terrorist, insurgents, or what ever but the end goal is to call them dead.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I think people all understand what a terrorist, or an insurgent is. However, people see these fighters differently. Many try to candy coat what is real because they feel that everyone is essentially a nice person and we should be tolerant. Others think this is a one way ticket to the grave.


If we were invaded and occupied by Iran and fought back as civilians, what would we be, Plainsman?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT, you don't get to continue this childish whiz match. My last post was a warning of that. This thread is locked.


----------

