Being the trader that I am, looks like it's time to go long the "occupiers" by reading this thread!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Where does the word "insurgent" come from?
- Thread starter oddiduro
- Start date
Yes, you are correct. They are synonymous in the English language. But for some reason, I perceive a ârebelâ as part of something larger and more organized than an âinsurgent.âQuote from Sparohok:
[BThat's a nice theory that has nothing to do with the English language. "Insurgent" and "rebel" are synonyms. [/B]
I relate the magnitude of the reported mayhem to a nation of 26 million people. After all, since so many people are convinced that Iraq is going to hell in a handbag, I expect a thousand times the number of deaths gleefully reported by the media.Quote from Sparohok:
[BYou and I must be watching different fights. [/B]
:eek: "spoiled little brats"? "Newt Gingritch"? I'd like to say this is a parody, but I doubt you have the imagination to come up with something so asinine for humor's sake.Quote from maxpi:
The insurgency just does not want democracy. They got thrown out of power by an invading force and they are going into democracy only with kicking and screaming and murderous assaults on the invader. I would possibly call them spoiled little brats I suppose, if I needed a new word for them. Liberals in the US are doing the same thing since they started to lose power in 1992 elections. They started the partisan fighting thing by not allowind Newt Gingritch to publish a book and make some $. Pure brats without a good plan to lead the country, same as the Sunnis that are deposed in Iraq.
Quote from Sam123:
I relate the magnitude of the reported mayhem to a nation of 26 million people. After all, since so many people are convinced that Iraq is going to hell in a handbag, I expect a thousand times the number of deaths gleefully reported by the media.
me think that in your case it is more wishing than expecting the thousand times the number of death.
You wish for Americaâs failure, and you hope for hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi deaths because you know America is the custodian of Iraq and now Iraqi blood is on Americaâs hands. Our failure is more important to you than the fate of Iraq and the welfare of Iraqis. You dream for an American retreat in humiliation, and you donât give a rat's ass if a bloody Iraqi civil war happens as a result.
Quote from kissanmakeup:
me think that in your case it is more wishing than expecting the thousand times the number of death.
Afghanistan's government was Taliban.Quote from oddiduro:
Wasn't this the original logic of the Bush administration. They had WMD's? They were harboring terrorists? It was also the impetus for invading Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there, we were told. So, if follows that if the highjackers were Saudi's then where should we have gone?
Iraq's government was hostile to the US and we thought had WMD.
Saudi Arabia's government is not hostile to the US.
I repeat: If the 9/11 hijackers were Canadian, would you advocate invading Canada?
Before I answer, do you know what "Sunni" is?
Quote from oddiduro:
You have made some interesting claims.
Educate me.
How do you know that this "Islamofascism" is mostly Sunni supported? Also, the term "Islamofascism" implies that they seek global domination of the world.
Is there evidence to support this?
Or, have they been labeled this because they oppose an outside culture trying to tell them how to live?
Quote from hapaboy:
Afghanistan's government was Taliban.
Iraq's government was hostile to the US and we thought had WMD.
Saudi Arabia's government is not hostile to the US.
I repeat: If the 9/11 hijackers were Canadian, would you advocate invading Canada?
Can you tell me in what way the Taliban government was hostile to the US?
I never heard them threatening the US with harm before the US threatened them with harm.
I do know that they shut down the opium trade.
Is that being hostile to the US?
And if the highjackers were Canadian, that would clearly be an act of war, right?
I mean, somebody has to pay, and the war on terror would have to start in Canada, correct?