If the US were invaded, would we be known as insurgents if

[myomy]

we were fighting for our land? If the answer is "no", then why are the Iraqis always referred to as insurgents?

[everythingsxen]

1. I have no idea...

[fryguy]

2. we already are

as far as the Bush League is concerned

[kiahzero]

3. Linguistically, yes (n/t).

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. Just heard them use the same word on NPR.

Remember, the white men who came to these shores felt the same way about Native Americans. Was it Custer who said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Whoever it was, what a sensitive guy!

[arcane1]

5. they would call us "Bush loyalists"

but I would fight them anyway

[mitchtv]

6. likewise do you ever hear the word 'collaborators'?

in reference to Iraquis'helping the occupying powers.'

[myomy]

7. Another good one.

.

[Zero Gravitas]

8. of course we would

insurgent

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government n 1: a person who takes part in a rebellion in the hope of improving conditions 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

[tabasco]

9. This seems right to me.

Been awhile since I cracked open an Army field manual, but this seems like the correct definition. I believe the word is accurately used to describe the Iraqi opposition.
WOLVERINES!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. The British referred to the rebelling Americans as "rebels"...

...while the Americans referred to themselves as "patriots".

Today, if occupied by a foreign power, we would refer to ourselves as "patriots" and "freedom fighters", while the foreign power would refer to us as "terrorists", "dead-enders", "rebels", and "insurgents".

[myomy]

11. Remember during the 80's "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom

fighter".

[dpibel]

12. Well, of course not

Because everyone would know that we were fighting for the restoration of the only truly great country the world has ever known. Even the invaders would know that, but they would try to cover up their guilty consciences with filthy lies about how we were simply malcontents and they were liberators. Everyone in the world would know they were lying, although they might keep quiet out of fear of any country with sufficient military might to invade the United States (of course we already stand in danger of imminent invasion by the mighty imperialistic Army of Islam which desires only to invade our country for sport, and will, absent space-based missile defense, do so aboard their mighty armada of dhows, skiffs, fishing boats and luxury yachts).

I cannot imagine how you could fail to see the distinction between America being invaded, which would be a war to take away freedom, as opposed to America invading elsewhere, which is always a war to impose freedom.

Please do not post any more of this immoral material here. The moral equivalency you are trying to palm off here as reasoned discourse would perhaps be better carried on under the auspices of your good friend and role model, Fidel Castro, don't you think? One way tickets available!

Thank you.




(Please don't make me put the /sarcasm thingy on this. If I were seriously putting these ideas forward, you know I wouldn't be able to spell this well.)

[myomy]

14. You do a nice imitation of a freeper however.

Had me fooled for a few paragraphs.

[democratreformed]

13. Ah, I have wondered about that very point myself so many times.... n/t