POLL: How should we be calling these folks ?

[Cyrus]

What do you believe is the appropriate term to use for the Iraqis who have taken up arms against the American military forces and the appointed Iraqi government?

[Wake up CALL]

You provided no suitable choices: I choose number 5

5) Deceased

[Zeno]

There are numerous groups, peoples, or individuals that are 'taking up arms' and some are, I would postulate, not under any choice given, or are an amalgam of different choices, again, some not given. Certainly some groups or individuals would fit closely to your choices but I note with dismay the absence of any religious reference(s). This is a key error in my opinion.

But all the above is just semantics that I enjoyed tossing in your direction for annoyance purposes. A wise man would not respond to such puerile teasing.

The more generic term: Insurgents probably throws out the best net and will haul in the most fish.


? So are you voting for that shyster: Kerry

-Zeno

[Boris]

Terrorist probably doesn't apply since they don't seem to be targeting civilians, except if you count western journalists. Freedom Fighter doesn't apply since they hold such crazy dark ages religious beliefs. They certainly are not fighting for freedom.

That leaves Criminal or Insurgent. Flip a coin.

[adios]

al-Zarqawi has targeted and killed many Iraqi civillians. Our man nicky will corroborate this I believe as it's one of the reasons that it's hard to fathom that Iran is helping the likes of al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda.

[ACPlayer]

1. To an Islam hating christian bigot -- terrorists.
2. To an American General or an American puppet government trying to get sympathy from the Iraqi populace -- criminals
3. To a hapless, clueless administration trying to spin the situation - insurgents
4. To the bulk of the Iraqi and Arab populations -- freedom fighters.
5. To a napalm inhaling moron -- deceased

Which one are you?

[MMMMMM]

6) Morons

[Cyrus]

"Freedom Fighter doesn't apply since [those armed Iraqis] hold such crazy dark-ages religious beliefs. They certainly are not fighting for freedom."

Subjectively speaking, or cynically if you prefer, Freedom Fighters are the people who are "on our side" and taking up arms against their government, with which government we don't exactly see eye to eye. Get it?

So, the contras in Nicaragua were FFs but the armed insurgents in Chechnya are not. (We pals with Putin, see.)

But forget social liberties. Objectively (i.e. historically) speaking, all those who rebelled against an occupying force, however benign or benevolent that occupying force might have been, have been labeled Freedom Fighters.

Examples abound. Rhodesia's rebels were named freedom fighters for their struggle against "white supremacists" ruling their country. When the rebels won, and created Zimbabwe, they showed total contempt for liberty and democracy, as witnessed by the ongoing crimes of their once-revered-in-the-West leader Robert Mugabe, he of the Hitler mustache.

So, whether those fighting against an occupier have "dark beliefs" about liberty or not, is irrelevant. The armed Afghanis fighting against the Soviet invaders were named Freedom Fighters, despite their total contempt for civil rights and liberty.

A freedom fighter is one who fights to free his country from an occupying force or an invader, and not necessarily one who fights for social freedom, however that is defined.

(BTW, I personally voted for "Insurgents". More objective, in our times.)

[jdl22]

Not enough info. I think there are likely some people from every group.

[nicky g]

Agreed. I don;t think the words terroorist or freedom fighter are particularly useful. I'd categorise some as guerrillas/insurgents, and some as criminal murderers.