The word "Insurgents" really gets to me. It is way to deny Iraqis any

[KlatooBNikto]

feelings for their own country that has been invaded by a large and predatory power on trumped up excuses. It makes you see the Iraqis as less than human and treats them as people that can be exterminated without remorse. In other words another people ready to be Vietnamized.

Step back and ask ourselves whether any of our major newspapers have used the word "AGGRESSION" in connection with this war. Or for that matter, with the Vietnam War. You would be hard pressed to come up with that term.

It is the same mindset as Elisabeth Bumiller saying you just cannot write that the President is lying. Why not? Because Elisabeth is keeping her options open.

[CrispyQ]

1. They are patriots. Iraqi patriots, but still patriots.

They just want us out of their country & who can blame them?

What would we do if our country was invaded by a bullying super power for no cause? We'd fight back! And we would call ourseleves patriots. Of course, the bullying super power would call us insurgents. :eyes:

[H2O Man]

2. I respectfully disagree.

I believe the word is an accurate description for people who are fighting against a government being imposed upon them. I would not apply either a positive or negative value to either the "insurgents" or the "government" as far as the choice of those two words goes.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Like the American "insurgents" who threw off British rule?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, I guess!

[H2O Man]

7. "Insurgent" has a simple meaning

and the Americans who threw off the British rule are absolutely within that definition. The word is actually one that this administration hesitated to use; the book "Imperial Hubris" detailed the need to use "insurgent" rather than the Bush administration's "terrorist" for sake of accuracy.

[KlatooBNikto]

9. My problem with that word is not necessarily with the exact meaning

so much as its usefulness in the hands of the propagandists of our WH and the Press. They use it as a term demeaning the very idea of Iraqi patriotism and that somehow the fight waged by the Iraqis is illegal.It is in that sense that I object to it even though I appreciate what you are trying to say.

[H2O Man]

11. Using the correct

words should never be viewed as "trying to say." It is "saying." When we allow the administration to substitute incorrect definitions for words, we then begin to accept their interpretation of that which they are mischaracterizing. And at that exact point, we begin to confuse an accurate description as "what you are trying to say."

Confusion is the devil's tongue, and apathy his language. Do not define the world based upon Cheney/Rumsfeld diction.

[Perky]

6. Exactly,

What I object to is the equating of terrorists and insurrgents..The insurgents are fighting a guerilla war against a an occupying power and those foing their bidding.

Iraqui Police and Army as well as the MNF are fair game in a guerilla war. Civillains in a a war zone ar always at risk. but that does not make the perpretors terrorists.

[H2O Man]

8. That is the single most important point.

In the book "Imperial Hubris," the author makes clear that the administration was purposely misinforming the American public by using the word "terrorist" rather than "insurgent." By our correctly using the word "insurgent," it does not imply that we agree or disagree with the world-view of those the US forces are fighting. We are, however, accurately identifying the nature of the war.

[UnityDem]

3. Great Frank Luntz word

repub pollster/strategist tested and then "framed" this word...and media lapdogs lapped it up. You are correct...those who live outside of Iraq (including Americans) are technically ALL "insurgents".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. "Rebels" would be appropriate, but would cause many Southern heads to

explode.

[bunkerbuster1]

12. ooh, good tip! I'm going to use that.

BTW, put me down for generally preferring the term "Insurgent," I too think it's more or less neutral, and probably the best term for us to use in polite/official discussions.

(When I want to drive a local cracker batshit crazy, OTOH...)

[gulliver]

24. I'm hearing "rebels" used more and more. It is accurate.

Now that Iraq has a government and that government's police and soldiers are primary targets, it's time to start using the correct term, "rebels."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. No, Iraq does not yet have a government that represents Iraq...

...and the last time I looked, Americans are being killed at an ever increasing rate, as are the puppet-Iraqis.

If you want to be entirely accurate, it's the US that is supporting the "rebels".

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Yep...another shot at Southerners. I'm surprised that heads like yours...

...don't explode from your almost continuous efforts to denigrate Southern DUers.

[Zhade]

36. The poster is obviously not referring to Southern DUers.

I grew up in the south, and I can determine the intent. It sounds like you just want to pick a fight.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Actually, I'm getting very tired of the shots being taken at the South,...

...and Southerners in particular. Quite a few DUers are either from the South originally, like myself, or live in the South now, also like myself.

WADR, it's your opinion that the poster is not posting another shot at Southerners, and it's my opinion that he or she is DEFINITELY taking a shot. Why don't you let the one who posted the comments resolve the issue?

[Zhade]

46. Do you demand that comments critical of rw Christians carry a disclaimer?

It's easy to imagine outrage where there is none. If you have a history with the poster, okay, but reading the post, it didn't strike me (whose family ALL still live in the south) as being aimed at southern DUers.

YMMV.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and....

...slant it anyway you want.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. I have yet to hear what Maybery Machiavelli has to say, and neither have you.

[Zhade]

73. I'm not slanting it - I didn't see a slam at DUers. Period.

I have seen it in the past, yes, but not here.

It's your call if you want to imagine being wronged. I just didn't see what you saw. :shrug:

[drdon326]

10. I'm just wondering......

Does the word "BEHEADING" get to you also ?

Better yet, do you feel that BEHEADING is a legitimate use of resistence ?

[stray cat]

13. Civil war might be appropriate

The "insurgents" are largely killing other Iraqis. By the same token, however, Tim McVey considered himself a freedom fighter but I wouldn't call him one. The 9-11 hijackers also saw themselves as rebels against America but I won't condone their action.

Most people consider their actions just - no matter who they hurt or what they are doing. However, the victims of aggression generally have a different perspective.

[Jara sang]

14. The word "insurgent" is for American consumption.

The Iraqi's don't use it to describe themselves.

[CityZen-X]

15. Freedom Fighters....

is how I refer to them. It just drives the Bu$h*t Jingoistic Mystics bonkers!
I also advise these mystics that the Karlrovian catch phrase "war on terrorism" is as absurd as the source that it comes from. Terrorism is a tactic, not a peoples nor a country.
The U.S. so called government once upon a time engaged in another frivolous endeavor, I believe it was called the "War On Drugs"! I believe we all know who won that conflict.

[OKNancy]

16. Freedom?

It depends if you are male or female if you believe they want freedom.
I myself hate that term. There won't be much freedom there for half the population if they happen to prevail.

I hate this war, and I hate GWBush, but I'm not too fond of the other side either. It all sucks.

[CityZen-X]

19. A Better Term?

Freedom Fighters from Bu$h*t!?

[julianer]

53. One of the stereotypes

we are constantly encouraged to believe is that muslim women are automatically oppressed by men.

This is not true. It is possibly true of the most severe Wahabbists but most muslims are no different to anyone else.

Many muslim women in the UK wear the hijab as a sign of feminist refusal to be objectified, for example. I know of no reason to imagine muslim women are any more naturally submissive or dominated in the home than any of the women who have effortlessly controlled me in my life!

My own party has many strong muslim women in leading positions. One thing I've learned over the last couple of years is that any preconceived notions I had about muslim women were completely wrong!

[OKNancy]

72. As they do in Oklahoma

But in Britain and the US, women are protected by the law. None of the Muslim women I know want to move back to Saudi where they are from.
I was radicalized on this subject by working with RAWA.
http://www.rawa.org/ starting in 1996. I have no preconcieved notions about Muslim women. I don't have half the strength and courage of these women.

[julianer]

74. Yes, indeed

Saudi Arabia is a Wahibbist country. It is a very repressive cult, but it is in a small minority among all muslims.

[Goldmund]

17. You're trivializing it a bit.

The battle against occupation isn't the only thing happening in Iraq. There is also a parallel civil war going on, a battle for power within Iraq itself, and both for Iraq's posture in response to the occupation and for power once the occupation ends.

In that light, we need to distinguish between attacks on US troops and attacks on Iraqi civilian population. Attacks on occupying military forces are, as you say, to be expected and I don't condemn them -- they're doing what almost every human being on this planet does when his or her county is occupied by a foreign power. Attacks on civilian population, however, are by definition terrorism. And ain't no way that a "patriot" will throw bombs at markets and restaurants indiscriminately blowing up his or her compatriots.

[KlatooBNikto]

21. What is the possibility that attacks on civilians are part of the attacks

on those Iraqis perceived as collaborators with the Foreign Occupiers? That was always the case during the WWII, when partisan forces in Russia or France attacked the collaborators and dealt with them mercilessly.

[Goldmund]

22. True --

but bombing a restaurant in which the collaborators are eating, and in the process blowing up 30 people who have nothing to do with them, is no different from the US dropping a bomb on a building in which a few "insurgents" live together with 30 people who have nothing to do with it. In addition to that, since they're blowing up people of their own country, I don't see how they could possibly be called "patriots".

If "ends justifies the means" is your motto, then eventually you'll arrive to a mindset that there is no such thing as terrorism, and there is no solid way to condemn any forceful action.

[KlatooBNikto]

26. you are trying to equate Iraqi patriots with an invader.In WWII, it

became essential for partisans to strike at collaborators regardless of the cost to innocent bystanders.We, who are the invaders, have no moral authority to lecture the Iraqis on what and what is not acceptable to us in terms of the way they go about fighting their just war.

[Goldmund]

27. I wasn't speaking as an American, but as a human being.

And as such, I have every right to determine what I deem an acceptable tactic of conflict and what I don't. Partisans in WW2 included.

[KlatooBNikto]

28. To me the defeat of Nazi barbarism was a more pressing moral

imperative than the killing of innocent civilians in a war waged against superior firepower by the partisans.

[Goldmund]

29. It's a mistake to think it's either-or

My grandfather was Tito's commie partisan in WW2. A big indigenous faction they were fighting against were the Chetniks, remnants of the Yugoslav Royal army -- who were also fighting against German occupation, at least in the beginning, before they tacitly started collaborating with Germans for the sole purpose of defeating the Partisans. Also, many of the Partisans' actions were aimed solely at defeating the Chetniks, because they were ideological enemies. They never collaborated with Germans to do it, mostly because Germans would not collaborate with communists. But they did engage in actions like ones we're talking about here, and as a result, after the Germans were defeated there had to be 10 years of outright dictatorship to root out the remaining Chetniks and their "sympathizers", many of whose family members were slaughtered by Partisans in guerilla actions. Only then could Yugoslavia become the liberal socialist country it eventually became.

What I'm saying is that not every aspect of the Iraq conflict is directly related to kicking out the invaders. The chaos which the invasion produced is in a way an ideological vacuum which openede the way for ideological, national and religious infighting. Sunnis, Shiates and Kurds weren't great friends to begin with, and the conflict has opened the pandora's box of their own internal fight for power.

[KlatooBNikto]

37. In a better ordered world, what you say is the ideal we should all aspire

to. In our imperfect and barbaric world, we need to see who the Iraqis are fighting against, how different are the resources available to the two sides and whether the invader had any moral and legal basis for his invasion. When we apply that yardstick, I think the position of the Iraqis looks justifiable. But, with due respect, I can also understand where you come from.Unless we move away from our barbarism, large and small, we are all doomed in the end.

[julianer]

57. I don't think there

is any evidence that a civil war is going on in Iraq. To be sure there is a lot of propaganda about civil war, even some right wingers are claiming it is the best option for the US. There are even some groups that are trying to destabilise things for unknown reasons. But they are not the real resistance.

No doubt if the occupiers left tomorrow the resulting power vacuum would encourage desperate measure from the various factions. But there is no reason why a proper interim authority cannot be constructed to govern while the occupiers withdraw.

Iraqis are proud of their national solidarity and there are many reports that thinking in terms of Shia/Sunni was not common until the invasion.

As regards the tactics of the resistance fighters: it is up to them what they do. It is not our job to offer conditional support but then start complaining if they 'go too far'. Too far for our sensibilities maybe, but if we walk in their shoes for a little while we might see it differently. But even then, if we haven't experienced occupation we cannot really stand in moral judgement on those who are fighting for their national freedom.

[Goldmund]

75. I agree with that

My assertion that there is a civil war going on there doesn't imply that I think US troops should stay there. If anything, they are making that civil war infinitely worse.

[AngryAmish]

18. True Iraqi patriots

fighting against Amerikkkan stormtroopers.

[deadparrot]

20. There are no absolutes in war.

I don't know how else to say it. There are acts of unspeakable evil committed on both sides, as well as acts of stunning courage and bravery. To paint one side, whichever it is, as lily-white, and the other as dark, evil, and sadistic, is to fall into a dangerous mindset.

[K-W]

23. I think you missed the mark on this one.

The word insurgent is perfectly appropriate, that isnt the problem.

The problem is that Americans assume the Iraqi's attacking us are evil and thus insurgent has taken on tremendously negative asscociations.

[KlatooBNikto]

25. I agree with your assessment of the word's connotations .

[Sparkly]

30. They are not all Iraqi's, and they're not only killing Americans. n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

31. According to one of our generals, they are 99.9% Iraqis. I am sure they

are killing those they perceive as collaborators with the occupying power.

[Sparkly]

32. In number, but much of the fighting is coming from others.

There's been a lot of attention (rather late) to guarding the borders, and much fighting on the border with Syria. (And beyond it, I'd bet.) And civilians who have nothing to do with the US have been targeted.

Here's an article from the BBC, from last month:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4537065.stm

US officials now see the foreign "jihadi" fighters as their most important, and most ruthless, enemies - even though, numerically, these fighters are outnumbered by Iraqi insurgents.

(snip)

What is striking, more than two years after the war which toppled Saddam Hussein, is how little the Americans appear to know about their enemy.

There are thought to be dozens of insurgent groups, with differing agendas. They sometimes act autonomously, sometimes in loose co-operation.

The stark truth may be that no one can know for sure whether there is a pattern to the insurgency, or why the violence ebbs and flows.

[KlatooBNikto]

34. You lost me. How could the insurgents be 99.9% in number and yet the

fighting is carried out by others?

[Sparkly]

39. I think 99.9% is hyperbole, putting a good face on it

to make it seem like we've got the borders under control.

And as the article mentioned, it seems the foreign fighters are not as great in number as the Iraqis, but they are a major factor in the violence there.

[KlatooBNikto]

44. What does "major factor in the violence" mean? Number of attacks?

The effectiveness and lethality of attacks? And, who is keeping score? And how are they able to determine who committed the attacks after the fact?

[Sparkly]

48. Here are a few more links.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.main/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1332344.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800838.html

It's where they're fighting, who they discover they've killed, and what they see in weapons entering the country. I'd imagine it's also based on intel.

From the last link:
"But in terms of overall effect, the foreign fighters who serve as suicide bombers and cause high casualties are having a disproportionate impact, the officers said."

[KlatooBNikto]

51. Most of the lethal violence seems to be concentrated in or around

Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi, the socalled Sunni Triangle where most of our casualties occur.In what way does that tell anyone they are caused by anyone other than loacl Iraqis? I find that a propaganda to make it appear that they have "pacified" the local population just as Westmoreland used to say about the Vietcong. It is all outside agitators, remember? The favorite terminology of Southern racists for Martin Luther King and the Freedom Riders.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Let's take a closer look at the contents of this article....

QUOTE:

"US officials now see the foreign "jihadi" fighters as their most important, and most ruthless, enemies - even though, numerically, these fighters are outnumbered by Iraqi insurgents.

The insurgency seems to have shrunk as its tactics have become more vicious, according to senior US officials quoted this week in the Washington Post.

The same officials believe former loyalists of the Saddam Hussein regime are reassessing their strategy in the light of the election. Some of them seem ready to abandon violence and enter the political game."

Isn't this the same tired propaganda that the NeoCons have been spewing into the US captive mainstream media for the last couple of years, that "foreign 'jihadi' fighters" are the primary "insurgents"?

Isn't it in the best interest of the NeoCons to continue to state that the "insurgency..." in Iraq..."...seems to have shrunk" despite the escalation in both violence and number of deaths?

I seem to reall that Rumdfeld stated every chance he got in the early days of the invasion that "former loyalists of the Saddam Hussein" were dead-enders, and would soon surrender or be killed. Now he, or someone with the same thought patterns, is stating that the "former loyalists of the Saddam Hussein" are looking for ways to join the US-puppet Iraqi "government".

I notice also that the Washington Post was used as a source for quotes of the "US officials". Doesn't that tell you something about the validity of the arguments stated in the BBC article?

[Sparkly]

52. This may be the WP article referenced

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800838.html

And we've been on the Syrian border for quite some time now. Are the commanders lying? Or is the WP lying about what the commanders are saying?

I think the spin BushCo promotes is: "It's SIMPLE. There are a few bad people there who don't Iraq to have freedom and democracy, because they hate that." They want to insist that "we're making progress," not that we've royally screwed it up, dealt miserably with the rest of the region, continue to give the Saudi's a pass, and are losing because we can't even secure the borders and have created a chaotic mess that attracts outside groups.

I don't think we should make the mistake of simplifying it either, by saying it's just the U.S. vs. Iraqi's.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. I personally believe that US troops are on the border with Syria....

...to build, knowingly or unknowingly, the NeoCon case for an attack on Syria. Are the commanders lying? Commanders usually do exactly what they're told to do and say, or their careers are over. We're not dealing with people that have the ability to speak freely for public consumption, are we?

Note also that we are building the same falsified case against Iran as we built against Iraq. And note also that Hans Blix has recently stated that Iran is several years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. Blix was correct in his assessment of Iraqi WMDs, and I suspect he's correct about iran as well.

IMHO, if anyone believes that Syria and Iran are not the next targets of the NeoCons, then they haven't been paying attention. What better way to build support for two more additional illegal invasions than to claim that fighters from those two countries are in Iraq assisting the Iraqi "insurgency"?

Additionally, if there are as many foreign fighters in Iraq as the NeoCons state, where's the proof? Why haven't the NeoCons paraded the evidence in front of the American people? While I suspect that foreign fighters are in Iraq to serve as combat advisors, I doubt seriously that are causing the bulk of the combat in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

63. I believe they've already gone over the border.

And I agree with what you're saying about Syria and Iran as targets. So wouldn't that motivate Syrians and Iranians to help defeat the US in Iraq?

[K-W]

56. Actually the government highlights the foriegn fighters, because

they are Islamic Militants who America feels very comfortable killing.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. And I suppose that "foreign fighters" are also our primary opponents....

...in "The Forgotten War" in Afghanistan and in all of the other 60+ countries where we have special ops troops engaged in operations?

This "foreign fighter" crap is nothing but pure propaganda designed by the NeoCons to keep "Al Qaeda" in the limelight as America's principal global opponent. Much the same strategy was used back during the so-called "Cold War" in that our primary opponent, Communism, was seen as a global entity that had to be fought everywhere in the world to avoid the effects of the dreaded "Domino Theory".

[Sparkly]

41. No, I'm speaking specifically about Iraq.

The chaos BushCo created there, including not securing munitions or borders, has made it fertile ground for a variety of groups, for a variety of reasons.

Syria and Iran are sending in support and people to defeat the US, in large part because BushCo has sent the message that if we succeed in Iraq, they're next. And among Iraqi's themselves, there are battles for territory and control not only between the three main sects, but also between smaller tribes and even families, with agendas that we don't understand.

So it's more complicated than just Iraqi's (as if they were all of one mind) fighting Americans. The fact remains, though, that this is the fault of the U.S. This is what heppens when you go in to topple a regime when there's no stable political substructure there to rise up and take its place.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. I agree with your last paragraph, but IMHO, if you're basing....

...your previous comments on the BBC article that is based primarily on quotes from the Washington Post, I contend that you're not getting the straight scoop on what's actually happening in Iraq.

IMHO, the Iraqis want the US out of their country and they're willing to do anything to expedite that process. That includes eradicating people or groups that are providing support to the US.

It also includes coordinating their efforts with foreign groups with common interests, but not to the extent that the bulk of the attacks are coming from these foreign groups. I believe that the foreign fighters are acting as combat advisors to the Iraqis. As a result, the native Iraqis are becoming better trained, better armed, and better coordinated, and therefore much better equipped to take the fight directly to US units in the most effective manner.

Additionally, as this conflict drags on, more and more Iraqis either have had a personal bad experience with US troops, or know someone that has. IMHO, that is a powerful psychological tool that can never be overcome.

[Sparkly]

55. That's part of it.

But Iraq is not a homogenous country. There are sects and tribes within sects fighting each other. It's not just two groups, those with us and those against us. It's more complicated than that.

[KlatooBNikto]

58. That may have been so until we injected ourselves into that theater.

With our presence, everyone from Ali Shistani, Al Sadr and Jalal Talibani are as one seeking our departure.That is the bottom line for Iraqis. If we ignore that and keep splitting hairs on who is what, we are going to be up a tree as we did in Vietnam.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. Take the example of the Soviet-Afghan War. Prior to the war....

...different Afghan sects, tribes, and families were pretty deeply engaged in centuries, perhaps thousands of years, of feuds involving revenge killing as a primary component. Iraqs have been the same way, but a lot less bloodthirsty overall.

That was all set aside after the Soviets invaded, and most of the Afghan groups turned on the Soviets. That's not to say that there weren't occaissional conflicts between some of the tribes, because there were. Some of the Afghans sided with the Soviets, just like some of the Iraqis are siding with the US.

But the point is that major differences were set aside by the majority of the Afghan population for the sole reason of driving the Soviets from their country.

Once the Soviets left the country ten years later, the groups turned on each other again, but primarily on the Soviet collaborators. The Taliban emerged as the ultimate winners, and the rest is history.

[Sparkly]

69. I'm not seeing that.

Are you saying the Shiites and Sunnis, just as a broad example, are not fighting each other now?

[datasuspect]

43. and collaborators get extra "special treatment"

in any situation like that, actually, being a collaborator is a slap in the face to your countrymen and brothers.

there is a big difference here between the american revolution.

iraq was a sovereign power. the people there blowing shit up now are retaliating against a foreign power that displayed "raw, naked aggression" and invaded their country. iraq was not a colony of the united states.

they did the same thing agains the british too.

but they are iraqi patriots.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. It's all about

making it look like we're "winning the war on terror." If "insergents" are attacking us they must be doing something right, right? Of course they won't tell that the Iraqi's are fighting us. Because then they'd be denying freedom and democracy! (heh)

[mopaul]

47. here lately bush just refers to them as 'the killers'

[KlatooBNikto]

49. Bush's favorite puppet, Allawi, killed six people by shooting them in the

head. Would he come under Bush's definition?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

50. Gee I wonder who has "scoreboard" on that killing thing? U.S. Military,

or "insurgents"?

[Disturbed]

60. Most Amerikans do not like complicated situations.

The fact that the Insurgency is comprised of various groups with different goals is too complicated. The Bush Regime almost never casts the Insurgency as being against U.S. Occupation/Colonialism.

Terrorists and Insurgents have morphed into the same concept. The Bush Regime and their RW Corp. Media keep things simple. The frame is that any Iraqi resistance is terrorism against freedom and democracy. Amerikan in Iraq are the good guys and any Iraqi that doesn't support Amerika are the bad guys. Keep it simple.

[KlatooBNikto]

64. In fact, the script the Neocons are following in the Middle East closely

parallels the plan put forward by a Mad Dog British Imperialist called Paul Johnson occupies a very high seat in the pantheon of Gods worshipped by the Neocon Imperialists. His plan is to smash all Arab countries, impose Western colonial rule and "teach" them civilized ways.In short, the White Man's Burden Redux.

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. Once again the GOP gets to define the meaning.

How many Americans actually realize that the 'insurgents' are Iraqis trying to defend their Country against an illegal occupation?

[KlatooBNikto]

65. When they are done with it, every Arab country would be an exact replica

of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The U.S and its "allies" will live in enclaves(settlements) armed to the teeth with very little contact with the local people except through their handpicked puppets.And whenever they are confronted with violence will blame it on the "terrorists".So, yes, in fact, Bush will get to fight terrorism by creating it, just like his mentor, Ariel Sharon.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. BUT BUT BUT, bu$h** has made the World a safer place and

atleast gay can't marry! Beam me up Scotty! :crazy:

[KlatooBNikto]

70. This is what he means when he says it is better to fight them over there

than here in Houston.

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. ROFL

The war profiteering asshole could not care less where we fight his terraists as long as he and his war profiteering bidness pardners make all the bucks at the expense of the 'Murican' taxpayers!

[leftchick]

62. has chimpy** ever said insurgent??

I believe he has always used the term terrorists for all of the folks against US aggression.