Dont call them insurgents

#1
Just when I reach the depths of despair about The Shaved Chimp's ramblings, along comes Rummy to provide some much needed comic relief:

November 29th, 2005 6:18 pm
Rumsfeld: Don't Call Them 'Insurgents'


By Robert Burns / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - More than 2 1/2 years into the Iraq war, Donald H. Rumsfeld has decided the enemy are not insurgents.

"This is a group of people who don't merit the word `insurgency,' I think," Rumsfeld said Tuesday at a Pentagon news conference. He said the thought had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend.

"It was an epiphany."

Rumsfeld's comments drew chuckles but had a serious side.

"I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe," he said. "These people don't have a legitimate gripe." Still, he acknowledged that his point may not be supported by the standard definition of `insurgent.' He promised to look it up.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "rising up against established authority."

Even Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stood beside Rumsfeld at the news conference, found it impossible to describe the fighting in Iraq without twice using the term `insurgent.'

After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, "I have to use the word `insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now."

Without missing a beat, Rumsfeld replied with a wide grin: "Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government. How's that?"

At another point in their news conference, Rumsfeld and Pace had an unusual exchange in which Rumsfeld corrected his senior military adviser, only to have Pace gently insist that it was the defense secretary who was wrong.

A reporter asked Pace what U.S. commanders in Iraq are supposed to do if they find Iraqi forces abusing prisoners. Pace replied that if inhumane treatment is observed it is a service member's duty to stop it.

"I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it — it's to report it," Rumsfeld said, turning to Pace.

Replied the general: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."
I imagine the new CJCOS is still stood on the carpet in front of The Don's desk even now. Good on him, though.
 
#2
Could this be his way out of explaining (ie clearing his conscience) the difference between the iraqi insurgents and the anti-communist guerillas that the US backed during the coldwar? :roll:
 
#3
Or that PIRA were filed under "Legitimate Freedom Fighters" on Capitol Hill for so many happy shamrock wearing top 'o the morning bejesus and begorrah decades - until they experienced first hand that mass murder of civilians tends to be a counter indication of democratic and peaceful intentions.
 
#4
Must be a Secretary of Defense thing: I wonder what made Dick Cheney change his mind from the view he held in 1992. More than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War. President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his son.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said. "Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Dick it is.
 
#5
One suggestion I've heard is that the insurgents should be refered to as "mufsidoon", an Arabic word taken from the Koran meaning "evil doers". This term would be immediately identified with by Arabic-speaking muslims and encompass both terrorists in Iraq and AQ henchmen in general.

Mind it would be amusing hearing GW trying to pronounce it, "m-m-muffy-dis-tinctly-minty-buffoon" :lol:
 
#7
Well I think the shaitaniyah mufsidoon are getting there arrses kicked in this Hirabah by Uncle Sam. Many of them have been sent to Jahannam.

- Could you imagine W getting that lot in a speech!!
 
#8
Was driving back to Shaiaba from Basrah A/P when Rumsfelds C130 came in for his first visit to theatre after the "war" "finished" wish I'd shot the fcuker down now.
 
#9
PsyWar.Org said:
One suggestion I've heard is that the insurgents should be refered to as "mufsidoon", an Arabic word taken from the Koran meaning "evil doers". This term would be immediately identified with by Arabic-speaking muslims and encompass both terrorists in Iraq and AQ henchmen in general.

Mind it would be amusing hearing GW trying to pronounce it, "m-m-muffy-dis-tinctly-minty-buffoon" :lol:

Bin laden and Al Qaeda have already been described as 'mufisdoon' or 'muharib' by many scholars who have declared their activities as being hirabah but I think those of even liberal sunni persuation would be loathed to extend this term to Iraqi Insurgents. I would say that it would also be unwise for westerners to label even Al Qaeda as mufisdoon it has to be a muslim initiative.
 
#10
castlereagh said:
Bin laden and Al Qaeda have already been described as 'mufisdoon' or 'muharib' by many scholars who have declared their activities as being hirabah but I think those of even liberal sunni persuation would be loathed to extend this term to Iraqi Insurgents. I would say that it would also be unwise for westerners to label even Al Qaeda as mufisdoon it has to be a muslim initiative.
Good point, well taken.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#11
Well, IM (very humble)O, and going from the original post, Rumfeld is quite correct with his refusing to use 'insurgents' as a name for the Iraqi bombers etc. If the definition is

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "rising up against established authority."
I thought the point was and is that authority has NOT been established.

It might be better to use words like 'infiltrating terrorists' 'dissatisfied local indigenous population'.

However, I think that other definitions of insurgents could be found to cover the mufsidoon who are carrying out, and more importantly, planning the 'insurgency'.
 
#12
Auld-Yin said:
Well, IM (very humble)O, and going from the original post, Rumfeld is quite correct with his refusing to use 'insurgents' as a name for the Iraqi bombers etc. If the definition is

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "rising up against established authority."

I thought the point was and is that authority has NOT been established.

It might be better to use words like 'infiltrating terrorists' 'dissatisfied local indigenous population'.

However, I think that other definitions of insurgents could be found to cover the mufsidoon who are carrying out, and more importantly, planning the 'insurgency'.
Authority may not have been established but what about the UN resolution of 2004 that legtimised the presence of the allied forces under the the pretext that their presence had been requested by the interim and now transitional Iraqi governement?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#13
castlereagh said:
Auld-Yin said:
Well, IM (very humble)O, and going from the original post, Rumfeld is quite correct with his refusing to use 'insurgents' as a name for the Iraqi bombers etc. If the definition is

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "rising up against established authority."

I thought the point was and is that authority has NOT been established.

It might be better to use words like 'infiltrating terrorists' 'dissatisfied local indigenous population'.

However, I think that other definitions of insurgents could be found to cover the mufsidoon who are carrying out, and more importantly, planning the 'insurgency'.
Authority may not have been established but what about the UN resolution of 2004 that legtimised the presence of the allied forces under the the pretext that their presence had been requested by the interim and now transitional Iraqi governement?
Therefore the authority lies in New York. 8O Sorry I had to put that in.

Was trying, very unsuccessfully to inject irony with semantics. :cry:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads