Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15959)	4/4/2006 2:41:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541699

I always thought "guerrillas" had a nicely neutral yet appropriately descriptive ring to it. I have wondered why the term is not used to describe the Iraqi "insurgents." In Mexico, an "insurgent" is thought of as one who rebelled against the Spanish, i.e., was a freedom fighter. One of Mexico City's main streets is named "Insurgentes."

To: Lane3 who wrote (15959)	4/4/2006 2:41:44 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541699

I never liked freedom fighters myself- since to the poor slobs who get blown away by them, no freedom is involved, save for the freedom to die. As far as I'm concerned they are all Men With Guns and Bombs. What you call them depends on how well you like their objectives. I find "insurgents" to be a very generic term, and one which I could attach to a violent group whether I liked what they were doing or not- for example, plucky little Tibetans blowing away Chinese oppressors could be insurgents as easily as Taliban fighters could be- in Iraq "insurgent" could reasonably cover all the militias, the Al Qaedans, and the various thugs that run around doing whatever it is they are doing.