Please, Senator Clinton, call them "Freedom Fighters"...

They're not "Iraqi insurgents," they're citizens fighting for their home and country. They're "Freedom Fighters."

NGU.

We shouldn't recycle Reagan-era propaganda catch phrases. They sounded dumb when the GOP used them back then, and they'll sound dumb when we use them now. Furthermore, do you really think calling people who shoot at U.S. troops "freedom fighters" is good way to win the hearts and minds of the American electorate?

whatever it was it was no doubt inane... but I think you have a point.

OTOH, what may have sounded dumb to you and to me in the eighties was not necessarily heard that way by the majority. The state chooses its language carefully ( because it knows what works), seems to me, and it behooves those in opposition to challenge the validity of the language misused this way.

I, for one, would look for something halfway between "terrorists" and "insurgents" on the one hand and " freedom fighters" on the other. How about "resistance"?

"I, for one, would look for something halfway between "terrorists" and "insurgents" on the one hand and " freedom fighters" on the other. How about "resistance"?

I think most journalists are opting for "resistance" these days b/c it's basically neutral, factually accurate, and it helps to encompass the broad array of anti-Coalition Iraqi fighters-- some of whom probably are bona fide terrorist outfits (e.g. al-Qaeda) and others that are more like nationalist groups fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion force. "Resistance" is the best term to use in description here.

That's because you and don't share their twisted, delusional worldview. Have you read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff?

NGU.

i could give a rat's ass about the American electorate...my sympathies lie with the people of the world, who have to withstand the idiocy of the American public and the governments/militaries they allow to exist.

And yes, Iraqi insurgents are freedom fighters...in so far that they fight for freedom FROM the U.S. occupation...after they win the struggle (and they will, time is on their side), then we have to analyze what the insurgent leaders and cadres do in Iraq society. They may be freedom fighters NOW..but may revert to becoming oppressive Baathists later.

Still..that's an issue that does not concern us...our concern is to get those U.S. troops OUT of Iraq.

You can be sympathetic with whomever you'd like, but if the Democratic leadership doesn't give a rat's ass about the American electorate, the GOP wins and war continues. I'd rather work towards getting results than thump my chest about how right I am while people are being killed. And I contend that calling the Iraqi resistance "freedom fighters" doesn't get results.

Was Reagan being accurate when he called the contras in Nicaragua "freedom fighters"? They were after all fighting for freedom from Sandinista rule.

Were the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's "freedom fighters" because they were fighting for freedom from the Russian occupation? After the Soviet withdrawal, they evolved into the Taliban.

"Freedom fighter" is a loaded term. In most people's minds it suggests that the "freedom fighter" is a crusader for human liberty, which is why we cried bullshit when Reagan applied it to the contras. And that's why it sounds pretty strange when applied to the mujahadeen or the Iraqi resistance which is greatly composed of Islamic fundamentialists.


EDIT: for several grammar fixes, I got rocks in my head.

I'll be the first to point out that these folks don't have much to work with, and to at least try to see it from their perspective. But I draw the line at calling jihadists "freedom fighters." You can as little call them freedom fighters as you can the U.S. invaders.

Insurgent is the appropriate word for nationalist resistors.
Terrorist is the appropriate word for jihadist suicide bombers.
Invader is the appropriate word for U.S. troops.


finally, I'd like to suggest that calling suicide bombers "freedom fighters" is an insult to the likes of Sister Stang, SND the 73 year old nun recently murdered in Brazil for championing the rights of poor people against big business. It's an insult to MLK, to the young woman who was gunned down so famously at Kent state, to Rachel Corrie. These were freedom fighters.

If you don't think "freedom fighter" works, then please suggest something better - that doesn't play into a RW frame.

NGU.

We don't have to change our language to differentiate ourselves from them. If the word fits, then it fits. I think insurgent fits for nationalist resistors. If Rush thinks that word fits too, then oh well. They don't own words.

NGU.

but what does NGU mean?

edit: typo

NGU.

Who's Grice?

NGU.

principles of English-language communication. We all assume reporters, bloggers, posters, etc., abide by the "maxims" he derived.

He said our basic assumption was "the cooperative principle". That is, if you're cooperative, you provide only true facts that are relevant, in the necessary detail, but in no more detail than necessary. You provide all the facts that are relevant--and assume how will be clear to the listener. We see detail, we assume it's necessary; we see a fact, we assume it's relevant, and try to figure out how. We assume we have all the facts. (OK, this is an overstatement: but it is our first instinct, unless we're distrustful--then *we're* not being cooperative.)

When people have a vested interest in being uncooperative and we know it--in court, etc.--it's expected, so it's ok. Not all people assume politicians are uncooperative, or advertisers, or reporters or bloggers. In fact, if somebody has an agenda and isn't explicit about it, they're probably not being cooperative, but we still assume they are.

Therefore they can easily manipulate us simply because we're unaware that they're not being cooperative. Many writers flout Gricean maxims artfully, but don't understand exactly what they're doing.

Many people that don't tell a single lie are still accused of being liars or dishonest, *after* we figure out we were mislead, but we can't quite put our finger on how they lied. Grice did. * never once said Saddam was behind 9/11; Cheney explicitly denied it; but people still concluded Saddan must have been involved, because Iraq and 9/11 were mentioned in the same contexts (wink wink, nudge nudge) ... why mention Saddam, if he's not relevant to 9/11?

If you explain to people what their automatic assumptions are, it's a bit easier to break the habit. The risk is actually greatest when we confidently expect cooperation, or when we like what we hear, and when we think the other person is "on our side" or "one of us."

Lakoff formalizes what every ad executive or high school candidate for office knows: a catchy slogan or catch phrase sells. Nothing new. Branding works. But we also know that if you try a slogan that doesn't resonate, it's futile ... try something else. You can get people to accept a new expression through repetition ... if they're receptive. If they think the new expression doesn't feel right, it don't matter. (My favorite examples are all racial or scatological terms: you force people to change the word they use, but not the attitude behind it.)

Grice is far, far more useful.

it was not only one young woman that was gunned down at Kent State.
On May 4th 1970
Four students are killed and nine others are wounded when a contingent of Guardsmen suddenly opens fire during a noontime demonstration.

http://members.aol.com/nrbooks/chronol.htm

at Kent State. My point is clear, right? Why nitpick?

they aren't good people- they are shooting at our soldiers.

I don't think think the media should call them "terrorists" like many conservatives demand (altough suicide bombers are terrorists), but they sure as hell aren't freedom fighters. Insurgents is just fine.

freedom fighters would denote that they are fighting for freedom, when most are foriegn nationals coming to fight against US soldiers.

NGU.

No spin there, that's what they are, most of them anyway. Plain old "Iraqi forces" would also be an improvement.

Iraqi citizens? Iraqi families? Let's brainstorm...

NGU.

:)

<LOL>

NGU.

It worked in Kosovo!

Whenever we come up with a decent response you just say "I am right- come up with something better"

Freedom Fighters would be people FROM iraq that are fighting for democracy- the democracy we are setting up is pretty shitty, but they are fighting it. Also, most are foreigners. Also, Freedom Fighters usually do good things. These people kill our troops (who are over there needlessly and suffering as a result of the insurgents) and capture innocent US civilians.

Insurgents is just fine. I don't know what you mean by "suggest a better frame", but you are definitely contributing to the idea that DU supports terrorists. You sound hysterical and I think this whole thread is flamebait.

Insurgents is the proper term.

I was always taught that if I criticize, I should be prepared with an alternative solution. Build up, not just tear down.

NGU.

This is the most blatant flamebait I have ever seen. Sorry, but it is. I think that insurgent is the proper term. You believe otherwise. You are being combative and contrary for the sake of being combative and contrary.

I'm done with this thread.

NGU.

...and let the mods decide. Please don't flame me.

NGU.

It implies that there is, was, something in place that to some degree had some level of legitimacy.... and they are rising up against it, in REACTION. But what they are "reacting to" is an *foreign invasion*.

"Resistance" is better. Even " loyalists" is better.

our soldiers are in THEIR land...by your logic, the American Revolutionaries were "insurgents", not "freedom fighters"...because they were shooting at British soldiers (our soldiers, from the British perspective).

Insurgent is NOT just fine. They are freedom fighters insofar that they fight for the freedom of Iraq from U.S. occupation.

What they do after that governs what they will be called (if they revert to Baathist totalitarianism, then they become oppresors, if they help democracy, Democrats, etc.).

Foreign nationals make up less than 10% of the Iraqi insurgency, and who is to say that these foreign nationals do not come to Iraq to fight for its freedom from U.S. occupation, like the French helped the American Revolutionaries fight off British Occupation.

We can't pick and choose who is good and who is bad...when we are occupying a sovereign nation.

"We can't pick and choose who is good and who is bad...when we are occupying a sovereign nation" and killing civilians in their own homes because they do not understand English.

Who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist depends on where you sit. I'm willing to bet that for most of the Revolution the British referred to our troops as bandits and criminals, maybe rebels at best, instead of actually calling them soldiers or freedom fighters. I personally think of them as rebels, mostly because they ARE rebelling against something. If they win, then they are revolutionaries.

This has been stated so may times - yet people like you insist on making the assertion that most of the fighters are foriegners without any proof.
Secondly, if you are fighting for the liberation of your homeland from foriehn occupation - you are a freedom fighter in that sense. This is different from someone fighting for recognition/acceptance within a system of government that the person has accepted as legitimate - IMHO.

...while I agree most are probably Iraqis, it really is undeniable that many many are foreigners who DO NOT have the country's best interests in mind.

"freedom fighters would denote that they are fighting for freedom, when most are foriegn nationals coming to fight against US soldiers."

That's simply not true-- you're falling for Bushco and neocon propaganda. Even our own generals have said that over 90% of the resistance fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters.

http://www.tude.com/_blog/blogged04/blog0409.shtml?../../prn/prn04q3/p040928Iraqis.htm~iframe0
http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000707.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

since we know half the population, namely women, wouldn't be free if they were to gain control. In fact under any right-wing theocracy, many people suffer. One can hate the war, hate Bush, and still realize that the "insurgents" are bad guys too.

into saying anything good about the insurgents. They are killing innocent people in the most horrific ways possible. They are not fighting for "freedom". They are fighting for militant Islam. We cannot allow ourselves to be seen as siding with the bad guys. I appreciate Hillary more and more each day.

...from the Radical RW.

So you think there are no Iraqis fighting for freedom? That all Iraqis involved in the resistance are "bad guys" killing innocent people in the most horrific ways possible?

I tend to think it's a little more complex in reality than that. But the original post isn't about complex subtleties. It's about winning the verbal wars.

NGU.

by calling people who are murdering American soldiers and innocent Iraqis "freedom fighters." These people would like to reinstall a theocratic dictatorship that would not be remotely free. I'm sorry if I sound like Bush, but they really are opponents of democracy. And they are killing Iraqis who would like to be part of the new Iraqi Army.

... when they sign on with Team Bush to back down the Shi'ite pro-Iranian election victors?

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

The insurgents are not fighting for democracy, liberty, nor republican government. Unlike the Americans, moreover, these assholes deliberately and systematically target civilians.

I'm not a fan of the Iraqi occupation, but calling the rebels champions of freedom is not factual.

No thanks, I'll stick with insurgents or terrorists.

they are fighting to institute their brand of theocracy/ethnic oppression.

come on, using small children as suicide bombers? beheading civilians? There's no honor in this. It seems to me, they are fighting AGAINST freedom. It's one thing to shoot guns at uniformed soldiers in your homeland, it's quite different to bomb civilians, aid workers, and children.

I have no sympathy for those killers.

fighters", unless they have specific targets among the worshippers with some military value. They don't. They were killing the Shi'a not because they were collaborators, but because they were Shi'a who didn't feel like submitting to the Sunni Arab boot anymore, thus violating the submission guidelines. (Pun unintentional.)

And it would be nice if they were actually fighting for freedom. As for "collaborators", it seems that there are lots of "collaborators" among the Shi'a politicians (if you believe one contingent of DUers), or lots of men that are going to the the US the boot (if you believe another contingent).

Of course, "freedom" in this case frequently means "being free to compel others to Sunni Arab domination and Shari'a". Sort of like Falwell wants us all to "be free in Christ."

I also have trouble with targetting policemen and militiamen when they're not actively engaged in tracking down "freedom fighters"--especially when they're *applying* for jobs. For the first six months we hear cries of "chaos! crime! brigands!". No police. Then there are police, and we hear cries of "kill the collaborators! kill the infidels! kill the oppressors!" *while* we still hear cries of "chaos! crime! brigands!"

And I have trouble calling them set of insurgents freedom fighters when they have so many different agendas: some want Shari'a, some want Sunni Arab dominance, some want Ba'athist rule, others just want to show that they're not cowards or kill the dirty Jewish soldiers sent by an entirely Jewish US Congress to kill Muslim babies. Many are fighting for honor; many for a lie; many for reasons that I'd oppose.

Some, no doubt, for reasons I'd approve of.

They're killing American soldiers. It does bother me when some people here seem to support the Iraqis killing Americans more than the actual American soldiers. I don't support this war at all but I don't want to see American soldiers dying and I call the people killing them what they are.

terms....during our own revolution, we were known as Patriots..

All of these terms refer to those fighting occupiers of their own soil.... as we are occupying Iraq...the terms should suffice...

But...the far right have a way with words to frame public opinion, hence INSURGENTS...... IT HAS A NEG CONNOTATION...

Come, we go hang glide...winds perfect

There are at least 4 different groups lumped into the "Insurgency". Saddam Ba'thists-loyalists (Sunnis), Ba'athist(Sunnis) that are not necesarily Saddam loyalists, al Quda, anti-U.S. fighters and foreign fighers for Islam. Al Sadr's malitia didn't have suiciders and they didn't attack civilians.

Ba'athists were not Islamic extremists. In fact Saddam's Regime was quite secular and women had quite a bit of freedom.

What to call the various groups is a problem because they are fighting for different reasons and goals. The Resistence seems more accurate than Insurgents.