What do you think the point of the U.S. occupation of Iraq is? I'm not saying it is to be like Saddam. I don't believe that is the point. I am curious, though, what do you think the point is?
I thought we were talking about whether the guys blowing up women and children and polling places were freedom fighters.
A fair answer. Vlaurelio answered part of it, because Iraq wasn't a nuclear threat nor a threat to its neighbors. But is putting in place a govt. that holds prisoners, starves them, tortures them, while the U.S. buys off the Iraqi press, helping make them free? I would love to see Iraq free and stable. I just think that some of our actions have been contrary to that goal if that was indeed our goal.
why are they terrorists again? because they bomb women and children right? doesn't US military engage in that as well?
I think we should have an OFFICIAL APPROVED definition of "freedom fighter" so as to avoid confusion as "freedom fighter" is sacred to Messrs. O'Reilly and Clutch. free·dom Pronunciation (frdm) n. 1. The condition of being free of restraints. 2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression. 3. a. Political independence. b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly. 4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want. 5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. 6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom. 7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels. 8. a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities. b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city. 9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: So, I propose definition no. 6, so as to make it more politically neutral of a term. This is the typical O'Reilly/Fox News tactic - take one statement by sheehan, obviously made in anger, pain, emotion, etc, (and possibly out of context, I'm not even sure what the original quote was from). - blow it outrageously out of proportion (such as the nonexistent "War on Christmas"), and then bash her relentlessly to distract attention to the COLOSSAL F-K UP that has been the War on Iraq, which, btw, is the sole responsibility of one administration.
I don't disagree. But it's just funny how liberals will defend the use of the word freedom fighters for these people. When they defend it they are allowing it to be blown out of proportion and playing into O'Reilly's hands.
I would say the Iraqi "insurgents" aren't "freedom fighters", but more like "indiscriminate killers". US soldiers are merely "pawns" following the orders given to them by the "imperialist" administration now in power.
I am a liberal and I don't think the fighters in Iraq should be considered "Freedom Fighters." Some of them are terrorists, pure and simple. Some of them are fighting to get rid of the United States because they do not like foreign intervention. That's understandable, even though somewhat misguided. But even the people in the second group cannot be called "Freedom Fighters." Like it or not, the U.S. is their best chance at freedom now. When they disrupt elections and blow up police stations, they are impeding freedom, not fighting for it. Furthermore, most of those fighters are not really looking forward to a democracy in Iraq. They most likely want a theocracy or a government dominated by their particular tribe. At best they should be called Nationalists or Independents. They are NOT freedom fighters.
If by "patriot" you mean people fighting for the love of their country, then yes, I would say some of them probably deserve that label. However, they are misguided Patriots at best. The best way to get rid of Americans is to hold peaceful elections and demonstrate the ability for self rule. Blowing stuff up only delays our exit. The most patriotic people are the ones working hard to rebuild Iraq. Putting aside their hatred of other tribes and of Americans for the greater good of all Iraqis.
I agree that freedom fighters isn't an accurate description of them. I typed something along the lines of what Vwiggin typed regarding their name. Most are probably more accurately called defenders of their homeland or something along those lines. Some, are simply terrorists and shouldn't be referred to as anything else. I think when it comes to that we are both in agreement.
Interesting C-SPAN interview with Keith Olbermann, especially wrt Bill O'Reilly (and thus the revelance tothis thread) During a March 12 interview with C-SPAN president and chief executive officer Brian Lamb, SNBC host Keith Olbermann said: "There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE [General Electric Co., NBC's parent corporation], the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all. ... There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened." He added, "On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy." Olbermann also discussed his relationship to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and claimed: "O'Reilly's agent calls the head of NBC week after week saying, you have got to get Olbermann to stop" criticizing O'Reilly. From Olbermann's interview with Lamb, aired on the March 12 edition of C-SPAN's Q&A: LAMB: We have got some other quotes about Fox from you: "Fortunately for the free world, News Corp.," which owns FOX, "is very aggressive but ultimately not very bright." OLBERMANN: Yes, they are somewhat self-destructive. And that's the best hope for mankind, relative to them. In other words, you know, Bill O'Reilly, who has an audience at 8 o'clock [p.m. ET] that even with recent programming gains on the part of my show, the total audience that he has is still, what, six, seven times what we are doing. Even -- as Fox and News Corp. put it, the "money demo," the 25- to 54-year-old news viewers who don't watch news, even there they are still about double what we are doing. When I attack Bill O'Reilly or criticize him for something that he said on the air, some ludicrous suggestion like, you know, we should let Al Qaeda go in and blow up San Francisco because he doesn't like San Francisco, I mean, just lunatic things, if I punch upwards at Fox News, the clever response, the cynical and brilliant response is to just ignore. Like, well, why do we have to worry, they have one-seventh of our audience? They attack. Bill O'Reilly's agent calls the head of NBC week after week saying, you have got to get Olbermann to stop this, as if for some reason there are rules here. We have -- these are the people who have suspended the rules, and they want the referee to step in protect them against my little pinky. LAMB: More quotes. This is about Rupert Murdoch: "His covey of flying monkeys do something journalistically atrocious every hour of the day." OLBERMANN: Yeah. I think that's probably true. I think -- well, sometimes they miss. They are sometimes -- there are a few hours in a row where there might not be a flying monkey appearing, devastating society. LAMB: Doesn't this work for both of you? OLBERMANN: I don't think so. I haven't met a lot of flying monkeys at NBC. I have met people who -- and by the way, this is the great freedom and the great protection of American broadcasting, commercial broadcasting -- we made a mistake in the '20s. We let broadcasting in this country develop with commercial broadcasting taking the lead and all other kinds of information on radio or television secondary or tertiary. But the protection of money at the center of everything, including news to the degree that it is now, is that as long as you make the money, they don't care what it is you put on the air. They don't care. There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all. Anybody who knew anything about American history and stepped out at any point in American history and got an assessment of this presidential administration would say, "Yeah, I don't know how much they need to be criticized, but they need to be criticized to some degree." There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened. On the other hand, if they look at my ratings and my ratings are improved and there is criticism of the president of the United States, they're happy. If my ratings went up because there was no criticism of the president of the United States, they'd be happy.
