Yes, you are correct. They are synonymous in the English language. But for some reason, I perceive a ârebelâ as part of something larger and more organized than an âinsurgent.â I relate the magnitude of the reported mayhem to a nation of 26 million people. After all, since so many people are convinced that Iraq is going to hell in a handbag, I expect a thousand times the number of deaths gleefully reported by the media.
:eek: "spoiled little brats"? "Newt Gingritch"? I'd like to say this is a parody, but I doubt you have the imagination to come up with something so asinine for humor's sake.
You wish for Americaâs failure, and you hope for hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi deaths because you know America is the custodian of Iraq and now Iraqi blood is on Americaâs hands. Our failure is more important to you than the fate of Iraq and the welfare of Iraqis. You dream for an American retreat in humiliation, and you donât give a rat's ass if a bloody Iraqi civil war happens as a result.
Afghanistan's government was Taliban. Iraq's government was hostile to the US and we thought had WMD. Saudi Arabia's government is not hostile to the US. I repeat: If the 9/11 hijackers were Canadian, would you advocate invading Canada?
Can you tell me in what way the Taliban government was hostile to the US? I never heard them threatening the US with harm before the US threatened them with harm. I do know that they shut down the opium trade. Is that being hostile to the US? And if the highjackers were Canadian, that would clearly be an act of war, right? I mean, somebody has to pay, and the war on terror would have to start in Canada, correct?