So let me get this straight because they PRIMARILY bombed government buildings it's fine and because they only started activly targeting civilians this past year that doesn't really count?

come on man do you even believe what you type?

Learn the mantra - "U.S. bad - world good."

nah man you got that wrong U.S. Bad - terrorists good

I still think that 100 virgins would be easily replaced by one vegas hooker and some bacon

They is not one group. You have different groups here. The insurgency is different from the groups carrying on this sectarian violence -- those tend to be the religious leaders on both sides. The insurgency appears to be run mostly by former members of Saddam's regime and former Iraqi military. They are the ones carrying out attacks on US troops and on the new Iraqi government. But the American media likes to lump them all together and call them all "terrorists". I don't even know why they use the word "insurgents". They are rebels.

I figured you would have used the term freedom fighters

plus don't blame me for lumping them together and using THEY you did in the post I responded to.

I am well aware there are multiple sects causing different issues but this is not your typical religous group no one is claiming anything as is common with terrorist cells thus the reason the american media lumping it all together...because no one knows who exactly is doing what

one way or another i agree with who ever wrote that letter whether real or fake. i could care less about people whose goal in life is to cause distruction and death. be it a child a woman or an elderly, if they kill for no reason for no justification just to kill as is mainly the point they are trying to bring across "kill as many infidels as possible to rid the world of Americans and Israelis" so like i said many times before kill them before they kill us

The terms "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" are equally useless to me. They are the same thing, except the "freedom fighters" are supposed to have a noble cause, while the "terrorists" do not. But whether a cause is noble is a matter of opinion. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I'm sure all rebels think their cause is noble, or else they would not be fighting for it. Using either one of those terms shows bias.

actually the term you used was rebels which does carry with it a negative tone not exactly your style hence I was suprised

You think?

Rebels always seemd neutral to me. Remember the "Star Wars" trilogy? Weren't the rebles the good guys?

Rebel - a person who participates in a rebellion

A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority.

seems negative to me but I have no problem with it being a negative connotaiton