Are Iraqi Insurgents Terrorists?

[Stravo]

FoxNews keeps having these updates on the fight in Samarra and they end their little updates with phrases like "Stay tuned to see how the terrorists are hunted down and killed." "Terorists are being killed in house to house fighting."

CNN and the broadcast networks tend to call them simply insurgents. I know that Bush and his cronies would like us to think that everyone we kill is a terrorist but how accurate is this term as applied to the insurgents? I have no doubts that there are indeed terrorists among the insurgents but to call them all terrorists seems a bit disingenuous and playing towards the administration and what they would like us to think.

[MKSheppard]

I have no doubts that there are indeed terrorists among the insurgents but to call them all terrorists seems a bit disingenuous and playing towards the administration and what they would like us to think.

When they blow up gatherings and kill a shitload of children, they're terrorists
most definitely.

[Stravo]

I have no doubts that there are indeed terrorists among the insurgents but to call them all terrorists seems a bit disingenuous and playing towards the administration and what they would like us to think.

When they blow up gatherings and kill a shitload of children, they're terrorists
most definitely.

Ok I'll engage in a Shepism. All American troops are war criminals because of Abu Graid.

Oh I forgot. Nukey Nukey.

[CJvR]

everyone we kill is a terrorist but how accurate is this term as applied to the insurgents?

There are far to much diversity in all the various factions fighting in Iraq to give a single answer to that question. There are probably groups who meet the requirements for a legitemate resistance group but these are hardly the ones hoging the headlines.

Outright terrorists seems to be mainly Zarqawis gang and the remaining Baathists.
Sadr's boys are mainly illegal combatants but their terrorism is limited in comparison with the Sunni.

[MKSheppard]

Oh I forgot. Nukey Nukey.

You're a fucking idiot, that's what you are.

They've blown up gatherings of people, assassinated people who were
pro-US, along with blowing up the infrastructure of Iraq after we've
fixed it, requiring us to repair it again.

A true insurgency respects the law; these people do not. For example,
in Thailand, one of their insurgency movements is accorded the legal
status of a military, IE, POW exchanges, and suchlike, because they
follow the laws of war, while the others who don't are hunted down
and exterminated like the Vermin they are.

And for it to be an insurgency, it's got to have local people doing it;
all the people now are Arabs coming in from outside the country to
die gloriously.

[BoredShirtless]

Oh I forgot. Nukey Nukey.

You're a fucking idiot, that's what you are.

They've blown up gatherings of people, assassinated people who were
pro-US, along with blowing up the infrastructure of Iraq after we've
fixed it, requiring us to repair it again.

Only a few, only a few, so what, big whoop.

A true insurgency respects the law; these people do not. For example,
in Thailand, one of their insurgency movements is accorded the legal
status of a military, IE, POW exchanges, and suchlike, because they
follow the laws of war, while the others who don't are hunted down
and exterminated like the Vermin they are.

Does the United States respect the law? Do POW exchanges for example? Not that I've heard. So why should the insurgents?

And for it to be an insurgency, it's got to have local people doing it;
all the people now are Arabs coming in from outside the country to
die gloriously.

All the people are not from outside Iraq, don't be stupid.

[CJvR]

Does the United States respect the law?

Yes they do.

Do POW exchanges for example? Not that I've heard. So why should the insurgents?.

Well you need POWs first and an opponent sane enough to even want an exchange.

All the people are not from outside Iraq, don't be stupid.

No, but most of the worst seem to be either imported or old Baathists.

[Mange]

One must not forget that it's more than one insurgence going on that aren't connected to each other. There is the Shiite uprising which has calmed down, the Sunni uprising (such as the situation in Samarra) and former Saddam loyalists lurking about. Then there are foreign terrorists that crosses the borders from neighboring countries such as Syria (that recently closed its borders) that shows up whereever any tense situation arises. This complexity makes the problems even worse and also makes it harder to resolve the situations.

[BoredShirtless]

Does the United States respect the law?

Yes they do.

Prove it.

Do POW exchanges for example? Not that I've heard. So why should the insurgents?.

Well you need POWs first and an opponent sane enough to even want an exchange.

What, the United States has no POWs? And why are the insurgents insane? Because they fight against the invasion?

All the people are not from outside Iraq, don't be stupid.

No, but most of the worst seem to be either imported or old Baathists.

Seem to be? What do you base that on?

[BoredShirtless]

One must not forget that it's more than one insurgence going on that aren't connected to each other.

They are connected by the common goal to get rid of the invasion of Iraq.

[Stofsk]

I have no doubts that there are indeed terrorists among the insurgents but to call them all terrorists seems a bit disingenuous and playing towards the administration and what they would like us to think.

When they blow up gatherings and kill a shitload of children, they're terrorists most definitely.

Ok I'll engage in a Shepism. All American troops are war criminals because of Abu Graid.

That's not what he was saying, Stravo. A terrorist is defined as someone who causes violence in an illegitimate way with a political motive, often but not restricted to targeting innocents. (ref. FBI) They have killed innocents. Was it deliberate? If so, they're terrorists. If it was 'accidental' or unintentional, well that's a murky shade of grey. Please note that while the above definition comes from the FBI there isn't, AFAIK, a universal definition.

Guerillas and insurgents can use terror tactics if it suits them, but it's not their primary strategic goal (note that terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy), as they're often motivated to win the hearts and minds of the public they're fighting for. Spreading fear may not be desirable if you expect to be sheltered and helped by the people, and expect recruits to come from them. If, on the other hand, the kind of people that are recruited against the US led coalition are the kind who don't mind if a few dozen kids get caught in the crossfire, or indeed actually go out of their way to target them, then IMO they'd fall under the 'terrorist' label.

I don't know enough about the factional makeup of the insurgency to make a real informed evaluation, and I agree with you for now that "some are, some aren't" terrorists.

[Mange]

One must not forget that it's more than one insurgence going on that aren't connected to each other.

They are connected by the common goal to get rid of the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, but it's not as easy as that. The American presence (and that of the British, Poles, Australian etc.) has also attracted many people from outside of Iraq who doesn't have such a 'noble' goal. We saw a terrible day the day before yesterday in which terrorists blew up several targets, a.o. new barracks for the Iraqi National Guard, a completly newly built water pump for drinking water, killing scores of totally innocent people, among many children. That kind of people don't care about that. In what way does blowing up a water pump "get rid of the invasion of Iraq". I guess you mean the occupation of Iraq, but technically the country is no longer occupied. If the Iraqi government was to say "Go home" those countries represented in Iraq must, in theory, leave.

[BoredShirtless]

Yes, but it's not as easy as that. The American presence (and that of the British, Poles, Australian etc.) has also attracted many people from outside of Iraq who doesn't have such a 'noble' goal. We saw a terrible day the day before yesterday in which terrorists blew up several targets, a.o. new barracks for the Iraqi National Guard, a completly newly built water pump for drinking water, killing scores of totally innocent people, among many children. That kind of people don't care about that. In what way does blowing up a water pump "get rid of the invasion of Iraq". I guess you mean the occupation of Iraq, but technically the country is no longer occupied. If the Iraqi government was to say "Go home" those countries represented in Iraq must, in theory, leave.

What the hell does any of that have to do with the question "should the word 'terrorist' be applied to everyone fighting the US?"

[CJvR]

Prove it.

Prove absence of lawbreaking? Can you prove you didn't break the law last week?

What, the United States has no POWs?

The US have a few, but their opponents have none. Hard to do an exchange then...

And why are the insurgents insane?

You think cutting the throats of civilians while howling Allah akkbar is a sign of sanity?

Seem to be? What do you base that on?

The concentration of terrorist activity in the Sunni region. Both the Baathists and A-Q are Sunni based.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Those that kill civilians are terrorists and those that attack recognized military targets are not.

[Mange]

Yes, but it's not as easy as that. The American presence (and that of the British, Poles, Australian etc.) has also attracted many people from outside of Iraq who doesn't have such a 'noble' goal. We saw a terrible day the day before yesterday in which terrorists blew up several targets, a.o. new barracks for the Iraqi National Guard, a completly newly built water pump for drinking water, killing scores of totally innocent people, among many children. That kind of people don't care about that. In what way does blowing up a water pump "get rid of the invasion of Iraq". I guess you mean the occupation of Iraq, but technically the country is no longer occupied. If the Iraqi government was to say "Go home" those countries represented in Iraq must, in theory, leave.

What the hell does any of that have to do with the question "should the word 'terrorist' be applied to everyone fighting the US?"

To clarify my point. Of course not all people participating in the uprisings are terrorists, but it's difficult to discern who is a terrorist or not, therefore, the media should refrain to use that word when the situation isn't clear. The post I made above was in response to your response to one of my posts (sigh, sorry), that the people responsible for those acts are terrorists. They use terror as a political weapon.

And frankly BoredShirtless, I think you're being far too forgiving in your tone in this thread against the people responsible for terrorist acts. But to emphazise: Most people participating in the various uprisings aren't terrorists. Many are misguided by their religious leaders who has their own aspirations (such as al-Sadr) but they aren't terrorists.

[BoredShirtless]

Prove it.

Prove absence of lawbreaking? Can you prove you didn't break the law last week?

No, but I can prove the United States DID break the law the week before...or more accuretly, the time of AG.

And why are the insurgents insane?

You think cutting the throats of civilians while howling Allah akkbar is a sign of sanity?

Those are terrorists. But what about the majority fighting the US? The hundreds dying each week?

Seem to be? What do you base that on?

The concentration of terrorist activity in the Sunni region. Both the Baathists and A-Q are Sunni based.

Again with the Faux News sweeping label. Most of them aren't terrorists.

[CJvR]

No, but I can prove the United States DID break the law the week before...or more accuretly, the time of AG.

Feel free to prove that.

Those are terrorists.

Glad we can agree on that.

But what about the majority fighting the US? The hundreds dying each week?

It will depend on their organisation and behavior in battle. I suspect that most of them would be considered illegal combatants.

Again with the Faux News sweeping label. Most of them aren't terrorists.

Perhaps not, but most of the terrorists belong to them.

[BoredShirtless]

No, but I can prove the United States DID break the law the week before...or more accuretly, the time of AG.

Feel free to prove that.

You want me to prove the law was broken during the Abu Ghraib scandal? No. I'll just assume you thought "AG" stood for something else.

But what about the majority fighting the US? The hundreds dying each week?

It will depend on their organisation and behavior in battle. I suspect that most of them would be considered illegal combatants.

Illegal combatants, rebels, gorillas in the mist, whatever. The point is, Faux News is full of shit, I'm glad you agree.

Again with the Faux News sweeping label. Most of them aren't terrorists.

Perhaps not,

Suck it down Fox News!

but most of the terrorists belong to them.

Red herring.

[CJvR]

You want me to prove the law was broken during the Abu Ghraib scandal? No. I'll just assume you thought "AG" stood for something else.

No I knew perfectly well what you meant and I do not dispute that the events in AG was criminal. However the US would only be in violation of international conventions IF IT REFUSED TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS. As long as the US punish any warcrimes it's soldiers commit those crimes are the crimes of individuals rather than the state who's uniform those individuals happen to wear. If a state do not uphold the laws of war then the state itself is responsible for any warcrimes along with the individuals who commit them.

[jegs2]

Some are foreign terrorists, imported from Syria and Iran. Others are Iraqi insurgents. Hard to tell which is greater in number.

[Petrosjko]

In what way does blowing up a water pump "get rid of the invasion of Iraq".

A common tactic of insurgency is to attack infrastructure targets to deprive the populace of basic services. This functions to cause the populace to question the ability of the powers-that-be to provide security, thus bringing into question their legitimacy.

This is especially crucial in the case of a new, tenuous government attempting to establish itself among the citizenry.

Considering the fact that that the backbone of the native resistance is former Baathists who either participated or stood by for the excesses of the previous regime, I seriously doubt that atrocity and tactics which specifically target civilians causes many of them to lose much sleep at night, though.

[Mange]

In what way does blowing up a water pump "get rid of the invasion of Iraq".

A common tactic of insurgency is to attack infrastructure targets to deprive the populace of basic services. This functions to cause the populace to question the ability of the powers-that-be to provide security, thus bringing into question their legitimacy.

This is especially crucial in the case of a new, tenuous government attempting to establish itself among the citizenry.

Considering the fact that that the backbone of the native resistance is former Baathists who either participated or stood by for the excesses of the previous regime, I seriously doubt that atrocity and tactics which specifically target civilians causes many of them to lose much sleep at night, though.

Yes, I fully agree. Terrorist attacks of that kind works more against the provinsional government than the countries present in Iraq directly, but naturally does that in extension anyway.

[Stravo]

The OP is not arguing whether there are terrorists amongst the insurgents, that much is plainly obvious, nor whether an insurgent can become a terrorist. Is it accurate reporting to call all insurgents terrorists or is it more accurate to simply call them all insurgents since they share the same goal even if methods differ.

To say that the battle in Samara has US soldiers killing hundreds of terrorists in my opinion is bad reporting.

There are rebels fighting off an occupation, and there are foreign fighters coming to kill Americans and there are Baath party loyalists also wanting the US out of Iraq. It is playing a rhetorical game that soothes the American public to call all these people terrorists.

[Stofsk]

Is it accurate reporting to call all insurgents terrorists or is it more accurate to simply call them all insurgents since they share the same goal even if methods differ.

Of course it is. However, if the report in question concerned the combat between US forces and insurgents that conducted themselves like terrorists, then it should be reported as though they're terrorists. Not all of the 'insurgents' share the same goal, nor the same methods.