Are Iraqi Insurgents Terrorists?

[RedImperator]

I think one thing that needs to be settled here is what you mean by "terrorist"? If you just mean anyone who uses terrorist tactics, then there are quite a lot in the insurgency, though even by that definition most aren't targeting civilians.

If by terrorist you mean "Islamofascist sympathetic to or affiliated with Al Quaeda", though, the numbers are likely very thin on the ground.

[frigidmagi]

There are two small groups with Al Queda ties in Iraq and by small I mean like a couple dozens guys at most. That I know of to be for sure. Bush claims that there is a major prensce hiding in the shadows, but no comfirming data has been found.

The vast majority of the bombers are... I suppose you could call them amater terrorist, many of them will be regiliously movated and hold Osama has a role model and leader. However they are not a part of the organization and do not take marching orders from it. These guys don't last long, but to for their purposes they don't have to. These are the fucks blowing up children with car bombs.

Insurgent refers to Al Shar and other splinter groups. They attempt to occuipy cities and territory and push the US out. In truth they are not the major problem in the strict military sense. If the politicos get the fuck out of the way and let the troops do what they've trained to do, the shooting will short fast and brutal. However the enemy is highly movated and brave so there will be causalities. This is the nature of Urban Combat.

So the answer is Yes there are Terrorist in Iraq and yes they are causing much of the pain and terror you read about in the paper. No not every arab waving a AK-47s on the news fighting troops are terrorist. However they are not upright defenders of freedom and justice (not claiming that postion for Bush, sit down, relax, okay?) They have spurned numberous laws of war and unlike the US forces do not punish people for it.

So no POW exchanges, no by the numbers warfare. In short it's messy, dirty and frankly it's going to be expensive even if done right, which has we found out recently from a Marine General leaving the area, it isn't.

[Bugsby]

I think one thing that needs to be settled here is what you mean by "terrorist"? If you just mean anyone who uses terrorist tactics, then there are quite a lot in the insurgency, though even by that definition most aren't targeting civilians.

If by terrorist you mean "Islamofascist sympathetic to or affiliated with Al Quaeda", though, the numbers are likely very thin on the ground.

Exactly. This is why it's wrong for reporters to call these people terrorists. They are insurgents who use terrorist tactics. While that does, technically, make them terrorists, it is the wrong label to use. This is because after 9/11, the common use of the word "terrorist" has been taken to mean islamofacists assoicated with al-Qaeda. These insurgents are not part of this latter group (well, some are, but a small fraction). Most are just your run-of-the-mill, insurgent freedom fighters. Because they use terrorist tactics, however, Fox News can call them terrorists, thus making this seem like an extension of "THE WAR ON TERROR." This is where the reporting is misleading.

The war on terror is against the islamofacists. The war in Iraq is against native Iraqis who want the US to get the HELL out of Iraq. By using the term terrorists, Fox News muddles these two concepts and makes the Iraq war look legitiamte, when it really is not.

[Elfdart]

A "terrorist" is anyone who takes up arms against the United States, its allies or puppet regimes, because we Americans are God's gift to the world, a shining light to fag countries like Holland and our shit doesn't stink, either. They hate us because we are GOOD, they are EVIL and can't bear to see so much goodness all in one place. A hundred years ago, we called those people "savages", but "terrorist" has a more modern feel to it. *

Case in point: In 1983, Hezbollah bombed a barracks full of Marines and blew them from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. Now Marines are combatants, among the very best in fact. And military barracks of an occupying power are traditionally considered fair game for attack. Yet the truck-bombers were described as "terrorists". Insurgents in Iraq are described as "terrorists" whether they attack school children, quislings, collaborators or occupying soldiers.

The thing they have in common is fighting against Uncle Sam, an unforgivable crime. War crimes only apply to them -not us. After WW2, Nazi and Imperial Japanese leaders were tried for (among other things) attacking other countries without declaring war first. Of course anyone who thinks the US government should abide by the laws of war is a communist, devil-worshipping fag who hates America.

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches. In spite of all the red herrings about their atrocities (usually harped on by people who gloat over our atrocities or pooh-pooh them), this demonization says as much about us as it does them.

If someone had invaded this country, killed thousands of civilians, pillaged the country's assets, and anally raped prisoners -including women and boys, (according to Seymour Hersh, this is what happened at Abu Ghraib) I would hope that some of our citizens would take up arms and try to drive out the invaders and whack those who collaborated with them. The last people I would feel any sympathy for are collaborators, quislings and traitors who aided the invaders.

But as Joe Sobran wrote: "If you think this country should hold itself to the standards it demands of others, you are anti-American."

[CJvR]

You can still be a terrorist even if you accidentaly carry out the occational attack against legitimate military targets.

[Petrosjko]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches.

Which particular war was this where the enemy was giving gruding admiration? WW1 had the rapacious huns who bounced Belgian babies on their bayonets, WW2 of course had the treacherous little Japs...

The standard practice of any war propaganda is to dehumanize the enemy, and when said enemy is ethnicly distinct from your own majority population, it's that much easier.

[fgalkin]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches. In spite of all the red herrings about their atrocities (usually harped on by people who gloat over our atrocities or pooh-pooh them), this demonization says as much about us as it does them.

Only on your dreams. In every war the enemy was dehumanized in order to make it easier for the soldiers to kill them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Elfdart]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches.

Which particular war was this where the enemy was giving gruding admiration? WW1 had the rapacious huns who bounced Belgian babies on their bayonets, WW2 of course had the treacherous little Japs...

The standard practice of any war propaganda is to dehumanize the enemy, and when said enemy is ethnicly distinct from your own majority population, it's that much easier.

The Mexican War, the Boer War, the Civil War, the American Revolution. I'm not saying these wars were debutante balls or that atrocities weren't committed in these wars, but I don't believe that even those in favor of these wars would agitate for the murder, torture and rape of the other side's prisoners and civilians the way certain war whores do when fap-fap-fapping over the prospect of such crimes in the current war.

[Darth Wong]

Only on your dreams. In every war the enemy was dehumanized in order to make it easier for the soldiers to kill them.

True. And after the fact, we slowly realize that it was wrong to do this, because it leads to things like the Japanese-American internment camps. This time is unusual because some people have learned enough to start shouting "bullshit" earlier than normal.

[Elfdart]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches. In spite of all the red herrings about their atrocities (usually harped on by people who gloat over our atrocities or pooh-pooh them), this demonization says as much about us as it does them.

Only on your dreams. In every war the enemy was dehumanized in order to make it easier for the soldiers to kill them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Really? When in WW1 or WW2 (the wars everyone likes to throw down with) did American troops anally rape men, women and boys? When did a U.S. Senator say he was "outraged by the outrage" about atrocities?

[Sam Or I]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches. In spite of all the red herrings about their atrocities (usually harped on by people who gloat over our atrocities or pooh-pooh them), this demonization says as much about us as it does them.

Only on your dreams. In every war the enemy was dehumanized in order to make it easier for the soldiers to kill them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Really? When in WW1 or WW2 (the wars everyone likes to throw down with) did American troops anally rape men, women and boys? When did a U.S. Senator say he was "outraged by the outrage" about atrocities?

I don't think thats what he was saying. He was saying propaganda often labels an enemy, making them less than human. It makes war easier on the general public back in the home land.

[fgalkin]

It used to be that while enemy fighters were hated, they weren't written off as subhuman. Some even earned grudging admiration. Now in order to goad the public into supporting this war or that one, the enemy must be depicted as worse than rats or cockroaches. In spite of all the red herrings about their atrocities (usually harped on by people who gloat over our atrocities or pooh-pooh them), this demonization says as much about us as it does them.

Only on your dreams. In every war the enemy was dehumanized in order to make it easier for the soldiers to kill them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Really? When in WW1 or WW2 (the wars everyone likes to throw down with) did American troops anally rape men, women and boys? When did a U.S. Senator say he was "outraged by the outrage" about atrocities?

That's not what I said. What I said was the US army never gave grudging admiration to the enemy.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

I'm not buying the anal rape story until someone credible outside of Hersh confirms it.

[Joe]

I'm not buying the anal rape story until someone credible outside of Hersh confirms it.

Correction; I'm noy buying that it was a widespread practice until someone credible confirms it. IIRC there was at least one confirmed.

[The_Nice_Guy]

It's indeed all very ambiguous. For example, the terrorist who blew up children could have done so with the intent of killing an obvious military target, the US serviceman giving out candy. The children's deaths, though regrettable, could be regarded as just 'collateral damage'. Militaries throughout history have done the same.

Still, the question is why the terrorists/insurgents/guerillas/whatever are resorting to such means. Surely they're smart enough to just go after pure military targets and avoid such collateral damage which could bite them in the ass later on.

TWG

[Petrosjko]

The Mexican War, the Boer War, the Civil War, the American Revolution. I'm not saying these wars were debutante balls or that atrocities weren't committed in these wars, but I don't believe that even those in favor of these wars would agitate for the murder, torture and rape of the other side's prisoners and civilians the way certain war whores do when fap-fap-fapping over the prospect of such crimes in the current war.

You're kidding me, right? The Mexican-American war was inherently racist in nature, part of the Manifest Destiny that entailed pushing the degenerates who owned the land out of the way of the great American dream. And believe you me, there was little concern given to treatment of native women in that time or for many decades afterward. My family line is a direct descent from a less-than-wonderful gentleman who shacked up with a squaw and later beat her to death when she threw her back out hauling the laundry.

Boer War- Kitchener's concentration camps ring a bell?

The War between the States- The March to the Sea was notable for its atrocities, and you have such places as Andersonville prison camp, or Camp Douglas on the Union side. You can't say that nobody up the chain of command wasn't aware of conditions in those camps.

The American Revolution by and large lacked the organized brutality of the aforementioned examples, but still had plenty of nastiness to it, even without such fanciful imaginings as Gibson's "The Patriot" crapping all over it.

The difference between then and now is that we get on-the-spot reportage of these events, at times almost as they're happening. It's impossible to speak for the past, but I would not think it a stretch to say that Union or Confederate officials commenting on the state of their prison camps would point out that they had supply issues for their own people, with a hearty dash of 'they have it coming, anyway' thrown in. It's just that in that media environment, nobody knew about the camps until after the war.

[Elfdart]

I'm talking about society, not just the soldiers and politicians. Did the British press or political leaderss gloat in public over putting Boers into concentration camps where they died in droves? Did British opinion-makers liken starvation and pestilence inflicted on the Boers as being like a fraternity prank? FUCK NO! They tried to sweep it under the rug or deny it outright. People had consciences enough to be ashamed of the atrocities committed.

If you want a good idea what sick fucks we have running around today, even people who deny the Nazi Holocaust took place don't liken Auschwitz to fraternity hazing, like Jabba the Rush did with Abu Ghraib.

[Petrosjko]

I'm talking about society, not just the soldiers and politicians. Did the British press or political leaderss gloat in public over putting Boers into concentration camps where they died in droves? Did British opinion-makers liken starvation and pestilence inflicted on the Boers as being like a fraternity prank? FUCK NO! They tried to sweep it under the rug or deny it outright. People had consciences enough to be ashamed of the atrocities committed.

If you want a good idea what sick fucks we have running around today, even people who deny the Nazi Holocaust took place don't liken Auschwitz to fraternity hazing, like Jabba the Rush did with Abu Ghraib.

And Abu Ghaib was nothing like Auschwitz. That's a flat-out ridiculous comparison. Compared to Auschwitz, Abu Ghaib could be called a fraternity hazing.

Unfortunately, we lack a factual basis, but frankly I seriously doubt that society at large would have stirred much for what was happening at Andersonville or Camp Douglas.

As a matter of fact, I would contend to you that the dehumanization of the enemy has decreased significantly in modern times. Hate them though you do, but what has the Bush administration been saying on the matter since September 12th, 2001? 'Islam is a religion of peace' and so on.

Because modern media exposure, especially in America, makes it incredibly difficult for such affairs as Abu Ghaib to stay covert for thirty-plus years.