Insurgent or Terrorist?

Apparently there is a behind the scenes debate as to whether or not we should classify the insurgents as terrorist. I’m a little confused about this so maybe some of you could help me out a little here.

I am going to present things I have found for both sides her. I can’t really come to a conclusion.

First, I will start with why we might label them as Terrorist. First and foremost, their tactics are nearly identical. Many a good man has said you can tell a man by his actions. The second thing that strikes me is the nationality of the majority of insurgents. Most are not from Iraq. But rather from Iran, Syria, and other M.E. countries. These are people brought in just to fight against the United States. I’m not to sure they care what they are fighting for, just that they are fighting America. Next, we will look at the definition of insurgent from Miriam-Webster.

1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.

The first does describe the insurgents, but look at the second one. These foreign fighters have no affiliation with Iraq’s political parties. Next, lets look at the M.W. definition of a terrorist.

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter•ror•ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

This seems to be how the insurgents are operating.

OK. Here are some reasons we might consider them just insurgents. The insurgency DID start with just Iraqi’s. Mostly former Baathist. These freedom fighter are fighting against what they perceive as an oppressive occupier. I gave the definition of an insurgent earlier, and the first definition did accurately describe these people. America is occupying their country. I would imagine that probably angers a lot of Iraqi people. I know there is a large number that support America and what we appear to be doing. But there are bound to be people angered by this.

So we come down to there being two types of insurgents in Iraq now. However, they both use the same tactics and seem to be fighting along side one another. Should we attempt to make a distinction between the two? Is there a plausible way of defining both parties of the insurgency without being misinformed as to the actual intentions of either party of insurgent?

I know I gave much more evidence that Insurgents should be classified as terrorist, and I in no way am trying to imply that is what I believe. I presented it this way because of all the info I have gone over, most of it seems to point to the classification as terrorist for the entire insurgent party, even though it is comprised of two factions.



www.hungarian-history.hu...
en.wikipedia.org...: Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003-2005
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
www.m-w.com...
www.m-w.com...


[edit on 2/22/05 by Kidfinger]

Prior to the elections I would have called MOST of them insurgents as they were fighting a foriegn enitity mostly. Iraqi nationals were insurgents anyways. Any non Iraqi fighting the coalition I would classify as a terrorist. But after the elections, with the country on the eve of being in total Iraqi control, id say these people are now all terrorists as they are fighting thier own government and people rather than the US led coalition.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by skippytjc]

I have noticed that more and more Iraqi police officers are dying. Im not sure if its because the are being targeted( I know they are ) or if there are just more of them around now so they are more prevalent when the fighting starts. When we first got there and defeated the Iraqi army, they didnt have any forces left. We have been training them and releasing them in large numbers as of late, so this could account for the large number of Iraqi police dying.

As I was tyoing that, I also thought of the Iraqi officials being kidnaped and killed as well. But agian, even with these cases, the same still applies. They were not there before, but now their numbers have grown, and their identities are known. Through the eyes of these terrorist/insurgents, they may be fighting American occupation by killing off the people they believe are connected to America and its occupation.

Now Ive put myself in a circle agian and Im all confused

KF

I'd say that, for example, the mehdi army are 'legitimate' partisans, since they attack the US military (as opposed to civilians) and have a central command (more or less anyway).

THe rest are unorganized criminal gangs of roving paramilitaries, who avoid the US army, kidnap and murder people, and target civilians.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'd say that, for example, the mehdi army are 'legitimate' partisans, since they attack the US military (as opposed to civilians) and have a central command (more or less anyway).

THe rest are unorganized criminal gangs of roving paramilitaries, who avoid the US army, kidnap and murder people, and target civilians.

Agreed. But how do we classify them? is it reasonable to lump them all in the same group? I understand that there are legitimate insurgents in Iraq. Hell, every soverign nation has them. But the rogue bands outweigh any attempt at an organised effort to end the occupancy of Iraq. Since the margin of legitimate insurgents to un organised rogues is so small, can we just lable them all as terrorist?

Classify them

What's the point? If you are a casualty, or your family are left behind, are they supposed to be able to take something positive away from how the people that killed their loved one are 'classified'?

If they are shooting at and trying to blow our people up, then the answer is to kill them all and let Allah 'classify' them.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Classify them

What's the point? If you are a casualty, or your family are left behind, are they supposed to be able to take something positive away from how the people that killed their loved one are 'classified'?

The point is that there is a group of people who think they should be called terrorist, and there is a group of people who think they should be called insurgents. Now I know some might say "why do you need to label them at all?" Well, honestly, I cant answer that. All I can say is there are people who think that there is importance in this. Not just in the classification, but also what that classification implies.

If they are shooting at and trying to blow our people up, then the answer is to kill them all and let Allah 'classify' them.

There are other ways too. We could BOTH stop killing one another and let peace rule the region. We dont HAVE to fight. Both sides could make a choice.
The proposition would have to come from the insurgent/terrorist though, because I will agree that our men and women are just shooting back. For the most part.

There are no insurgents, the people fighting the U.S. is the REpublican Guard, in 2002 Russian Spetznas enterd Iraq via Iran and trained them and equiped them with new weapons, Uday and Qusay are not dead, Saddan is not in jail in Iraq, thats one of his imposters that the U.S. special ops put in front of the camera to make the Republican Guard loos moral here are some real news that the pentagon doesn't want U.S. Citezens to put together 1. Real Uday Qusay not DEAD www.vialls.com... 2.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

I dont think you can go with "Any" definitions on these. I tried doing it awhile back in my blog, but you could classify anyone creating fear, as a terrorist.

Here

I think there may be a general "understanding" as to what a terrorist is, but not by any "official" definition I have found. The ability to Charge someone with terrorism, or act thereof is alot easier now, especially in the US. There always has been "Terroristic Threat" charges, but since the Patriot Act, it makes it easier to charge anyone for anything under terrorism. Just look what happened to the guy in New Jersey, he was using a laser pointer to point out constellations with his daughter, after Investigating, hew was found not to have any ties with terrorist organizations, but yet was still charged under the Patriot Act.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
There are no insurgents, the people fighting the U.S. is the REpublican Guard, in 2002 Russian Spetznas enterd Iraq via Iran and trained them and equiped them with new weapons, Uday and Qusay are not dead, Saddan is not in jail in Iraq, thats one of his imposters that the U.S. special ops put in front of the camera to make the Republican Guard loos moral here are some real news that the pentagon doesn't want U.S. Citezens to put together 1. Real Uday Qusay not DEAD www.vialls.com... 2.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Trained by the Russians? No wonder the Republican guard was defeated so easily.

TM,

So by default, American Government has essentially changed the very definition of the wordterrorist by broadening its meaning. I would have to agree with this. I started a thread awhile back entitled Want to know whats in patriot act II?". In that, I linked to a page that contained the draft of the entire act. some of the revelations were starteling to say the least.

[edit on 2/22/05 by Kidfinger]

Saddam is not in jail, and in the south amoung the Shia's Spetznas has organised an Iraqi mILITIA THATS HEADED BY NON OTHER THAN "Moqtada AL-Sadr" they are the noncordanated guys who don't shoot straight that The Pentagon shows U.S. Citizens on CNN, to make it look like Iraqi Army disappered out of fear to fight U.S. and "some how these civilians musterd up the corage to fight U.S." THE SHIA'S and Sunni's are fighting together to remove U.S. cuz they know U.S. is in Iraq to give Iraq's oil to hebrews in Palistine here is the Shia Militias 1. www.vialls.com... 2. www.vialls.com...

[edit on 22-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Agreed. But how do we classify them? is it reasonable to lump them all in the same group?

Well, Al-Sadr is the head of the mehdi army (that is, i suppose, sort of the islamic messiah himself or something), and they are not active. So, technically, any active fighters are illegal criminal insurgents that have to be destroyed. Then again, if sadrs group became active, they'd have to be destroyed anyway.

Since the margin of legitimate insurgents to un organised rogues is so small, can we just lable them all as terrorist?

No, definitely not. Members of the mehdi army are not terrorists. Everyone else is. TO be sure, if oyu are say, a member of the 'insurgency', and havebn't targeted civillians, bombed mosques, lopped of womens heads, and have only attacked, even if by guerilla tactics, US forces, then why would anyone charge you as a terrorist? Or how would they be able to support that accusation anyway? But if you coordinate your attacks with zarqawi, you are, de facto, a part of his terrorist network.

centurion1211
If they are shooting at and trying to blow our people up, then the answer is to kill them all and let Allah 'classify' them.

There are different ways to deal with guerillas versus criminal thugs tho. Think of it like this. If, in the Roman Jewish war, there were, say, armies that were supported and lead by the jewish king, you'd treat them differently than you would the wild eyed knife weilding zealots scurrying in the desert. Both you'd track down and destroy of course, but if you captured the kings army, you might, say, execute them by strangulation, rather than, say, flail and crucify as you would with the zealot thugs. For the part of the US, if part of zarqawi's group is captured, ship them to gitmo and worry about them later. The mehdi army? Treat them like POWs (more or less).

lets look in a dictionary:

in·sur·gent:
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

[Latin nsurgns, nsurgent- present participle of nsurgere, to rise up : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + surgere, to rise; see surge.]

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]


ter·ror·ist:
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

i guess you are asking us two questions:

1.are ther insurgents in iraq?
yes.
they are the ex-republican guard and special special forces called the fedajeen; they are in command of around 150.000 - 200.000 strong guerrila force, armed with 7 million ak47 rifles and two million hand grenades and about 80.000-100.000 rocket propelled granades. many of the fighters are former fedajeen saddam who've learned their lessoTns - not to play open warfare against America's high-tech killing systems. they appreciate the city jungle where their AK rifles, the homemade bomb and the RPG are miraculous equalizers. they are ofcourse sunni muslims, which were in control in the time of saddam regime. now they still under enemy occupation and therefore classified as the insurgents, not terrorists.

2.are the terrorists in iraq?
yes,
they are a nice collection of all the fractions that want to fight the american forces. they come from all around the globe. most of them are not from iraq, but from muslim countries around it. and the insurgent party is more then happy that they have come to help them in their resistance struggle for control.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Souljah]

Im sensing more of you are willing to attempt to classifiy these as two seprate entities. I am still not sure about what to think of this little situation. There are points for both sides of the debate, and they all make pretty good sense. The broadening of the definition of terrorist by our government has given a boost to the theory that all the insurgents in Iraq are terrorist, but through a logical analyisis, you can come to the conclusion that a seperat classification is needed. Most media outlets make little distinction between the two. This could also be a major factor in the thinking on this subject.

The Insugents in Iraq are the U.S./ U.K./ Austrailia the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Militia are the "COUNTER INSURGENTS" Part 1. www.vialls.com... Part 2. www.vialls.com... Part 3. www.vialls.com... and Part 4. www.vialls.com...

I would also throw out there....

Do you believe these "insurgents" are protecting something they think is being taken away from them?

This invasion was not a "World Cause", but one that was taken on by the US. Sure other Nations have been involved, but this does not come even close to echoing the Gulf War in any way.

Not that this may pertain, but, If your house was invaded, would you defend yourself? It may be too much to try to peer into the Psyche of these people, but this may be what is happening. They may feel that their protecting their "Home", but who truly knows? Only what is fed to us......