Are the Iraqi Insurgents Terrorists?

I see them as resistance fighters. So far, I have not seen them specifically target any Iraqi civilians, just who they should be targeting: police, police trainees, military, contracters and government. How could they even be remotely considered terrorists?

Oft debated in these parts.

You are under instruction to think of them as "terrorists", because if you didn't and you thought of them as resistance fighters and even thought of them as the "underdog", then heaven forbid, that wouldn't be very pro-Bush pro-American would it.

Anything that Bush points at and says is a terrorist and "evildoer", it must be so; be a good citizen and don't ask such questions.

been through this many times there are 100's of definitions of a "terrorist" i guess it all depends on your side and view at the time..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

we covered this topic on there and came to a blank unless we want to lable all soldiers also, maybe this quote from one of my previous posts could help?

Definitions of Terrorism

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

insurgent
n a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
n a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
adj in opposition to a civil authority or government

freedom fighter
n.
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.



Good luck mate

[edit on 19/5/05 by jayce]

Since the invasion Iraq has been populated by groups coming from outside the borders to take advantage of the situation and instability of the country.

Iraq belong to diferent tribes, three of the main are Shiites, Sunis and Kurds.

Been the #es the majority and under opression by Sadam they are now in power.

Sunnis in the other hand doesn't hold power the same way as under Sadam's rule and by American standards they account for the most Insurgents feeding ranks.

We hear that “terrorist and insurgents” attack Iraqis, and they are............ but for a member of one tribe to kill the member of another tribe is not uncommon even in our modern times, sounds horrible and unthinkable to us but not for people that belongs to this tribes.

Remember that in our history the north and the south fought each other even when they were fellow country man.

Right now is a problem that points out that perhaps terrorist from outside the borders are instigating Iraqis into a civil war.

Their reasoning is under the assumption that helping and allowing US troops and the US government to stay in their lands and control the country is unacceptable.

US will see as insurgent anybody that is not in favor of the government in Iraq including old Sadams regime party followers, and a terrorist anybody that is from outside the borders and in Iraq causing chaos and destruction.

The problem is when it comes to the time to sort the groups out is difficult to tell who is and Iraqi and when it becomes a terrorist.

The same way is hard to tell who is an outsider and not an insurgent but a terrorist.

Confuse?

That’s why is easier to call them all insurgents unless they can be properly identify as terrorist from known terrorist groups.

One must remember that the targets in Iraq included a lot of time targets that are not govenmental. The police recrutes didn't even join yet, and were therefore civilians. Some of the attacks were on residential complexes of foreign forces. It is not accepted anywere as legitimate military strategy to infiltrate a soldier's house and kill his wife, nor is the behading of prisoners, nor kiddnaping the mayor's family. I think they should be called terrorists.

If we accept that in a democracy there is an elected government by the majority, and there are civil rights, doesn't it mean that any dissatisfied group has legal ways to protest and bring change?

How about defining "Terrorist" as anyone who tries violently to remove a legitimate democratic govenment without declaring war and abiding to its laws (meaning: declaration, uniform, and no war crimes).

This way there is plenty of room for freedom fights fighting agains oppretion. You can't be afreedom fighter in a democracy - you become a political party or terrorist. There already is freedom or it isn't a democracy.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Parmenides]

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Parmenides]

Originally posted by RedDragon
. So far, I have not seen them specifically target any Iraqi civilians, just who they should be targeting: police, police trainees, military, contracters and government.

So the entire crowd at the funeral mentioned below consisted of "police, police trainees, military, contracters and government" ??

Suicide bomber kills 47 at mosque funeral

A suicide bomber has blown himself up in a crowd of mourners gathered for a funeral outside a Shiite mosque, killing at least 47 people, in an attack that has underscored the resilience and reach of the insurgent campaign.

The blast, which tore through the large group packed in a tent next to Mosul's Two Sadr Martyrs Mosque on Thursday, was the latest in a string of bloody attacks across Iraq that have killed at least 100 Iraqis, most of them civilians, in recent days.

[edit on 5/19/2005 by eaglewingz]

They are the resistance.

Super moderator Crowne, you told me off for insulting an orgonisation. Now isn't this the same thing? Will you in force the rules this time? Or do the rules only apply to me?

- Any further attempts to talk to me on this thread will not be succesful as i don't want to turn it into a slug fest.
I am removing it from my subscription. If you want to talk to me, send me a U2U.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Hmm?

The U.S. and the UK and their allies' have found resistance fighters from not only Iraq, but Syria as well. This would point to something else.

Why are they involved? It's fact that Syria has harbored 'terrorists', 'fighters', or what have you, so why then?

However, Iraqi civilians have been killed by their attacks. =/

-wD

Were the FEW french civilizans whom fought the Nazi's after being occupied considered terrorists?

The only reason they are terrorists is becuase the US Brands them as terrorists...

And we live in a world where what the US Says, GOES!

....

Its no wonder IRAQI's take the violent road when faced with 1 quetsion,

Suffer, in squaller with no running water, electricity, gas, watching friends/family DIE...
OR Join the resistance, get paid to attack the occupier.

But they mostly attack thier own countryman, that is why they are terrorists.

The french resistance tried to target Nazi milittery targets. Also the Nazis weren't what you call a legit government in france. Iraq has now a democraticly elected government.

Good points
But the US branded them terrorists long before they started attacking civilians,

IT was just convenient that they did for the US

Drastic times call for Drastic measures, and when ur country is invaded, familieis and friends killed and detained, all's fair in love and war.

By definition the USA is the terrorist,
murdering civilians without any provocation

I bet they've killed FAR more than the insurg.... terrr..... freedom fighters!

[edit on 19-5-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

edit: Nevermind...

[edit on 2005/5/19 by wecomeinpeace]

Do insurgents and freedom fighters duck tape and plastic tie wrap the feet of suicide car bombers to the gas pedal and hands to the steering wheel?

Do insurgents and freedom fighters haphazardly take the lives of non-combatants and innocent civilains?

Do they, insurgents and freedom fighters, disregard Muslim and Islamic law forbidding the use of mosques and other holy sites as fortress', etc?

The list can go on...

Please do clarify the differences other than giving the 'a' typical spew of what "the US government" wants or decrees you to believe. That would be much appreciated.





seekerof

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Seekerof]

wecomeinpeace..
why'd you edit ur post mate?
I thought it was a pretty decent stance u posted..

Moderators, im sick of u guys coming in telling us WHAT to post,
u can MODERATE and keep us informed of the RULES, but dont tell us WHAT TO POST,
ITS A public forum we will say what ever we want to say.

I'm sorry to hear and read that.
I have every right to post my opinion as you do.
You do have a number of choices available: file a complaint, keep whining, or simply ignore; your choice.




seekerof

For me its simple.

As long as they target legitimate targets, police stations, soldiers, etc then they are enemy combatants. Even if innocents die too.

The ones sawing aide workers heads off are terrorists.

Great, as long as ya stop trying to control people's thoughts on this site i dont really give a crap what ya say!
but thanx for understanding

Does anyone consider the US to be terrorists in this illegial war?
I mean, isnt the definition of terrorism killing unarmed civilians?

True the insurgency/resistance/freedom fighters are killing innocents, therefore they are terrorists,
but the US is killing them, detaining them and taking over to CONTROL them,
isnt that a worse form of terrorism?

[edit on 19-5-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
wecomeinpeace..
why'd you edit ur post mate?
I thought it was a pretty decent stance u posted..

Been there, done that.

In defence of Seekerof, he's telling you as Seekerof, not as a moderator. No posts here contravened the TOS, some just "contravened" Seeker's personal viewpoint on this issue.