Are Iraqi insurgents who attack our troops terrorists?

[Zebo]

even the dictionary definition is rather nebulus compare to what you guys want terrorism to be: And I see nothing about civilian vs. military targets. i fact the first definition "threatening use of force" GWB did to iraq before the war started and Clinton did wth sanctions with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism

\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo
even the dictionary definition is rather nebulus compare to what you guys want terrorism to be: And I see nothing about civilian vs. military targets. i fact the first definition "threatening use of force" GWB did to iraq before the war started and Clinton did wth sanctions with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism

\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Perhaps the "right" answer is that there is no unambiguous definition, that it is as much a matter of perspective as anything.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
even the dictionary definition is rather nebulus compare to what you guys want terrorism to be: And I see nothing about civilian vs. military targets. i fact the first definition "threatening use of force" GWB did to iraq before the war started and Clinton did wth sanctions with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism

\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Perhaps the "right" answer is that there is no unambiguous definition, that it is as much a matter of perspective as anything.

That's what I thought too. I'm still wondering if it's accurate to call suicide bombers terrorists. I mean they are murderers no doubt, but assuming words have meaning for a moment, is thier goal to intimidate or coerce or just to kill? And if so why not call them killers? Terrorist seems to dignified... like something the CIA might do in central america or you dad might do to stop you from putting your elbows on the table at supper.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
My main point is that anyone, regardless of whether they are imported or not, who attack soldiers are not terrorists. A soldiers job is to fight wars, and dying is just part of the job, that's the reality of war.

I don't think that's an adequate working definition. What about the people who attacked the USS Cole a few years ago? Even though it was a military target, I think most people would call it a terrorist act. I would.

That said, I think it is propaganda to broadly label Iraqi attackers as terrorists. Yes, some of them are terrorists. Yes, some of them are committing terrorist acts. Many of them, however, are locals doing whatever they can to repel an invading army. They are enemy forces, not terrorists.

I agree with you, the attack on the Cole was terrorism b/c we were not at war. We are at war with Iraq so violence towards soldiers is, or atleast should be, expected.

Sure, that makes sense. During times of peace, an attack on a military target is either an act of terrorism, or an act of war if committed by another state. An attack on civilian targets is an act of terrorism ... but that raises a second question. What is the difference between the U.S. attacking civilian targets during a war and locals attacking civilian targets during a war? Why is one a legitimate miltary act, the other a terrorist act?

How do we revise our definition to account for this? Merely falling back on "intent" or "military objectives" is ambiguous and likely to be that fabled slippery slope. Any thoughts on a better way to differentiate the two?

But I think the distinction does lies in intent. If we killed or attacked civilians on purpose then yes, we are terrorists. In fact, the Israeli like tactics we are using in Tikrit right now are pretty terrorist like IMO. Demolishing houses, buildings and trees under the ausipces of eliminating terrorism is a mistake and the only thing it serves is increasing resentment against us. But the fact remains that we don't target civilians for the sole purpose of inciting fear and terror, and in such I don't think we can be labeled as terrorists. But you are right, where do we draw the line? Who decides? It's all perspective and it is a very complicated thing.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
even the dictionary definition is rather nebulus compare to what you guys want terrorism to be: And I see nothing about civilian vs. military targets. i fact the first definition "threatening use of force" GWB did to iraq before the war started and Clinton did wth sanctions with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism

\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Perhaps the "right" answer is that there is no unambiguous definition, that it is as much a matter of perspective as anything.

That's what I thought too. I'm still wondering if it's accurate to call suicide bombers terrorists. I mean they are murderers no doubt, but assuming words have meaning for a moment, is thier goal to intimidate or coerce or just to kill? And if so why not call them killers? Terrorist seems to dignified... like something the CIA might do in central america or you dad might do to stop you from putting your elbows on the table at supper.

I think suicide bombers are terrorists because their killing is not blind, it is tied to a goal. There are no connotations of intent in the word "killer" IMO. There is intent in terrorism: to incite fear in order to achieve a political or philosophical goal. So you are right, the "right" answer is that there is no unambiguous definition as there is so much room for debate.

 

[zephyrprime]

I don't think you're really a terrorist unless you primarily kill civilians in order to terrorize them.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Whenever I watch FOX News and they are talking about Iraq, they refer to people who attack our troops as terrorists. I don't think this is right. For one, if they are not attacking civilians, they are not terrorists. We invaded their country, so if they fight back, that makes them soldiers or atleast insurgents or resistance fighters. When France was occupied by the Nazi's, those who fought back were called La Resistance, why should Iraq be any different? I'm not calling us Nazis nor am I condoning the attacks on our troops so don't get your panties wet. I'm just saying that it is at the least propaganda to call Iraqi insurgents "terrorists". The people who bombed the Red Cross and the UN were terrorists, the people who shoot police officers or other civilians who cooperate with the US are terrorists, but those who fight the troops are not, especially since we started the war. Agree or disagree?

Sorry, I'm late to this thread. If the people who bomb the civilian sites are different from the ones who attack US troops, then you are correct. I was under the impression they were the same people.