Are Iraqi insurgents who attack our troops terrorists?

[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?

 

[EXman]

well some are foriegners that are terrorist imported to shoot our boys. Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Saudis Lots of Iranians and Palestinians that Bomb all the time in Isreal.

Think about it this way if you were a Baath party loyalist and there is no place for you to live like you used to when being one of Saddam's thugs then hell yes you are going to do whatever you can to wage a war of terror to try and get the good guys out so you can go on raping and pillaging!

 

[Genesys]

disagree, terrorist groups from syria and other nations around Iraq are sending their "troops" into Iraq to help battle the infidels.

 

[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.

 

[Zebo]

Dude it's FOX the propaganda machine for the white house and elite.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Or as Yoda would say: "You're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

Is that why they targeted a tribal leader today(yesterday)? The UN compound? The Red Cross building? The hotel the press were in? Nice Military targets I guess.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

Aren't they the same group? Or are there a group of terrorists and a separate group of military "resistance"?

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

I would have to agree.

 

[CaptnKirk]

If you follow reports there is but a small in-feeding of cannon fodder to the effort there.
The 'terrorist' label is wearing thin, repeted to where it sounds like 'wolf' and then 'sheep'.
Complacency sets in.

Todays rumor is that now Saddam is not in charge of anything there, it's the civil population.
Remember now - the Iraqi Army simply dissapeared into the woodwork,
and now they are in the community.

Only takes a 20% to 30% civilian sympathy or support, to keep an urban army hidden and informed.
They have all the time in the world, and their entire future to invest, they will be there when we leave,
either tomorrow, next year, or next century - we have to leave sometime.

I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of plunking out 87 billion every 6 months or so for long,
Thats more than we are willing to pay into many of our own domestic programs,
and you know Iraq dosen't get that money.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

Aren't they the same group? Or are there a group of terrorists and a separate group of military "resistance"?

CkG

So what? You can be in both groups.
There is overlap between these groups, but that doesn't mean they are the same group. That would mean that 100% of those who attack military targets also attack civilians and vice versa, which is probably not the case.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

They see them as agents of the oppessor. The civilains are "collateral damage"

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Is that why they targeted a tribal leader today(yesterday)? The UN compound? The Red Cross building? The hotel the press were in? Nice Military targets I guess.

CkG

I specifically said:

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.

1. Read post
2. Then respond

Even if they are one and the same, when an attack on our soldiers occurs, the perpetrators should not be labeled terrorists. I'm not saying they are nice guys, just that they are not terrorists, that word has been used so arbitrarily it has practically lost all meaning.

 

[CaptnKirk]

You know there are a whole bunch of raging testosterone teenage boys over there
who will do anything to show their big brother - the one who came back from the Army =
their willingness to go down for the national cause. Why ? - 'cause they can, and will.

You can get pretty whooped up rather easily when a dozen or so 13 to 17 year olds get rowdy.

Here in the States it's 'Just being Boy's' or in some places 'Wilding'
But in Iraq it's "Them dadblasted Terrirists"

 

[SuperTool]

I don't see the point and arguing over symantics. We know what they do. It's not like we are OK with them killing our troops because that's not "terrorism."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Even if they are one and the same, when an attack on our soldiers occurs, the perpetrators should not be labeled terrorists. I'm not saying they are nice guys, just that they are not terrorists, that word has been used so arbitrarily it has practically lost all meaning.

So a terrorist is suddenly not a terrorist if he picks a military target today but bombed a non-military target yesterday?

CkG

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Even if they are one and the same, when an attack on our soldiers occurs, the perpetrators should not be labeled terrorists. I'm not saying they are nice guys, just that they are not terrorists, that word has been used so arbitrarily it has practically lost all meaning.

So a terrorist is suddenly not a terrorist if he picks a military target today but bombed a non-military target yesterday?

CkG

Have we caught anyone who was responsible for both the killing of a soldier and a civilian? Not to my knowledge. If we have we can call that person a terrorist. We don't even know whose behind a lot of these attacks, hell the latest word is that the Iraqi people themselves are fed up of us. You're not getting my point. Unless you can link the attacks on civilian targets to SPECIFIC people who are also attacking our troops, the two have to be differentiated and it is incorrect to label those attacking troops as terrorists.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The ones that blow up UN, Red cross, civilians, etc, are. The ones targeting military vehicles and troops aren't.

I would have to agree. And any members of the Iraqi military that are still fighting would probably technically be entitled to POW status as no one actually surrendered to us...but I am unclear on that point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIceHave we caught anyone who was responsible for both the killing of a soldier and a civilian? Not to my knowledge. If we have we can call that person a terrorist. We don't even know whose behind a lot of these attacks, hell the latest word is that the Iraqi people themselves are fed up of us. You're not getting my point. Unless you can link the attacks on civilian targets to SPECIFIC people who are also attacking our troops, the two have to be differentiated and it is incorrect to label those attacking troops as terrorists.

No - I get your "point", but it is based on the assumption that they are separate groups. I also know that your "point" is to again blast FOX because it's popular to do so. I don't give a rats ass what FOX calls them or anyone else calls them for that matter. The fact is that the "resistance" is targetting both civilian and military people/places.

CkG

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIceHave we caught anyone who was responsible for both the killing of a soldier and a civilian? Not to my knowledge. If we have we can call that person a terrorist. We don't even know whose behind a lot of these attacks, hell the latest word is that the Iraqi people themselves are fed up of us. You're not getting my point. Unless you can link the attacks on civilian targets to SPECIFIC people who are also attacking our troops, the two have to be differentiated and it is incorrect to label those attacking troops as terrorists.

No - I get your "point", but it is based on the assumption that they are separate groups. I also know that your "point" is to again blast FOX because it's popular to do so. I don't give a rats ass what FOX calls them or anyone else calls them for that matter. The fact is that the "resistance" is targetting both civilian and military people/places.

CkG

Fox is saying that they are the same group, while the "fact" is that we dont know and therefor we cant say if they are in the same group without guessing, and guessing and news reporting shouldnt come close to one another

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIceHave we caught anyone who was responsible for both the killing of a soldier and a civilian? Not to my knowledge. If we have we can call that person a terrorist. We don't even know whose behind a lot of these attacks, hell the latest word is that the Iraqi people themselves are fed up of us. You're not getting my point. Unless you can link the attacks on civilian targets to SPECIFIC people who are also attacking our troops, the two have to be differentiated and it is incorrect to label those attacking troops as terrorists.

No - I get your "point", but it is based on the assumption that they are separate groups. I also know that your "point" is to again blast FOX because it's popular to do so. I don't give a rats ass what FOX calls them or anyone else calls them for that matter. The fact is that the "resistance" is targetting both civilian and military people/places.

CkG

Fox is saying that they are the same group, while the "fact" is that we dont know and therefor we cant say if they are in the same group without guessing, and guessing and news reporting shouldnt come close to one another

Exactly. This has nothing to do with FOX bashing, CNN is guilty of this too, not just as often. Its about accuracy in journalism and propaganda. Even gov officials intervewed by the networks call them terrorits, ie: after the last Blackhawks were shot down.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Miramonti]

no more than bush is.

 

[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?