Why does the media insist on calling terrorists insurgents?

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Is it possible for freedom fighters or insurgents to also be terrorists? I think so.

If USA was invaded by liberals who wants to change the leadership, there would be freedom fighters, and some of them would employ terrorist tactics; To kill the liberal leaders and their families (let's call it accident).

^^Christian?

 

[Gaard]

The difference between a terrorist and an insurgent is bigger than the difference between an insurgent and a freedom fighter. Your POV is the only thing that distinguishes between what you feel is freedom fighter and what you feel is an insurgent.


Shock-n-Awe

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Someone who straps bombs to their chests and blows up a van load of kindergartners is not an insurgent, they are a terrorist.

So Nitemare, what do you call someone who drops bombs and blows up an apartment full of school children?

I would call that a horrible accident. We are not targeting apartment buildings full of school kids though, and the terrorists are targeting any and everyone including vans of children....sort of like the Palestinians blowing themselves up whereever there is alot of Israeli's. They are nothing more than terrorists that like to maim and destroy women and children.

what difference does it make when the outcome is the same. What makes is morally justified to use the bombs in the first place

It makes a big difference. collateral damge is different from deliberate attacks

There is no difference. We create terms such as "collateral damage." It is no different. Terms like these are only excuses and use for power and convienence.

 

[chrisms]

Terrorism is deliberately killing the opponents innocent.

The insurgents have no reason to deliberately kill their own women and children. They target the U.S. military, which is fair game to them if we are the occupiers of a foreign country. Just because they don't have the resources we do, and have to settle for homemade bombs, does not mean they are terrorists.

 

[InlineFive]

The Department Of War Information "edits" information before it is released to the public.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The real question is why does the media and the administration insist on calling these people terrorists and insurgents when they are freedom fighters?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously.

These insurgents are fighting for "freedom"? Is that right? They don't at all want to oppress the country under their own totalitarian regime? They suddenly developed an appreciation for freedom AFTER Saddam was removed from power? A few months for the US to hand over authority is too much after decades of brutal dictatorship?

These men are doing what they're doing to generate terror and chaos because a fractured country is easier to oppress and exploit. I call that terrorism.

 

[Infohawk]

HeroOfPellinor:

"You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously. "
This appeal to emotion is not an effective way to forward your argument.

"These insurgents are fighting for "freedom"? Is that right? "
That is correct.

"They don't at all want to oppress the country under their own totalitarian regime? "
I shall be sarcastic for a moment to demonstrate a point: /sarcasm/ Yeah, these guys get around a table at a friend's house and say, 'you know what? I think we should go out an opress people and start a totalitarian regime based on injustice.' /sarcasm/ Of course they don't intend to do that.

"They suddenly developed an appreciation for freedom AFTER Saddam was removed from power?"
We have different definitions of freedom. I'm talking about freedom from foreign occupiers. I'm not sure what your definiton of freedom is. Under the occupation, iraqis do not have freedom of the press and are not being allowed to vote.

"These men are doing what they're doing to generate terror and chaos because a fractured country is easier to oppress and exploit"
These people are human beings. Human beings generally don't want outsiders telling them what to do and telling them what freedom is (especially when freedom is double-speak for opression). Again, reverse the situation, you would not want somebody invading your country and telling you what new system of government would be.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
HeroOfPellinor:



"You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously. "

This appeal to emotion is not an effective way to forward your argument.

1. I don't care. I've got you pegged as a partisan patsy merely cheering for the enemy of your enemy. You forgot how deplorable that makes you.
2. Learn how to use markup. Kthx.

"These insurgents are fighting for "freedom"? Is that right? "

That is correct.

And are civilian contractors helping rebuild the infrastructure part of the oppression? No much so, that they should be kidnapped and murdered?

I see you ignored my bewilderment at these "Iraqi freedom fighters" zealousness when the US plans to hand over authority back to the Iraqi people in a few months. Don't be embarassed, I would have ignored a comment difficult to refute as well.

"They don't at all want to oppress the country under their own totalitarian regime? "

I shall be sarcastic for a moment to demonstrate a point: /sarcasm/ Yeah, these guys get around a table at a friend's house and say, 'you know what? I think we should go out an opress people and start a totalitarian regime based on injustice.' /sarcasm/ Of course they don't intend to do that.

What is their goal then? America is establishing them as a democracy. How much more free can a government be? They have better plans? Have you heard any of these proposed plans that will lead them more quickly to a free way of life? And, yes, a small band of thugs can indeed take over an entire country or at the very least dominate a small but significant portion of it so your sarcasm is misplaced ignorance.

"They suddenly developed an appreciation for freedom AFTER Saddam was removed from power?"

We have different definitions of freedom. I'm talking about freedom from foreign occupiers. I'm not sure what your definiton of freedom is. Under the occupation, iraqis do not have freedom of the press and are not being allowed to vote.

"Under the occupation, iraqis do not have freedom of the press and are not being allowed to vote." Read what you wrote again. Did they have these rights before the occupation? LOL. There's Internet cafes springing up all over under their new found rights to open communication. Are you suggesting they have fewer rights under the occupation? :roll:

"These men are doing what they're doing to generate terror and chaos because a fractured country is easier to oppress and exploit"

These people are human beings. Human beings generally don't want outsiders telling them what to do and telling them what freedom is (especially when freedom is double-speak for opression).

I see now why nobody was baited into arguing with you and I'm, frankly, ashamed that I was. I'd feel like I was lowering to your level if I argued against this rediculous statement.

Again, reverse the situation, you would not want somebody invading your country and telling you what new system of government would be.

Saddam used brutal tactics to quell the numerous attempted revolts. What they were revolting from I can't possibly imagine. :roll: If I was in their situation and had no chance of liberating myself, I'd welcome a temporary and peaceful occupation by inbread zombie satanists if it meant freedom.

Oh, and if your post was a sarcastic troll, as I hope and suspect it was, then consider me pwned.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'd like someone to explain to me how we move along the progression I've noted below:

FREEDOM FIGHTER --> INSURGENT --> TERRORIST

Please define each and explain how you would move forward in the progression.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd like someone to explain to me how we move along the progression I've noted below:



FREEDOM FIGHTER --> INSURGENT --> TERRORIST



Please define each and explain how you would move forward in the progression.

This is so easy. Don't listen to what an entertainment service like Fox News says, they muddy terms up when they get over-excited.

A freedom fighter is an individual fighting for someone's freedom. Freedom can have many meanings, so perhaps a better definition would be a "resistance fighter" with at least one supporter, so they can be categorized as a "popular resistance fighter." They fight against an occupying force, invading army, or law enforcement, for what is percieved by that supporter as "freedom."

An insurgent is someone fighting against an occupying force, invading army, or law enforcement. They don't neccessarily have a supporter, whose "freedom" (in whatever sense they wish), they are fighting for.

A terrorist is an individual employing terroristic tactics, that is, tactics designed to create terror among civilians. An example is General Sherman, with terroristic tactics including WWII Allied Fire Bombing raids. Notice that I have chosen two "patriotic" American examples. Because yes America has employed terrorist tactics at various times.

All three terms have various emotions pegged onto them depending on the current headlines zipping across the bottom of a TV screen.

Zephyr

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd like someone to explain to me how we move along the progression I've noted below:



FREEDOM FIGHTER --> INSURGENT --> TERRORIST



Please define each and explain how you would move forward in the progression.

there is no progression i can see.

there is overlap between all three. all three tend to be a minority in number, although
this may depend on the situation. terrorists tend to be stateless, if not homeless, and
have to operate against the beliefs of the people whom they claim to be helping, a
disgusting contradiction which the freedom fighter would not countenance.

the major difference i see is in their tactics. the primary onbjective of the terrorist is to
conduct psychological campaigns by targeting vulnerable, non-military targets with lethal
violence.

insurgents or freedom fighters may conduct a terrorist act by targeting defenseless
civilians but these strikes are done as complementary or secondary campaigns, are
few in number, and don't come to define their overall mission.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I'd like someone to explain to me how we move along the progression I've noted below:

FREEDOM FIGHTER --> INSURGENT --> TERRORIST

Please define each and explain how you would move forward in the progression.

An insurgent is someone fighting against an occupying force, invading army, or law enforcement. They don't neccessarily have a supporter, whose "freedom" (in whatever sense they wish), they are fighting for.

So, in that case, the media should be calling the Palestinian suicide bombers insurgents.

 

[Zephyr106]

Did you read what I wrote? Terrorist is a perfectly applicable term when Palestinians aim to instill terror in civilians. When Palestinians shoot at the IDF and no civilians are anywhere to be seen, it isn't a case of terrorism.

Zephyr

 

[EXman]

I don't know who "The Media" is/are. But true journalist need not, and should not accept characterizations made by Bush's administration (or anyone else) as true--out of hand.

This is exactly what happened immediately after 9/11--and it was a mistake then, as it is now. Journalism requires a skeptical attitude--always.

Hopefully "The Media" have begun to take a responsible approach to their profession, instead of becoming lazy stooges and defacto mouthpieces.

That is a Media word not one handed down by the administration you dork.

the word they need to use is Enemy! Damn it! they shoot they are the Enemy!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Is it possible for freedom fighters or insurgents to also be terrorists? I think so.

If USA was invaded by liberals who wants to change the leadership, there would be freedom fighters, and some of them would employ terrorist tactics; To kill the liberal leaders and their families (let's call it accident).

No, I'd leave their families out of it.

Punish the wicked, not the innocents

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Did you read what I wrote? Terrorist is a perfectly applicable term when Palestinians aim to instill terror in civilians. When Palestinians shoot at the IDF and no civilians are anywhere to be seen, it isn't a case of terrorism.



Zephyr

Yes it is. The Israeli government and the US government have repeatedly considered attacks on military forces to be acts of terrorism.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nitemare



Someone who straps bombs to their chests and blows up a van load of kindergartners is not an insurgent, they are a terrorist.

So Nitemare, what do you call someone who drops bombs and blows up an apartment full of school children?

I would call that a horrible accident. We are not targeting apartment buildings full of school kids though, and the terrorists are targeting any and everyone including vans of children....sort of like the Palestinians blowing themselves up whereever there is alot of Israeli's. They are nothing more than terrorists that like to maim and destroy women and children.

Right, you'd call it collateral damage. Same deal with the insurgents. The school van just happened to be driving by the police station.



Now, I'm not defending violence on anyone's part here, and certainly not the actions of these insurgents, or whatever you want to call them. At least I'm not being duplicitous by denouncing violence in order to effect political change when it's the insurgents who are using it, and glorifying it when the U.S. uses it. Violence is a blunt tool in anyone's hands. I deplore every instance of it.

How would you explain them firing mortars into a prison where their own people died? How do you explain the car bombings that kill civilians with nary an american around? The police station in question was full of Iraqi's not Americans.

I'm just saying they care nothing for life regardless of the skin color or age. All they want to do is kill and maim, fvck all the consequences. Look at all the morons holding candlelit vigils for the Hamas leader who loves nothing more than killing and dismembering as many Israeli's as he can. They have seriously f-ed up moralities and principles over there and one of them would be the total disregard for human life.

 

[Zephyr106]

Yes it is. The Israeli government and the US government have repeatedly considered attacks on military forces to be acts of terrorism.

I wasn't aware that the Isreali and US governments were the controllers of the English language.

Zephyr

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: biostud666
what do you call people who disguise bombs as toys?

Fricking A-Rab scum.

Does this make you a frickin I-diot B-igot??? Moronic racist. There were a lot of bombs disguised as toys in the Bosnia massacres.... were these Arabs?:roll:

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Terrorists are anyone who uses terroristic tactics. Insurgents are anyone fighting an occupation. When someone does both they can be called either. The word terrorist seems to be over used in some quarters simply to elicit an emotional response.



And if I said something like fricking Negro scum about a black criminal, would I be banned?



Zephyr

Good to see that some forum members are not bigots and can think Good reply!