Are the people that attack US Forces occupying Iraq "Terrorists"?

[JanMichael]

Poll question: Are the people that attack US Forces occupying Iraq "Terrorists"?

note: Or UK, Polish or whomever else has been goaded/paid into going.

EDIT: As opposed to simply fighters, or something else, of a foreign occupying Military.

[arcane1]

1. I thought "terrorists" attacked civilians...?

the mere fact they are attacking an occupying military force, means they are by definition NOT terrorists, no matter who they may associate with

though the 'Merikan Public is afraid to say it, there is only ONE term to describe the people in Iraq: freedom fighters

the sooner this country owns up to that, the better, and safer, we'll be

[JanMichael]

2. That's always been my take on it.

Civilian targets = "Terrorist"

One would hope that a Military couldn't be "Terrorized", that's sort of pathetic...

[bryant69]

4. "Freedom Fighters?"

Why do we have to play this game of "Well if they don't like George Bush I'm on their side." They are killing American Soldiers and civlians. Have you forgotten them blowing up a mosque? Is that the kind of thing you support?

Because if it is your moral compass has swung so out of kilter as to be more or less aligned with those you despise. You only differ on who you want to see killed.

[JanMichael]

7. "them"? How do you know that every attack is by the same group?

What? You don't?

I didn't think so.

[JanMichael]

9. "They are killing American Soldiers and civlians"?

Civilians?? In Iraq?

Sorry mate but military "contractors" in hostile areas, in our new privatised Army, are fair game.

[Ripley]

10. There is more than one group of people attacking.

I believe it is safe to say that some of the attacks come from former Saddam army, some are disgruntled Iraqi's (policemen pissed about last weeks killing of Iraqi police), some are probably operatives from other countries who want to stir it up, and some might even be staged by our own CIA again, to stir it up.

I don't think anyone wants to see these people kill our soldiers, but by dismissing them all as "terrorists" is the same thinking that clearly doesn't work in the I/P situation. Would you call all Palestinians terrorists?

[bryant69]

13. No

Of course I wouldn't call all palestinians terrorists; but I would call those who belong to organizations that organize terrorist attacks terrorists. It's a key distinction, obviously, as those who belong to terrorist organizations make up only a handful of palestinians (and presumably the same exists in Iraq).

If you want to call them enemy combattants in Iraq rather than terrorists, I could go along with that--but even then, I hope our troops are able to protect themselves.

[damnraddem]

43. 'Enemy combatants' is more accurate, as is 'guerrillas.'

Acknowledgement of that has nothing to do with approving of the attacks; nor with any lessened desire to protect American (and British) soldiers. Of course, if Dubya cared about protecting the troops, he would either bring them home or supply sufficient numbers of them, adequately equipped, to reduce the threat. But such 'adequate' numbers are likely not available -- which does leave open the 'bring them home now" option.

[arcane1]

12. I don't recall saying I was on anyone's side? Who do I want killed?

I don't appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth. You know absolutely NOTHING about my moral compass

When a foreign army invades your country, and you fight them off, that is what you are called.

who blew up that mosque, anyway? Do you know who? Do you know why? Me either

why not stick to the actual question, instead of making phony accusations about things of which you are unqualified to speak.

:eyes:

[bryant69]

22. Interesting

How does one become qualified to disagree with you? Is there a certification board or something?

[Ripley]

24. Snort!

That's a funny retort.

[arcane1]

26. dodging the issue again...

as expected...


if you need an answer to your stupid question: You become qualified to know my moral compass by having a clue what that compass is. See? This had nothing to do with 'disagreeing' with me, it had to do with your mistaked ASSUMPTIONS about what I am thinking or feeling


get a clue and discuss the issues :eyes:

[bryant69]

30. If you root on the "Freedom Fighters"

You root for American Troops to die. I don't like how we got there; President Bush Deceived the American people and needs to be held accountable for his deception (hopefully by losing his office next year). But we are there now; and the best solution is for us to help the Iraqi rebuild their nation, not to turn tell and run and let the nation descend into chaos once more. Of course we're in a crappy position, but its where we are.

[arcane1]

33. there you go again... where did I "root" for anybody?

I DON'T like words being put in my mouth!


but since you added some substance this time: Why are the only 2 choices 1)stay and fight until the Iraqis get tired of fighting us, or 2) turn tell and run and let chaos reign? Stay and fight or be chicken-shits, huh?

1) is unacceptible because the Iraqi people will NEVER trust or accept an American-sponsored government forced upon them. Not to mention American corporations robbing their resources and keeping all the money for themselves.

2) is a bullshit response. There is always the possibility of getting the UN to come in and help them rebuild their country WITHOUT AMerican corporations raking in all the money. "Chaos" is just white-man's burden warmed over

I guess you aren't aware that they had civilaztion in that region while most of Europe was still poking each other with sticks

[damnraddem]

44. But then, up to a very few years ago, Europeans were still ...

poking each other with sticks, or worse. Actually, civilization in Iraq guaranteed that they poked each other with sticks much earlier and for longer.

Let's face it: Dubya made a big mess. We should not just walk away and leave it. But U.S. troops ARE NOT making it better. A better alternative would be a United Nations effort -- but the U.S. should pay the costs.

[arcane1]

47. agreed

and let the Iraqis SELL THEIR OWN DAMNED OIL fer crissake!

they'll never trust us, never trust Bush, nor should they. I am in 100% agreement that we have made a bloddy mess of things, and that even if we suddenly switched over to nothing but good intentions, the Iraqis would have no reason to go along..

and I'm not ROOTING for anyone in this post (just in case!)

:-)

[BattyDem]

38. As far as I'm concerned ...

The citizens of any country have the right to defend their country against hostile forces. I hate the fact that our troops are being killed, but if another country was occupying the US, we would all be doing whatever was necessary to destroy their forces. It's human nature to defend your home.

[damnraddem]

40. The term was first hijacked in Israel, applied ot attacks on soldiers.

Now it's applied to attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Terrorism used to mean attacks on or including civilian targets. Attacks on militaries were referred to as 'guerrilla warfare.' But with a War on Terra, language gets twisted.

And note that this has nothing to do with whether anyone supports or opposes a given attack -- it is an attempt to keep it clear what is being talked about. The 9/11 attacks, including that on the Pentagon, were terrorism; an RPG fired at a Humvee filled with U.S. soldiers is guerrilla warfare.

[damnraddem]

42. There are different groups in Iraq, who may attack for different reasons.

They may all see themselves as freedom fighters; some might be reasonably described that way. Others are fighters for an intolerant theocracy. Some are likely fighting for a return to the corrupt Saddam government. That the U.S. is the invading/occupying power does not mean that all who fight agaisnt it are freedom fighters. Insofar as they uniquely target military targets, however, they are not terrorists.

[buddhamama]

3. no.

their country was invaded and they're fighting the occupiers.

[BiggJawn]

5. "Resistance fighters"

The Nazis called the Maquis "Loyalists" and worse.

Seems that the Iraqi people are letting their opinion of Rumsferatu's Folly be known.

And our soldiers pay for it, not Rumsferatu.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Terrorism is any opposition or resistance to bush or sharon regimes

"You are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

George W. Bush

[sham]

8. this poll is being LOUNGED!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=206624

lol

[reachout]

11. Nope

Whatever persons were responsible for the bombing of the UN headquarters and holy shrine at Najaf were clearly terrorists. However, international law clearly provides for the right of armed resistance against the uniformed military of a foreign occupying force. As a veteran I weep for those young men shedding their blood for imperial hubris, but as much as I oppose military action as anything but a last resort, I cannot say that I wouldn't take up arms if I saw foreign soldiers in the streets of my town.

I hope that Iraqis take the course to nonviolent resistance against the United States, but considering the recent history of their country, I doubt it will happen.

[CentristDemocrat]

14. They aren't "freedom fighters" I'll tell you that

[AWD]

15. Really?

Gee, that's a new one. I've never heard that from you.

[arcane1]

16. why not? Sure seems that way to me

despite the different groups involved, and their agendas, they all have the same common goal: drive the foreign invaders from their homeland

what else COULD they be?

[JanMichael]

17. Didn't answer the question. Yes? No?

Flame Dean & Clark?

Well?

[thebigidea]

18. I say, I say, stop chewing on that flag, boy!

it'll rot your teeth.

[Forkboy]

19. Who says I dont like you CD?

This is for you,because I care



I figure it should help ease the pain of that knee you've been jerking so much lately.

[bicentennial_baby]

20. LOL

Thanks forkboy...I needed a laugh today! :hi:

[wuushew]

21. You know the United States is not the paragon of virtue

First of I do believe in the concept of ethical relativism, the United States does not have a monoply on what is right or wrong in the world.

The problems with many Americans is they either fail to or do not wish to acknowledge the horrible acts carried out in their name. Americans seems to think that good christian neighborly values were some how not to blame for the numerous illegal adventures in Sourth America, the overthrow of the legitamit government of Iran, support of numerous tin pot dictators, etc.

My observation is that America, lacking any sort of short term or long term memory simply attributes our moral failings to the justification of fighting the good fight aka "the cold war". Well guess what the cold war has been over for more than 10 years, and after a more positive but still flawed track followed by Bill Clinton, Amerika is again making excuses why we are the most just nation on Earth. The new war is supposedly "terra" a never ending war which will serve to justify all manner of international intervention.

[damnraddem]

45. Really, I thought the USA was the paradox of virtue --

oh, PARAGON! ;-)

[AWD]

28. Na na na na, na na na na

Hey hey hey...GOODBYE!!!!



BRAVO MODS!!!!!!!!

[Pastiche423]

31. Damn, it took long enough

[sandnsea]

23. It's a mix of people

There is probably some terrorists in there. Eventually they'll all blend into one fighting force and that's when the nightmare begins. Then we'll have the extremist terrorists mixed with the 'Saddamists' mixed with the pure resistors. When this becomes one united fighting force, we've got I/P on our hands. And the terrorist cause will switch from just hating America to uniting around resisting the Iraqi occupation. I don't think they're that organized just yet, but they will be in just a few more months. And I'm not sure the UN can really help if that happens before they get thoroughly involved. I think Germany and France see that and might just be putting the Iraqi people first, which once again shows who the leaders are.

[Darranar]

25. Word has lost meaning.

n/t

[prolesunited]

27. Very enlightening reading on this issue

from the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/guerrilla.html

The word itself was coined by French revolutionaries in the 1790s. It is often said that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

Although there is no consensus on the definition of terrorist"
Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
• It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
• It is designed to change the existing political order. It is not merely criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money.
• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
• It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.

Even our own State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

There's more there at the link, but suffice to say, by our own CIA and State Department definitions, those targeting troops are not terrorists.

Two other interesting points made, however:
How does the United States decide who counts as a terrorist?
U.S. agencies use varying definitions. In deciding whether a violent political group is a terrorist organization, the State Department—which is charged with designating which groups qualify as foreign terrorist organizations—looks at whether the group focuses its attacks on civilians, whether its leadership tolerates attacks on noncombatants, and whether it has other avenues for promoting its positions. Since September 11, President Bush has urged the world to eliminate gray areas in defining terrorism, saying that those who aid or harbor terrorists are terrorists themselves.

Do foreign governments try to brand local insurgents as terrorists?
Yes. Since September 11, countries from Russia and China to the Philippines and Somalia have argued that Muslim groups operating on their territory are terrorists linked to the al-Qaeda network. These governments put forth these arguments in the hopes of winning U.S. assistance or approval for campaigns against rebellious groups; some states have been more successful in swaying American opinion in this way than others. Governments and leaders often label armed opposition groups (even nonviolent ones) terrorists to delegitimize them. Meanwhile, many terrorist organizations argue that governments also engage in symbolic acts of violence aimed at frightening the public, and they sometimes describe powerful countries, including the United States, as the “true terrorists”—either because of attacks that kill civilians or because of policies that these groups argue cause more harm than the traditional terrorists’ attacks.

[arcane1]

29. thanks Proles, interesting read. However...

reading isn't exactly a strong skill among some on this thread :evilgrin:

[prolesunited]

46. You can lead a horse to water and all...

Don't bother me with the facts, I'm trying to win an argument here. ;-)

[Awakened Dreamer]

32. Some are some aren't

The Iraqis that are fighting ARE NOT terrorists because they are irregular troops defending their homeland. FOREIGN AGENTS fighting in Iraq ARE terrorists because they are are not opperating for any state and therefore are commiting violence with unathorized force.

So by definitional standards they are terrorists.

[arcane1]

34. try again, see post 27

• It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

sorry, crossing the border to fight off some other country's invaders doesn't make you a terrorist either. Only ONE thing does: committing terrorism.

[JanMichael]

36. I agree that there is some ambiguity here.

My point for the poll though was to show how fuzzy this stuff can be and how "wrong" it is for the media to use the term "Terrorist" so freely.

"Enemy Combatants" is probably the most accurate when one simply doesn't know all of the particulars.

[tkmorris]

37. I don't think it's nearly that clear

For example, what about people who fight for a common cause but lack a state? Early American Revolutionaries were not members of any officially recognized state. How about Palestinians (assuming their targets were Israeli military, not civilians)? There is no "Palestine" so does that make them terrorists?

[damnraddem]

50. Well, also note that the definitiion leaves out state-sponsored ...

activities and the actions of soldiers. Those in power do show an element of special pleading in their definitions. But they should AT LEAST be held to those definitions.

[markses]

39. Committing violence with unauthorized force?

This is surely a strange way of defining something?

Who authorized the US force to commit violence in Iraq? Oh, yes. The US force authorized the US force. But if such self-authorization justifies state violence, why could it not justify the violence of smaller groups? Is it because the states have representational governments, or other *recognized* government apparatuses? If so, one could rightly say that any small group can constitute itself, and even if it were criminal enterprise (something else that becomes dubious given your definition), it would still have some form of internal governmental structure, and even a structure which is recognized by others as a structure! The definition does not hold. Or rather, it rests on its hidden element: Because we SAY SO, and we have the MOST and BIGGEST GUNS. Period.

[damnraddem]

49. No, the definitional standard is based on the targets.

In fact, the label most often used for those who go to another country to support popular battles against tyranny has been 'freedom fighter.' Was Lafayette a terrorist when he fought in the American Revolution before France officially took part? Was the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain in the 1930s made up of terrorists because they were Americans, even though they were fighting for the legitimate government?

[Plaid Adder]

35. I went with "word has lost its meaning."

And besides: honey, if you invade a country and occupy it, THERE IS GONNA BE RESISTANCE. This ALWAYS happens. ALWAYS. Not sometimes, ALWAYS. You don't want soldiers blown up and shot, then don't send them out to occupy a country. For crying out loud, it's like this country is run by idiots who have never read a book.

Oh wait...it is!

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[PATRICK]

41. Depends on the populace

And nobody will let them have a say. Occupied country, determined and organized resistance. Same as the movie "Is Paris Burning" when the Germans branded all resistance fighters terrorists. If you share one point of view oover the other who are tyou identifying with? Technically
the purposes of terror are present in the tactics but not against the ordinary civilian populace. US collateral damage is doing that for them so a large part of the "terror" is coming from our troups even if unplanned or unitentional.

On the other hand the formal surrender of Iraqi forces was botched and spotty as they melted back into the landscape. The "occupation" in its arrogant but hapless form created an invitation and opportunity for driving out the occupier. All the insular spin to the contrary the branding is spiteful and deceiful even if some attackers may be thugs from the old regime. Aggression and a ruined occupation took away our moral stance months ago.

[nannygoat]

48. Some Iraqis might call them "Patriots" n/t

[damnraddem]

51. In which case, each of their actions is a: ...

Patriot Act. ;-)