One Person’s Terrorist …

[NNN0LHI]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8745655/site/newsweek/

<snip>The distinction between resistance and terror is an important one—and one not often made by U.S. officials in Iraq. Take, for example, the daily press releases from the U.S. military via their combined public information center, a.k.a. CPIC—here in Baghdad. A military operation in Mosul: 10 terrorists captured, is a typical comment. A firefight in outside Baghdad: three terrorists killed. A security sweep based on good intelligence—a terrorist operation thwarted. It all sounds pretty clear. But it's not. The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government. Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.

The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites. Then there are the foreign Muslims coming into Iraq to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, primarily through suicide bombings. The first group sees itself as resisting an army of occupation, the second neither cares about the Iraqi people nor the country's political status, wanting only to thwart the Americans by creating fear and chaos. The latter group can fairly be called terrorists.

What's the difference? Most dictionaries define insurgents as members of an organized revolt against a recognized government, usually through harassment or subversion. Terrorists, on
the other hand, generally target civilians, using violence for intimidation or coercion, often for ideological reasons or under cover of religion. It's clear that both are operating in Iraq at the moment, and equally clear that there are times when the line is blurred. Should those who bomb American soldiers without caring if ordinary Iraqis get hurt—and there are many cases of those—be labeled differently to those who specifically target young jobseekers or senior citizens waiting to collect their pensions?

In all fairness, U.S. military commanders usually make clear distinctions between insurgents and terrorists during their regular briefings inside the Green Zone in Baghdad. These sessions are slightly surreal—military officers and journalists, inside six square miles of blast walls and barbed wire, debate fighting outside that kills hundreds each month. But why, in between these weekly briefings, do the military's press releases seem to identify everyone against them or the Iraqi government as a terrorist? That in itself raises some other troubling questions: is this deliberate White House or Pentagon spin? Is this an evolution of the cold war mentality of calling people who are perceived threats communists? Should we start referring to pickpockets and junior-high bullies as terrorists?

[Poppyseedman]

1. Any person foreign born or Iraqi that kills innocent people

in the effort to over throw legitimate elections and the elected government is a terrorist IMHO.

The Sunnis have a say in their government, if they choose to use terrorist tactics, like targeting civilians instead of being part of the political process they lose the distinction of having a honest participation in the democratic process.

Former members of Saddam Hussein's regime should get a clue, their boy is in jail facing a death sentence.

The people of Iraq have elected a legitimate government, not perfect but elected. The democratic process is moving forward.

The barn door to a democratic process has been opened, no matter how it was done, the cows are out and there's no going back.

The insurgents are terrorists wrapped in a false hope that the barn doors can be closed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. I suppose you believe

that Bush won both US elections fairly?

The Iraqis elected a legitimate government. LOL. You need to buy a clue instead of the party line.

In the meantime, if things are so great in Iraq maybe our troops can come home. IMHO, we should get out and if the Iraqis all decided to kill each other, then let them. If we get out of the friggin' way and let them have their oil, I'm sure they'll figure it out. Keep in mind, they've been around has a culture for a lot longer then us.

[Poppyseedman]

5. So by your analysis

We should cut and run and let the slaughter begin???

I'm not parroting a party line. I do think we need to finish the job and get out ASAP. I may not agree with the way we want in, but I certainly think we need to finish what we started.

As for the Iraqis elected a legitimate government, do you have proof that it not legitimate? There election certainly was not prefect, no election is. Where's your proof or you just parroting a party line.

A democratic Iraq in the long run is a lot better for the world and us than an Iraq Islamic state, or you against people living in a democratic society?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. the problem is

trying to fit democracy into a place like Iraq. Remember that this nation's borders were decided upon by the Europeans after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. They grouped together ethnicities that have traditionally hated one another. So I don't know that a US-style democracy will work in Iraq-the Kurds and Sunnis, both minorities, feel their rights need to be protected or they fear repression by the Shiite majority. And, sadly, repression is the norm for this part of the world. And there are many in all three ethnic groups that want no part of an Iraq with guarantees for minorities. Some would say partition would be better, but this leads to other complications; there are Kurds living in Turkey, our ally, and Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdish state. The Shiites in Iraq, if given the chance at their own nation, may align with Iran (since they are Arabs and not Persians, there might be a problem with uniting to make a larger Iran; even here, tribal ethnicity may trump religious affiliation).

I'm just not sure there is an easy way out of this, and, sadly, see unrest and violence as the norm in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. It's infinitely more complicated than your last paragraph...

indicates. The Hussein regime that is being supplanted by these.... elections.... was hardly an "Iraq Islamic State".

"An Iraq Islamic state" is a much more likely outcome of the .... democratic.... process you describe, than a "democratic society", in the commonly accepted sense. Witness the draft of new constitution this week which re-introduces Koranic law as the basis for marriage and family law. Good times ahead, folks.

And there are elections and "elections". There are elections that are meaningful and elections that are... let's say... LESS meaningful.


Early on, shortly after the invasion, a reporter asked an apparently unprepared Rumsfeld if the US would accept an Iran-style Islamic Republic if that were the choice of the majority of Iraqis in a "democratic" election.

He said "no".

Are you SURE we are fighting for a "democratic Iraq"?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. We have to have an enemy

in Bush's world. During most of my lifetime, that enemy was Communisim. Communists were demonized, and anyone who had associated themselves with the American version of the Party during the 30s and 40s were witch hunted down.

Bush's tactic now is to call terrorists the new enemy. But I don't think it will work as well as demonizing the Reds. For one thing, Bush is attempting to demonize one of the world's largest religions. I believe there are more Muslims in this country now than there ever were Communists. It was easy to ban the Communist Party, because it was political; Bush cannot ban a religion unless he changes the Constitution, and I think if he did that, he'd have not only Muslims but other non-Christians and atheists up in arms.

And I don't think urinating on the Qu'ran and calling for the nuking of Mecca is dispelling the impression among many that Bush is out to make this another crusade.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. We will deprive you of an enemy.......

The worst thing Russia ever did to Amurka's war machinery... perhaps.

http://www.peacepilgrim.org/FoPP/newsletter/nl05.htm

>>On TV we heard a Russian diplomat speaking to an American" "We will deprive you of an enemy."

"One in harmony with God’s law of love has more strength than an army, for one need not subdue an adversary; an adversary can be transformed."

Peace Pilgrim<<