IRAQ: Are Insurgents Terrorists?
 

I found this on another message board, I thought it brought out a very interesting perspective on the situation in Iraq. It's a bit long, if you don't have the patience to read it just return to the State of the Union reruns of Fox News.

---------------

Recently, in response to a reporter's question about an attack on U.S. troops in Iraq, General Myers stated "these are the same terrorists who attacked us on September 11th."

As we saw tonight, Bush continues to advance the fallacy that we are fighting "terrorists" in Iraq.

Besides the fact that Osama Bin Laden has been enjoying life and freedom over three YEARS longer than his thousands of victims and apparently feels secure enough to make videotapes from a television studio, it is now obvious that our political and military leaders are substituting the word "terrorist" for "insurgent" at every opportunity--even when attacks on U.S. troops occur, which by definition are not terrorist acts since they are directed against our military.

As casualities continue to mount and public support for this mess falls further, expect to hear repeatedly and insistently that instead of insurgents or guerrillas (the latter term being the best description of our enemy, but one I have not seen used once) we are now fighting "terrorists" in Iraq---the same terrorists, we are supposed to infer, who were responsible for 9/11. And if we can't infer it, they will tell us.

When the mission creeps, the language must creep with it.

Ask yourself this: What would YOU do if the U.S. was invaded by the Chinese on false pretenses in a grab for natural resources, and the Chinese built permanent bases all over the U.S.--making it very clear that they had no intention of EVER leaving?

Then, what would you do if the Chinese shut down your religious newsletter, destroyed your church, took over your town, broke into your house in the middle of the night, arrested, tortured and sexually abused your friends, and killed your childen and your parents at a checkpoint because they did not slow down enough? Don't think "we're capable" of that? Really? You might want to look at this, and wonder how many other times it has happened without a photographer present to record it for history:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...raq.ready.html

As a patriot, if that photo was taken in your nation, would you fight the occupiers any way you could? Or do I overestimate you?

The people resisting the occupation in Iraq are NOT terrorists. They are fighting against an invasion and an occupation by whatever means necessary. When the colonists in the young United States fought against the British during the American Revolution, the colonists were considered "terrorists" by the British, because they used unconventional hit and run tactics, and because they would not stand in a straight line and fight like the British had been doing for centuries. And in case you did not know it: The colonial fighters also attacked and killed fellow Americans who sympathized or cooperated with the British--and there were many.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If we were invaded by the Chinese on false pretenses, I hope YOU would fight hard and smart enough to be called a "terrorist" in China.

When your children and grandchildren ask you what you did to speak up against this insanity, what will you tell them? That you were too busy watching the ballgame or The Apprentice?

Show us some pussy please

Here you go, shaved pussy just for you

http://www.nancys-kitty-kondo.net/applause.JPG

It's one thing to fight for what you believe in but when you use your innocents to accomplish it you are a terrorist.

What innocents are you reffering to? Can you expand on that?

Fundamentalist Jedi Terrorists Destroy Death Star




MOS EISLEY (DPI) - A fringe group of radical Jedi fundamentalists continued their campaign of terror Sunday, destroying the Death Star in a horrifying fireball that has shocked the Empire. Hundreds of thousands are believed to have perished in the destruction, which left mountain-sized fragments of the giant space station floating as far as half a galaxy away. The attack is the latest in a series of surgical strikes by the militant Light Side Jedi rebel group which oppose the Empire's control of key Trade Federation routes.

"It was horrible, just horrible," said Mrs. Barda Link, who saw the explosion on television from her Bespin home. Link recently sent the second of her two sons into the prestigious Stormtrooper Academy. She is unsure whether her sons were stationed on the Death Star at the time of the blast. "We'll just continue to hope and pray that the horrible monsters that perpetrated this evil, cowardly deed will be brought to justice."

Authorities have identified one prime suspect, a robe-clad, Bantha-herding idealist from an obscure desert planet. In the streets of Mos Espa, pro-Light Side youth were seen cheering the attacks, shouting for the liberation of Endor and release of known interplanetary smuggler and cop killer Han Solo from the dragnet of Imperial law enforcement.

Lord Vader, who himself narrowly avoided the blast, called for citizens to remain calm yet vigilant. "Now is a time for all of the peoples of this great galaxy to put aside our differences as Gungans, Wookiees, Jawas, Neimoidians and men, and unite behind our noble Emperor. We will win the war against the Forces of Light."

Rebel alliance, terrorists
The Death Star remembered:

CORUSCANT -- Presiding over a memorial service commemorating the victims of the attack on the Death Star, the Emperor declared that while recent victories over the Rebel Alliance were "encouraging, the War on Terror is not over yet."

"We will continue to fight these terrorists, and the rogue governments who harbor them, until the universe is safe, once and for all, and the security of the Neo-New Cosmik Order ensured."

It was one year ago today that the Death Star, perhaps the greatest symbol of the Empire's might, was destroyed in an attack by fanatic Rebels, who used small, single-person crafts to infiltrate seemingly impenetrable defenses. Thousands of mourners were on hand to remember and pay tribute to the victims and their families.

ASHhaahh!

Excellent DarkJedi:)

>> IRAQ: Are Insurgents Terrorists?

UK troops die in Iraq too I kjnow people been in the army... but If USA or anyone else invade my country I'd like to think I;d have the balls to take pick upa gun and startr shoot back at them

IMO Half of the world, and the majority of America are either misinformed or not fed enough unbiased information due to absolute control of the media.

The media is where all Americans get their information from, and the media is where all Americans draw their rage from. Maybe more people would understand, if the media and news reports showed both ends and explained to Americans that not all resistance in Iraq is put forth by a terrorist.

Wouldn't you resist? for the sake of your family and friends? I know that I would.

:1orglaugh

Perception is everything! ;-)

It's pretty simple if you attack military and police targets you are not a terrorists, terrorists attack civilian targets so as to cause terror, hence the name terrorist.

The empire is the one, true legitimate government.

It really bothers me how sheltered we are in America. :(

I wasted 30 minutes watching US TV tonight and listening to Lou Dobbs do his usual stuff on "protecting our borders", "attacks on the middle class" and "outsourcing to Asia and China and losing jobs in the US" blah...

Sure, he had plenty valid points, but I thought - this is only half a story and where is the other half??

Example.. outsourcing and the trade balance with China etc. If people want cheap product, the Walmart's of this world will not buy "expensive" product made in the US, but get this from Asia and help towards increasing unemployment within the US. The trade deficit will increase because of customer preference/choice.

If folks are willing to pay more and purchase product made in the US - this will increase US employment and reduce the trade deficit.

It is not simply a fact that some folks want butter on both sides of the bread and get cheap product and also sustain full employment? There is a choice - the world is obviously not going to change and lay double cream out. Some choices are just not sustainable in the long term.

This "half informed" stuff has more than grain of truth. Iraq is treated exactly the same as the one-sided trade deficit "reports". Simply look at almost any TV channel outside the US and the difference hits ya in the face.

Who knows, but for two cents, I'd say probably the larger proportion of those labelled "insurgents" are Iraqi people who are well pissed off and have suffered extreme damage, tho mixed with this, a number of... other pissed off people intent on revenge and well-financed. What's the difference - very little! :-)

There is little or no attempt to explain what motivates the "insurgents". Quite the contrary: the media by and large goes along with the government spin that they are evil men who kill for its own sake. We simply ignore the fact that their country has been invaded by "heathens" and that the Sunnis in particular have good reason to fear that payback time may not be far off, once the Shi'ites are in power.

And it is slightly off topic, but I also wish there were more discussion as to what is going to happen when the Shi'ites do come to power and draw Iraq ever closer to Iran. That alliance would be contrary to everything US policy in the region has tried to achieve over the last 50+ years and it is impossible the White House isn't seeing it as almost inevitable. So we have at most 2 or 3 years during which the people we are trying to put in positions of power may be able to exercise some degree of restraint, but then what? Covert manipulation in the region was already failing. The regimes in Kuwait and Saudia have maybe 5-10 years left. By the time this all shakes out, we won't have a single ally among the oil-producing countries and given our need for oil, we won't even have the option of turning the whole region into a giant parking lot.

Actually there's a relevant thread about possible action against Iran right here http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=427334

It might be more realistic to refer to globalism as corporatization, because as companies - some with sales bigger than the budgets of smaller countries - move their manufacturing wherever it suits them, governments have less and less ability even to attempt to control their economies. And when a government has little control over its economy, it has only limited control over any of its activities.

The corporations need not be concerned, because as the US gets poorer, other countries will become wealthier: it doesn't matter to them whether their income is dollars or rupees.

I don't know there is an answer. For all kinds of reasons politicians lean towards corporations rather than individuals, but anyway the few, half-hearted examples of attempts to control the migration of capital and jobs have failed dismally. And it is a fact that if the US tried to prevent its companies operating as profitably as possible (by among other things, exporting jobs), they would lose ground to companies based in other countries which had no such restrictions. We should still face economic decline.

Totally agree!

Who runs a country? On the face of it a government. In real life it is those with economic clout who have the ability to sway/dictate the economics within a country. Threaten them with *anything* and 600 PR agencies and lobbyists appear in an attempt to sway lawmakers. (What Democracy??) Threaten them further and they move out of that country :-)

Okay, I've seen the term 'by definition' bandied around here in a usage pattern that's just not appropriate. The pedant in me screams out for satisfaction.

Terrorism, by definition, is:
Nothing in the definition has anything to do with civilians, or civilian targets. You can be a terrorist and dedicate yourself entirely to sabotaging military supply lines, for instance.

Of course, it's typically a very very effective tactic to target civilian populations, because they're often the ones which are dually most pliable and with the power base to affect the governments over them (elected or otherwise).

That said, I would say that there's obviously a deliberate attempt to obscure the meaning of the word INSURGENT, and to equate it with TERRORIST. For what it's worth, absorbing or discrediting various words is an age-old means of propoganda and widespread attitude modification. Look at what the rightwing reactionaries have done to the word 'liberal' over the last couple decades.

Getting back to the original point of the post... I suspect the vast, vast majority of these attacks are from local people who've suffered personal losses at the ham-fisted and oblivious occupation. If my wife had been gunned down because she didn't hit the brakes fast enough when going up to a checkpoint while on the way back from the store with milk, not only would I try to kill as many of the bastards I could, I would do so in the most painful, degrading, dehumanizing way possible... preferably with as many people watching as possible. It wouldn't bring the singular love of my life back into this world, but my all-consuming hate would certainly focus every talent and energy I possess to a burning juggernaut of destruction. Killing the ones responsible wouldn't be enough; I'd need to kill them, their family, friends, former roommates, pets, and anyone who looked even remotely like them. Their screams of pain and death rattles would be my lullaby, the haunted look in their eyes as realization of their mortality arrived would be my bliss.

... and that, my friends, is how an insurgent is born. You better believe that many of those insurgents will eventually become terrorists. Defending a ruined home is pointless when everything you ever had is lost, the only remaining purpose is retribution and vengeance. Sun Tzu knew this thousands of years ago: When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

Now look at the 'elections' in this context. Anyone who's been paying attention over there knows that elections are, on the surface, a rediculous PR stunt at best, particularly when what was anticipated is coming to pass: Shi'ite rising, with ties to khomenist iran if not outright backing. However, for many people there, these elections may be that 'ray of hope' which is keeping the insurgency (which is currently still relatively minor for a country of tens of millions) from turning into popular uprising.

Ah well, enough late night ramblings for me. :2 cents:

Freedom fighters?

There Is No Such Thing As A Terrorist.

Terror Is An Emotion.

The Individual Experiences The Emotion.

I Am Terrified Of Clowns.

Are Clowns Terrorists Because I Am Terrified Of Them?

Just imagine if the US were occupied by fundamentalist muslims forcing women to be clothed from top to bottom and enforcing sharia law.
Wouldn´t you fight them any way you could?

Look at Europe in WWII in all the occupied countries there were man and women fighting the occupiers. We call them freedom fighters cause they were on our side, what do you think the Nazis called them?

I remember from playing Star Wars games on my comp it was clearly the rebel Alliance who were the bad guys, although the Empire was not exactly whiter than white either.

the winners are freedom fighters the losers are Terrorists beacuse the winner gets to write history. But in my book you shoot at me you are a terrorist I don't give two shits
why you do it.

Yes, but in almost any situation there is a correct and incorrect. Most people are unable to distinguish between the two so it is really a waste of time for them to even attempt to think about it at all.

The only things which do not have a correct or incorrect attached to them are things which are determined by opinion, such as which colour is the best one or which song sounds the nicest. Those are subjective things. Objective things, such as "is the Allied invasion of Iraq a good thing" have a clear answer, as those things are not affected in any way by opinion, only by fact.

Lol, the person who wrote that is a few cans short of a sixpack.

If anyone has noticed I always try to put "terrorist" and "insurgent" in quotes when I use the terms...because to me they are not either "terrorist" or "insurgent"...they are the enemy.

The factions opposing the coaliton and Iraqi forces are composed of "terrorists" from well known "terrorist" orgs...that mostly come from outside of Iraq. Former Baathist party members...many of which will be put on trial if captured. Saddam loyalists...which I suspect are few in number. The followers of Clerics...that are opposed to a secular government. Sunni's...who for the most part are opposed to Shiia's taking power...and those that...for whatever their reasons...are opposed to the coaliton forces being in their country.

None of these factions are fighting for the good of their country...they are fighting in an attempt to garner power. None the less they all are enemies and I for one do not have a problem with killing an enemy.

Enemies to who?

I thought that is apparent...but FYI...the coalition forces and all of those that are assisting the coalition forces...including those civilians...whatever their nationality...that are assisting the coalition forces and/or that are trying to rebuild Iraq...which includes Iraqis and members of the UN as well.

Not all coz some insurgents are misled.

So they are not terrorists: they arrack US / UK / Coalition troops, Iraqi guards and US collaborators.

Some civilians die as " colateral" damages, as the US calls it when they bomb the wrong house .... US has killed far more civilians that " insurgents" or " patriots", so they are foreign terrorists ???

The correct definition for your question...is they are uniformed soldiers in the employee of their respective governments. The "terrorists/insurgents" are not uniformed employees of their government...but are civilians from various factions...that are attempting to obtain power for themselves...not for their country...and in fact are enemies of their government and the Iraqi people per se.

Firstly - King - your time is too valuable to waste here. Please move on.

Secondly - you're an insurgent! : P

Thirdly - The Duke (John Wayne) would have kicked Thomas Jeffereson's ass because he rebelled against the rule of law. Think about it. Hunter S. Thompson wrote an amazing essay on this - called the 'Hammerhead shark' or something to that extent.

Lastly, that pic was taken the day Bush was innaugriated (sp?)

Interesting :helpme

:1orglaugh

Objective.... bwahahahahahahahaha