Is there a difference between insurgents and terrorists?

I've always thought "insurgents" was a term used by the NYTimes to avoid offending the "sensitivities" of their readers.

Whenever I see the term, I immediately think "terrorists"...which is exactly what they are.

Nonsense, JW. The simplest dictionary search will prove you wrong.

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

n.
One who is insurgent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nsurgns, nsurgent- present participle of nsurgere, to rise up : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + surgere, to rise; see surge.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in·surgent·ly adv.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&nt
Function: noun
1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Main Entry: insurgent
Function: adjective
: rising in opposition to civil or political authority or against an established government


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


insurgent

\In*sur"gent\, a. [L. insurgens, p. pr. of insurgere to rise up; pref. in- in + surgere to rise. See Surge.] Rising in opposition to civil or political authority, or against an established government; insubordinate; rebellious. ``The insurgent provinces.'' --Motley.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


insurgent

\In*sur"gent\, n. [Cf. F. insurgent.] A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws; a rebel.

Syn: See Rebel.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


insurgent

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terror·istic adj.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


terrorist

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

It ain't rocket science - some insurgents may choose to use terror - others, may not.

A couple of simple, close to home, examples.

Your rebels in the War of Independence were insurgents.

I do not know whether they used terror or not.

The Contras you funded to oppose the elected government in Nicaragua were insurgents and also terrorists.

Dl...I believe I said "what I think". Is that allowed?

No! The bunny will now rap your knuckles with a ruler and make you write the definition on the black board 100 times.

LOL Acqui - I got that impression

I see Freeduck took Kicky's "nitpicking" comment seriously LOL.

Just keeping ya honest, there, JW :wink:

That bold bit sounded like a fiat to me.

You started with a think - and ended with a declaration.

I think you are wrong.

Big difference, as Dlowan pointed out. Answering the question on another thread earlier:


That being said, in this case; the biggest difference between the two is misguided people who need to surrender or murderous bastards who need to be killed. Both must be overcome for the good of Iraqis and the rest of the World alike.

<< Holding out knuckles...wincing.

<It's still what I think LOL>

That being said, in this case; the biggest difference between the two is misguided people who need to surrender or murderous bastards who need to be killed. Both must be overcome for the good of Iraqis and the rest" of the World alike."

That would also go for your guys in the War Independence, Bill?

The Resistance in occupied Europe?

Ok - ok!!! I'll kiss it better! Sheesh.....hope the whiskers don't tickle...

It musta been the French who started this damned resistance crap. Let'm eat frogs legs I say and be done with'm.

The use of words like "insurgents" or "terrorists" by the media has almost always ideological connotations.

Here, in the case of the Iraqis who fight against US intervention, we say "rebels".
The only exceptions are the car-bomb attacks and the suicide bomb attacks. They are called "terrorist attacks".

About misguidance and resistance in WWII.

I looked into some texts to see how the Italian resistance was treated by the Fascists and the Nazis.
The Fascists said they were: "those who have the big misguidance of holding their weapons against their own brothers".
The Nazis said they were bandits. The "Achtung banditen!" sign became a symbol of the resistance. It was put in the zones under the control of the resistance.
None used the word "terrorist". Perhaps it's a newer lexical coinage.

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." This is the definition of terrorism according to the US State Department. The asterisk next to noncombatants leads to a note that explains that off-duty military personnel are, for purposes of the definition of terror, considered noncombatants.

Despite this definition, there isn't any international concensus about what terrorism is. The US definition, for example, rules out the possibility that a government can commit terroristic acts, whereas many people consider the deliberate targeting of civilian populations (in WWII, for example) to be terrorist acts.

The US definition also excludes property as the target of terrorism--so that destructive acts aimed at pipelines, for example, don't count as terrorism. Most people consider that the politically-motivated destruction of property is included in terrorism.

Here is a link to an article claiming that the US definition is motivated by self-interest (something that I think is true):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html

The bottom line is that the US cannot be guilty of terrorism because state-sponsored terrorism is non-existent by definition. Clever, huh?

Here is a link to the US State Department's report on international terrorism for 2003:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

Really? Nobody I know consider that to be true. Sabotage is not terrorism, only terror inducing tactics are terrorist.