Is there a difference between insurgents and terrorists?

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

Yes - but we know the difference between law - and reality, no?

What does the darkest color represent?

Hey chilango, I would agree with your assessment. IN this war, I haven't considered those that attacked US military to be terrorists but insurgents or as you say rebels. Those that have been blowing up people with car bombs would be terrorists.

How is "insurgent" defined? Does it differ from the term rebel?

Did the US support terrorists in Afganistan in the 80's? Or insurgents?

Bin Laden and the Taliban? Terrorists, I would have thought.

The US seems to have no qualms supporting terrorists - neither did the USSR.

As long as they were "our" terrorists.

Hmmm - researching:

one view: http://terrorism.freeservers.com/

"One can trace the roots of many current terrorist organizations to the American support of the 'mujahideen' ("holy warriors") in Afganistan. Money and publicity ensured that the mujahideen were adequately equipped, tranined by Pakistan's ISI and given a cinderella image of freedom fighters. After the Soviet withdrawl, the CIA had little use for these fighters and left the dangereously armed religious fanatics to find their own fight. Though this whole act was just a political move to counter the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, the 'blowback' is yet to be fully experienced around the world.

The Soviet withdrawl from Afganistan was promplty followed by start of violence in the Kashmir (2) valley in India. Kashmir, an integral part of India was the only muslim majority state in the union and seperatist elements supported by Pakistan and terrorist elements in Afganistan took the task of putting their 'expertise' to use. Their new challenge was the Indian people in Kashmir, more precisely the minority Hindus, Bhuddists, and Sikhs who had lived peacefully along side the Muslims for ages. With active help from Pakistan in training, money, weapons and bases; the violence in Kashmir has claimed over 30,000 casualties in a little over a decade and continues to ravage the once peaceful and serene land.

Coming out of the shadows of the Afgan conflict were the Taliban ("Knowledge Seekers"). The west first felt the wrath of their Islamic fundamentalism in Somalia in December 1992. The gruesome image of dead, naked US Army Rangers from downed Black Hawk helicopters being dragged was seen by millions, but few knew of the soldiers who had their throats slit. It was a snowy evening in Febuary of 1993 when a truck bomb blasted through the basement of the World Trade Center in New York City. The FBI uncovered leads in Detroit, London, Pakistan and Afganistan; finally apprehending the mastermind Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan. Bombings of American barracks in Riyadh (1995 - 5 killed) and Dhahran (1996 - 19 killed) followed by the recent embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya led to hundreds of casualties. The only American response was a few Tommahawk strikes into Afganistan that killed a few terrorist trainees. There has been no desire to reach to the root of the problem by identifying the countries actively supporting terrorism, just lobbing a few thousand pounds of high explosives into the barren badlands."


General taliban info - no mention of Taliban as such - Mujahadeen seem more clearly terrorists? Unless you rate the terror to which the Taliban subjected women sa problematic, she said bitterly - since they were the government by then, I guess in US legal eyes, for instance, it doesn't count? http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html


Another view:


Taliban Terror Rules Afghanistan
Initially, everyone thought the Taliban Islamic Reform Movement had very good intentions.

They claimed that they were going to rid Afghanistan of its problems and restore order.

Mullah Mohammad Omar started the Taliban movement in 1994 in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

The Taliban forces are mostly composed of soldiers trained in Pakistan, most of whom are Afghani men who went to religious schools in Pakistan during the Soviet war, but there are also Pakistani men among them. Soon after the Taliban Islamic Reform Movement seized power, it began to show a far more ominous side. Ultimately, they proved to be ultra-fundamentalists who wanted only seize control of the government, and impose tyranny on its citizens. Since their takeover and seizure of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, on September 27, 1996, the Taliban reign has brought only destruction and oppression to the country and its citizens.

Not long after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, they brought swift and major changes to the lives of Afghani citizens. Men were required to grow a beard, and pray five times each day. But this was almost negligible compared to the treatment of women by the Taliban.

Prior to the Taliban's takeover, most Afghani women were both educated and employed. Fifty percent of all pre-Taliban rule students in the country were female, and fully sixty percent of the teachers at the university in Kabul were women. Seventy percent of the country's school teachers were women. At least fifty percent of the civilian government workers were women. Before the Taliban takeover, about forty percent of Afghani doctors were women. Until the Taliban seized control of the Afghani government, women were allowed to work, to earn and control their own money, and to participate in public life. All that has changed. Under the Taliban regime, women are forbidden to work outside the home; and no female is allowed to go to school or university. Every woman is now forced to wear a burqa, a garment which is basically a large white blanket that covers the entire body with only a small mesh opening over the face to allow the wearer to see and breath. Women can not leave their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative. Homes with women must have their windows painted opaque to hide them from view. Women are forbidden to wear white socks and their shoes must not make any sound when they walk. Male doctors are not allowed to examine women. Since no women are allowed to work as doctors now, this results in no health care at all for women and girls. All of these changes were made within a few days of the Taliban's takeover. A great many women are now very depressed and ill, and can receive no help. It's said the suicide rate for women has increased dramatically, though authorities in the Taliban will not confirm this.

The Taliban is given a substantial amount of financial support by Saudi Arabia, and receives military aid from Pakistan. It is also said that a major source of their income comes from the lucrative opium poppy trade. Afghanistan is one of the largest suppliers of opium.

Pakistan was the first nation to recognize the Taliban as the ruling power in Afghanistan, and was soon followed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Taliban are now in control of at least two-thirds of Afghanistan, making them the predominant political power in Afghanistan today.

Many women have been killed or beaten for disobeying any of the strict new rules. One woman was beaten to death because her arm was accidentaly exposed while driving. Another woman was stoned to death because she tried to leave the country without a male relative. Girls in the orphanage located in the capital, Kabul, have not been allowed outside since 1996 while boys get to go out and play every day.

A terrible thing is happening in Afghanistan, having less to do with religion or politics than the deliberate and forceful denial of basic human rights through terrorism. No person deserves to be treated in this manner.

http://eaglegraphics.net/decenttalk/articles/afghanistan.html


General links: http://www.windweaver.com/politics/terrorism.htm#Taliban


Of interest, I guess - is when the USA STOPPED supporting the Mujahadeen and Taliban.

Not sure there is a difference, just a different term for the same word.

insurgent: adj.
1.Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2.Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Rebel:intr.v. re·belled, re·bel·ling, re·bels
1.To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.
2.To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.
3.To feel or express strong unwillingness or repugnance

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

Yes - but we know the difference between law - and reality, no?
----------------------------------------
Yep, I hope so.

The US government thinks that if it defines black as being white we will all accept that. Alas, far too many of us do.

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki: All state-sponsored terrorism.

Didn't the Germans and Japanese do the same thing during WWII?

I would say the US has learned better since then.

Here is an interesting summary of the Mujahadeen and Al Quaeda:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

I'll probably not answer tonight... as I've had quite a bit of Sake on this 5 month anniversary of quitting smoking (I've probably drank alcohol no more than 5 times since I quit), but; what are you asking me? Does it seem to you that we've tried to make Iraq the 51st State of the United States? I don't see how you are likening the Iraqi plight to our war of independence. It's been a pretty long time since we really absorbed another state. Frankly, it seems Puerto Rico is getting a free ride to me.

That the insurgents were misguided people who needed to surrender was a personal oppinion of OCCOM's stemming from their cause rather than their methods. (I belive)

OCCOM BILL thinks the world would be better of if these people surrendered, and I would be inclined to agree with him.

If a source of water for a city is busted up for a political purpose, how is that not a terrorist act?

President Bush has been linking terrorist with Iraq since the beginning.

I was sort of pointing out that the thread is about insurgents vs terrorists GENERALLY - and you had, in mid-stream, as it were, turned it to Iraq.

I was also pointing out that your view that the opposition in Iraq is either "misguided people who need to surrender or murderous bastards who need to be killed" is extremely Amerocentric - to themselves, they are resistance fighters - like the French and so forth in WW II.

I guess what makes the difference, in the end, is who wins.

Wow, this thread is really interesting. I didn't expect it to have gone four pages in such a short time. Thanks for the input everyone.

Dlowan, I think you have it right when you say it is about who wins in the end. If the British had won the revolutionary war, we Americans would have been forever labeled negatively as rebels or insurgents, and most likely, if it had been fought today and Bush was in power in England, we would have been labeled terrorists.

In regard to what Bill was saying about the insurgents being misguided, I think that in some ways they are definitely not misguided, but in another sense, they are. In their view, they are fighting against an occupying army that has taken over their home land. I can see the reasoning behind that.

The thing is though, what are they fighting for? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the pursuit of a free and peaceful government of, for, and by the people.

The reality is, they have to be defeated if Iraq is to have any possibility of becoming a stable democratic government, whether they are insurgents with a noble cause, or just a bunch of thugs...or both.

Anyway, that's my eyes-half-closed, way-too-tired, gotta-go-to-bed assessment. I hope it made at least some sense.

Carry on, I'll be listening...

Good question - mebbe for a nice, proper Islamic theocracy?

We HATE that idea - and so, I gather, do a lot of Iraqis - they didn't have one before.

Thing is, I think that anger and resistance often drive people into the arms of fundamental Islam in the Arab world. That religion is embraced because the western stuff is eschewed and violently rejected when it encroaches violently, or aggressively, into their lives, and they feel powerless - it becomes what they define themselves against - and so the roots of Islam are what they then embrace. Thus, politics and religion - which seem little sseparated in the Arab world, become enmeshed inextricably.

I think it a terrible shame.

It does not promote fear or terror in the general population, or any population for that matter. It is an act of sabotage, not an act of terrorism.

They are 'clients':