Is there a difference between insurgents and terrorists?

Congress passes the 2nd Boland Amendment, outlawing our solicitation of other countries to support the Contras. It is now also illegal for the CIA, Defense Department, or any intelligence agency to make efforts "supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual."
President Ronald Reagan attempts to drum up public support for the Contras: "They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I've spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they're fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance."

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.

revel wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

JanW wrote:

Most people consider that the politically-motivated destruction of property is included in terrorism.

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

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

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.

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

I would say the US has learned better since then.

JanW wrote:

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.

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.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Our forefathers bled the ground red fighting for freedom, liberty and the promotion of free will on behalf of the individual. That is, ultimately, what the Iraqi insurgents are fighting against. Misguided is the kindest description I could use.

Liberty AND promotion of free will? Whether the will is free is a metaphysical question, not something someone can fight for!

Further, earlier in the message you claimed that our forefathers fought for democracy. Actually, I would say they fought for self-determination. And that's one of the things the insurgents are fighting for.

Think of it this way: How would we react if some other country came in and told us that our democracy is, in their opinion, broken because of voter fraud, and that it is in our own best interests if they come in and fix it, bring with them soldiers and bombs and so forth. After they had bent us to their will, what if they then decided that they needed to establish permanent military bases in our country just in case we might "need" their intervention in the future, or just in case they needed a base from which to attack Canada or Mexico?[CODE]

Further, earlier in the message you claimed that our forefathers fought for democracy. Actually, I would say they fought for self-determination. And that's one of the things the insurgents are fighting for.

Are the insurgents in Iraq terrrorists? It seems that in Bush's mind, they are one and the same. I don't think that's true.

Does it even matter?

Either way, they are fighting against the U.S. forces in Iraq, and by extension, against the stability of Iraq.

Quote:

I find your comparison too invalid for an answer to be of any use. Voter fraud cannot be substituted for the heinous oppression that was Saddam & Sons Inc.

False. I accept your definition of our forefathers' fight, but that is not what the insurgents are fighting for. That is what they are fighting against. Their goal is iron fist control of 25 million people. Our goal is self-determination for 25 million people.

Okay, instead of voter fraud, substitute slavery: What if France had invaded around 1820 to eliminate slavery in the US? And, of course, just had to stick around for "reconstruction."

As for what the insurgents are fighting for, I'm not sure -- other than that they are fighting to get foreign aggressors out of the Middle East. But they could easily be fighting for self-determination: after all, the people of Iran have chosen a theocracy, and I suspect that's what many in Iraq would choose. If a theocrat wanted to run in the forthcoming election, do you think the US would allow that?

I suggest you watch the documentary _The Control Room_ to see what educated pro-democratic Iraqis think of the US invasion.

Einherjar wrote:

revel wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

JanW wrote:

Most people consider that the politically-motivated destruction of property is included in terrorism.

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

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

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.

If a big super power came into a country and destroyed a city's source of water on purpose, I imagine a lot of the people in that city would be scared thinking of what they will do next and also will be wondering where on earth they are going to get their water that is safe to drink. I imagine the people in that city is not really going to care if it is called sabotage or terrorism.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I find your comparison too invalid for an answer to be of any use. Voter fraud cannot be substituted for the heinous oppression that was Saddam & Sons Inc.

False. I accept your definition of our forefathers' fight, but that is not what the insurgents are fighting for. That is what they are fighting against. Their goal is iron fist control of 25 million people. Our goal is self-determination for 25 million people.

Okay, instead of voter fraud, substitute slavery: What if France had invaded around 1820 to eliminate slavery in the US? And, of course, just had to stick around for "reconstruction."

As for what the insurgents are fighting for, I'm not sure -- other than that they are fighting to get foreign aggressors out of the Middle East. But they could easily be fighting for self-determination: after all, the people of Iran have chosen a theocracy, and I suspect that's what many in Iraq would choose. If a theocrat wanted to run in the forthcoming election, do you think the US would allow that?

I suggest you watch the documentary _The Control Room_ to see what educated pro-democratic Iraqis think of the US invasion.

I don't believe the people have chosen, so much as they have accepted a theocracy in Iran.

What would you call those who kidnap people and behead them?

For that matter there seems to be a lot of educated Muslim women. Is it just the fact that they wear a veil that you believe that they have it so bad? I don't believe all Muslim states are like the taliban was.

Bill, you do realize that you just shook your head in disbelief at the mirror argument of yours, don't you?

Yes, some ex-muslims hate it. And some educated islamic women don't. And both statements are an appeal to authority.