Insurgency: Freedom fighters or Terrorists

Look's like I'll have to get out a mallet and keep hammering until you guys get this into your thick skulls:

-Just because people do bad things they're not terrorist
-Just because people kill other people they're still not terrorists
-Just because people kill innocent civilians they're still not terrorist

...and the final kicker:
-Even if an organization uses terrorist tactics, you still can't call each and every member a terrorist.

Terrorism is mainly about raising public awareness, spreading terror and trying to get your political agenda pushed through. Terrorism can also serve as the breeding ground of guerrilla warfare. As the awareness about an organization increases, it can gain more recruits and more support from the general population.

Some of you are bound to point out that's impossible since terrorist kill "innocent" people... well "says you". To most of the supporters they're just another bunch of:
-Goddamn Shia!
-Goddamn Sunni!
-Goddamn traitors (for not killing US troopers)!
-Goddamn traitors (for not aiding the insurgency)!
-Goddamn quisling (for co-operating with the coalition forces)!
-Godless hethens (for co-operating with the coalition forces)!

So what are they if not terrorists? Insurgents, who also employ terrorists to do some specific missions. Lately what they've been doing is largely anything but terrorism: they've started up their own courts, elected or appointed their own officials to preside over weddings, etc. They're trying to undercut the main government. They're also doing humanitarian acts like trying to rebuild homes and amenities.

None of this is new, this is pretty much 101 of how an insurgency operates. But this complex picture doesn't make good reporting for your "patriotic media". If reported it'd also make pretty clear that this whole Counter-Insurgency business will take years and years and there's no guarantee you'll ever win. Can't have that when anti-war sentiments are already rising and there's plenty more money to be had from this conflict.

No, I'm not a goddamn piece-nick. I'm just a realist who sees how this whole deal has gone sour and how money and lives are being wasted. Afghanistan was a bummer from the get-go. It was clear from the starting line that years and years of COIN operations would be necessary to ever stabilize the country.

In Iraq, here are the stupid, stupid and arrogant mistakes committed by the Bush administration:
-Ignoring all plans already drawn up by CIA and the larger intel community. (I'm talking baout thousands of pages of reports, plans, etc. Years of work).
-Instead they had Jay Garder start out from the zero... with little support, not enough staff, no communications and autority to act on the ground.
-He was remote-managed from Washington from guys who've never been to post war Iraq.
-Nothing was done to curtail or stop the looting and mass breakdown of public order after the invasion. You had troops on the streets with guns in their hands, looking on while looters carried of whatever they wished. They didn't speak Arab and had no idea what was going on either as they weren't given interpreters in time and the word to maintain order never came.
-There were not enough troops of the ground. The Bush administration publicly claimed that it doesn't make sense that more troops would be needed to maintain order than what was used to fight the war... when this has been the experience in each and every single peace keeping mission for a hundred years!
-General Shinsenki who lead US troops in Bosnia testified before the Congress to this effect. (His advice, as was the advice of Colin Powell who publicly supported the Bush war council but privately also had misgivings and over which he later resigned).
-Co-operating Iraqi bureaucrats, politicians and army staff were all ignored and left in the dark. Instead much weight was given to Achmed Chalabi and fraud and con-men. His intal was found to be pretty much made up.
-No forces were spared to protect the old ministries and their records. The entire Iraqi national archive went up in smoke. (So no records on which guys were responsible for pulling nails and electrocuting testicles, nor records to show who were merely traffic cops who could be relied or, or records on who were dissidents with bombs and radical ideas, or dissidents with "radical ideas of free speech")
-Finally they fired Garner for not "taking to the program" and put L. Paul Bremer in charge. He had no military experience (Garner was a general), didn't speak Arabic and had no experience with Middle East politics. What he was though, was a yes man for each and every inane idea to come from Wolfowitz, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

These included:
-De-Bathification (firing each and every competent bureocrat, because to get the job they had to be members of the Bath party).
-Firing every member of the Iraqi army... putting hundreds of thousand of soldiers onto the street. With no jobs, them and their families were literally starving... and ready to embrace the coming insurgency.

...and a final atrocity:
-Instead relying on local enterprises, the CPA (that replaced ORHA) relied heavily on American firms with imported workers for reconstruction and the construciton of forts and army facilities. These were (and are) hotbeds of corruption. They could take as much as 4 times the cost of what would have been needed if local firms were used.


So let me sum this up for you:
-After the invasion nothing is done to restore or maintain order
-Meanwhile everyone who wants to do something is ignored
-Afterwards a lot of people (all in all millions) are fired for no good reason
-...and the few jobs there are taken by US corporations
-...and finally the insurgents come and make life a living hell for the average Iraqi and the coalition forces do little to stop them, as they're still doing occupation jobs, instead COIN. (Yes! The surge worked, because it finally isntated a COIN doctrine!)

...and the Iraqi people have nothing to be pissed about?
Sure they used to live under a bloody dictator. Here's the kicker:
It was better under Saddam.

It 100% depends on who is in power.

Those in power call in terrorism. Those who aren't, call it rebellion, insurgency, whatever.

The side that wins is in power, so if the bloody side (the supposed terrorists) win, they aren't terrorists anymore.

The people in Iraq killing american troops? Terrorists. Why? because they're not in power.

The Taliban during the height of the cold war? Freedom fighters. Why? Because America supported them as proxy against Russia, and america basically won the cold war. After the russians left afghanistan and the taliban USED THE EXACT SAME TACTICS against Russians that they learned from americans agaisnt americans, the switch was flipped, boom, they're now terrorists.

Not necessarily true... The Colonists (I.E Americans) were Rebels according to the British and the British were in power, The Americans won their independence (Damn them) so I believe they called themselves Patriots!

Depends who's view you take.
It' seems pretty subjective to me. If you support them: Freedom Fighters. But if your against them: Terrorists.

That's actually objective ;)

There's no need to get angry mate.
Respect what people say even if it's wrong. It's not hard to offer what you think without calling people dense or stupid.

Anyway the situation in Iraq & Afghanistan is pretty damn similar to the cluster fuck that was Vietnam.

As with most things it is impossible to generalize completely. Some will always cross the fine line between 'freedom fighters' and 'terrorists'. As for the specific groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban that the West is fighting against now, I'd call them terrorists simply because they often target innocent bystanders specifically.

During the American Revolution, England saw the colonists as terrorists. However, the founding fathers didn't go around blowing everything to kingdom come. So, I'd have to say that they are the textbook definition of Terrorists. But it's all about who you ask.

I'm afraid that's not right. England saw them as rebels and traitors. (Back when people got hanged for that and when your honor actually meant something).

Let me reiterate: a terrorist is someone who does attacks against either the public at large or certain groups of the public. He does this with the intent to raise terror and promote their agenda. His other big aim is to convince the public that the powers that be are powerless to stop him and therefore call its legitimacy into question. The targeted groups can also be minorities since it satisfies the need for both providing the object of some "scape-goat" agrument as well as play to already existing tensions.

Just because someone goes up against authority, or kills innocent people doesn't make someone a terrorist. It has the word terror in the name for a reason. Just like you don't call kidnappers or serial killers terrorists, you don't call rebels terrorists either.

The reason why the media or some governments will still try and call their enemies and opponents terrorist are multifold:
-It brings up a repugnant image in the public, so they deny them support.
-It makes their own actions to crack down (no matter how biased or heavy handed) justified.
-It makes it harder for foreign powers to intervene or support without incurring a publicity cost.
-...and recently crying "terrorism!" or "terrorist!" has been a pretty good way to get the most inane and self-serving policies pushed through.

The above is pretty much why I insist that people educate themselves over this matter, since otherwise they'll be mislead and support causes not their own and eventually see the world through glasses tinted with falsehood.

...and what really muddies up the issue is that terrorists tend to rub shoulders with all other outlaws: they often need smugglers to get their weapons, the terrorists themselves may be interlinked with organized crime as part of financing themselves (ie. trafficking in drugs) or the terrorists themselves could've been trained by another legitimate country.

In fact terrorism can be occasionally employed by legitimate powers. Both the CCCP as well as the USA did this in the Cold War. Sometimes an organization outgrows terrorism and switches to other forms of warfare. So the terrorists could be just a small force within the greater movement. They'd be tasked with carrying out terrorist attacks in other countries, to stop them from supporting the organization's opponents.

At some point labeling someone or something as a terrorist organization doesn't hold up anymore, or the label can't fit the whole only parts.

So STOP CALLING insurgencies, guerrillas, rebels, criminals or any outlaw or unliked foreign element a TERRORISTS.

Ask yourself:
-Do they engage in acts of terror?
-Is the public at large (or parts of it) targeted?
-Do they have a political motive for doing so?

If yes you can label the perpetrators terrorists.
If not, then even if the media is blasting you with words to this end, they're talking out of their ass... and likely serving an agenda.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Way to whack the point home, Flaser.

For me you can't pin point a finger at these because humans can be easily tricked (for example) your toothbrush was secretly use to clean the toilet. of course if you didn't know that someone did that to your toothbrush will just do the same that's politics for me because politics here is so dirty but then again you can't pin point who's the bad one and who isn't all I can say if your really want to know the truth then go there and know the truth but humans are just selfish just think if think babbling about this and that but don't take initiative it's like your babbling something about your shoes not being untied so all i can say is if you want to know what's really happening you need to know the situation as in close and personal example. in Iraq why do this people do this do that it can take years or decades to know the truth and I won't sacrifice my life like that that's why when I think about this is why I don't have sympathy for this world it's just to sad and cruel to me but I don't lose hope that someday the world will become more peaceful but the taking initiative will not be me i'll let others do that for me. (maybe this is why i like to watch anime and read mangas.)

It all depends on your Perspective.

In my book a terrorist is an individuals who spreads terror through the killing and maiming of innocent people i.e. the bad guy.
So to me it matters little what "humanitarian" work they have done, if they support the "tactic" of killing people like you and me to get their point across to a government they cant take a flying fu**ing leap off a cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom.

[size=10]"Sorry i dont know how to double quote"[/h]
"Just because someone goes up against authority, or kills innocent people doesn't make someone a terrorist. It has the word terror in the name for a reason. Just like you don't call kidnappers or serial killers terrorists, you don't call rebels terrorists either."

I do call kidnaper's and serial killers terrorists, their just terrorists with no political agenda.

People who go against a gov. (insurgencies, rebels, criminals, guerrillas,or any outlaw or unliked foreign element, ect) in my book are not a terrorist group until they specifically intend on killing innocent people for the sake of striking terror into the general public, when they cross this line they have graduated to terrorist and are therefore not in agreement with anyone "not even the people their are supposedly fighting for."

so in final "summation" yes- people who kill innocent people ARE terrorist no matter what country they come from, this even includes the USA when it comes to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident where they bombed all those Innocent people.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Just because someone is a scumbag, doesn't warrant them being called a terrorist.
Terrorist is a word. It has a *specific* meaning... and anyone who thinks otherwise can go to hell!

Doublethink is the art of not only simultaneously thinking two mutually-contradictory things, but of depriving words of their meaning, of twisting and bending language to your own purpose.

I know language is a living thing and it changes and evolves according to the needs of the users, but re-purposing the word terrorist to mean any scumbag who killed in anger without a lawful order does not serve the public.

-It serves greedy politicians, who thrive on fear mongering to get elected.
-It serves greedy businessman, who can make a reaping with their security companies maintaining a security theater that does little to make us objectively safe.
-It serves greedy defense contractors, since they make a killing selling expensive weapons systems.
-It serves greedy military brass, who can get that last promotion for "leading in the field" (...and so do all their Power-point ranger cronies) or for having bent backwards in procurement processes and cushy commercial job once they retire.
-It serves the inane policies of the neo-conservative interest, who pushed through two wars that literally does nothing against Al-Qaeda, eats of the youth and resources of the country and makes some people a hell of a rich.

I'm not a darn peace-nick. As is, the USA can't pull out of Iraq (though I'd argue against staying in Afghanistan) since that would lead to the total destabilization of the area.

However from DAY 1 the Intelligence Community has been saying all of what I've been saying... only to be shut down. People who complained had their carriers wrecked and we ended up with a government without expert advice or oversight.

I wasn't saying ANY scumbag who kills in anger was a terrorist, only those who specifically kill to cause wide spread fear amongst those who they are killing.
That for me seems to be a fit description of many of the insurgents fighting in Iraq today,and even more in Afghanistan.

It really depends in whose eyes you see the conflict from.

Let us remember the Hashashins (Assassins) they were among the first to use "terror" as a weapon, terror being defined as the form of unconventional warfare used by a weaker group to change discourage a stronger group, or to make them lose the support of their population.

This little guys made use of terror by planning acts that attracted the maximum attention, they did so to achieve the dramatic effect that only publicity can give, they didn't actually made mass killings or any thing of that sort. No they instilled fear in the population in order to keep their independence.

Of course the crusaders would have nothing of it, so they labeled them "terrorists".

Nowadays many radical groups use the same form of warfare, realizing they'd never defeat the U.S. because the disparity of power is too great, they resorted to some of these tactics. And make no mistake when I say these people will fight to the dead, and will not be defeated, contained yes, but never defeated. The U.S has launched itself against a civilization that's used to western bullying since the middle ages.

I can't say I agree with their methods, specially Sharia which I find inhumane and barbaric, and certainly my western upbringing can't imagine a world where countries and people aren't allowed to chose their own destiny.

Insurgents come in different types, some may be genuine freedom fighters, fighting and dying in what they believe, others are mindless killers who won't hesitate to kill innocents and civilians to achieve their goals. The same can be said of our western hemisphere, some american soldiers genuinely believe they are defending their country, others are in just to "blow shit up" and kill whatever they find.

Which leads us to the question, who's innocent here? NOBODY is innocent, war claims the innocent's lives first.

I currently study Foreign Affairs (International Relations) with a particular emphasis in international security, intelligence, terrorism and counter terrorism, perhaps my arguments here are feeble, but if you feel inclined to initiate a constructive debate I'd be more than happy to discuss the subject. so long as we do so in a civil fashion.

(I say this because many will disagree with my points of view).

I think you are probably right about some being freedom fighters while others are just killers.
I have met both heroes and cold blooded psychopaths in the US military so I dont doubt what you say.

Unless we correct mistakes people will continue to make them. We do respect the opinions of others for what they are, opinions.

Anyways, I'll throw my lot in with Flaser with his criteria for a terrorist to be a terrorist. Not much I can add that he hasn't already said.

I know this topic is as old as Madonna's boobs but I'm bored so here goes.

I wanted to explain something I don't agree with you. It is true the Allied did not agree to support Finland and so it allied with the Nazis but not because it sought to conquer Russia. It was to protect itself from Russia. A tiny country can only hope to survive a war against a monster sized country like Russia. Finland had been under Russian's control before and was willing to do anything to espace that fate again.
However when Finland was doing well on the war (after regaining the areas lost in the previous war) there was talk of creating a "Great Finland". The leader of the finnish army (Mannerheim) was against it because he knew Russia would get back on it's feet. That is why the finnish army never invaded Saint Petersburg even though the army could see it.

Sorry to reply on such an old post.