If Iraqis who try to free themselves from an occupier are terrorist,

[Massacure]

Then why is George Washington not a terrorist for trying to free his country from an occupier? :shrug:

Why doesn't someone put this in the some republican's pipes and force them to smoke it?

[DIKB]

1. I've often wondered the same thing.

The revolutionaries were terrorists by *'s descriptions. Would they be called a similar title such as "islamofascists" like the other iraqi nationals ?

[w13rd0]

6. They were terrorists...

...by the definition of a poster in one of our threads here. Claimed the US could summmarily execute anyone suspected of being a terrorist, despite a lack of definition of a terrorist, because "they aren't wearing a recognized uniform". Ah, try defining terrorism with a universal definition that would qualify as international law irrespective of nationality...you'll always end up with something that would lump certain segments of the US gov in with the IRAs and alQueadas of the world. Bush's definition is, "I know it when I see it, it's what i say it is." Not exactly cutting the mustard on impartial international law.

[noamnety]

2. I'm still trying to figure out

why we aren't the insurgents.

Also, everytime I hear they are worried about a civil war over there, I keep wondering what's the distinction, because they have a group of people fighting their own (puppet) government. And supposedly our troops at this point are just supporting their government. So it's not really us fighting them at this point, it's us helping them fight each other, which sounds like a civil war.

:shrug:

[DIKB]

3. In the right's view

Civil War just sounds BAD. "Let me wait for FOX News to give it a spin that I can accept, no matter how implausible."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Before CW happens, they will pay off some Iraqi leader to

create an official proclamation that Iraq wants us out. Then he can say, "Oh, well, we tried to spread FUR-REE-DUM"

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Sorry, I view any insurgents who kill Iraqi civilians "terrorists"

You're right that I don't think the term should apply to military forces. I don't condone violence against US soldiers b/c of course I don't want our soldiers dead. But I don't think that fighters who attack US military instillations or US armed forces are "terrorists" - those are combattants in a war.

But those that are targetting Iraqi civilians - and plenty of them ARE targetting civilians - they are terrorists.

Sorry if that makes me a Bushco enabler.

[w13rd0]

7. It doesn't make you a Bushco enabler...

..it just means you are using a convienient descriptor that's not applied in an impartial manner. When we bombed that market place, and that bistro, to try to get Saddam and his kids, we were targetting civilians. Civilians we thought to be in close proximity to Saddam. So applied impartially, CENCOM <sp> is fairly "terrorist" in its actions as well. Hell, "Shock and Awe", "abu Ghraib" <sp>... That's every bit as much terrorism...

[Igel]

8. Um ... that's not really coherent. Or a meaning's not standard.

"When we bombed that market place, and that bistro, to try to get Saddam and his kids, we were targetting civilians."

If we were trying to get Saddam and his kids, we were targetting them, not the civilians. If we weren't trying to get anybody but the civilians, we were targetting the civilians. It's not who you hit, it's who you want to hit.

Intent and goal may be a truly trivial matter to the kid whose brains are splatted on the pavement, but it's not for most legal systems.

[w13rd0]

10. If my goal...

...is to discourage "collaboration" with occupiers by targetting "civilians" who are working for the occupiers, I've hit my intended targets. Are these insurgents? Or merely the side in a civil war fighting against the faction the US government is supporting? Are they terrorists? Or are they "freedom fighters"? I don't like any of them, so I've not a dog in this fight. But you can't try and rope a group into a set of laws you yourself are disregarding.

The bistro and market place weren't the best examples. Wedding parties and hotels with journalists might be better examples. We say we were targetting valid military targets. But we didn't. It's all senseless killing on the part of several groups of extremists.

[Disturbed]

12. Al Sadr Malitia-Terrorists?

Al Sadr, if he can be believed stated that those that were killing Iraqi civilians were not part of his malitia. His forces were for the main part fighting with the U.S. forces and their allies, also Iraqis that were mostly Kurdish fighters at the time of the fight for Najaf.

The U.S Govt. has lumped all resistance to U.S Occupation as terrorists. This makes it easier to sweep away the War Crimes commited on Falluja. If the Iraqis could decide their own form of Govt. and manage to unite Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish (Many Kurds are also Sunnis) and demand that the U.S withdraw all troops and Multi-corps the situation would be more clear.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Am I talking about US actions here?

I don't deny that the US has done some pretty horrible things. I'd say the allied firebombing of Dresden was terrorist. And Hiroshima (although I'm open to the possibility that that may have been necessary - however, that's for a different time and place). Personally, I believe that most US soldiers are good people and they aren't targetting civilians. Civilians are, horrible as the term is "collateral damage." That's little consolation to the victims, but it's a reality of war. I have no illusions about war. In a war civilians will die. That's why it's necessary to only go to war when it is truly necessary, not on a whim like Bush did.

But while that is an interesting discussion, it is beside the point of my previous post. I'm not asking about US actions. I'm talking about the actions of Iraqi insurgents who kill Iraqi civilians - such as the ones that were targetting poll workers, etc. The ones who bombed the Shiite mosque back last year and killed hundreds. The ones that are killing hundreds of Iraqis. To answer that by saying "US soldiers are terrorists," is a distraction. It's like conservatives who after Abu Ghraib were saying "we're better than Saddam." That's not the point! The point I'm speaking of is Iraqis who are killing Iraqis. Those people are terrorists and I think the left is clearly out of touch if we're trying to defend those actions.

[w13rd0]

13. Sorry, I get your meaning....

...and I'm probably not being clear. We are defining them as terrorists now as a matter of standard procedure. Last month they were insurgents, before that anti-Iraqi Iraqis, before that dissenters, etc. If we are going to say "in a war civilians die", we have to define several concepts. When are we "in a war"? Is it a war when we are attacked and respond directly? Most would say yes. Is it a war when we invade and occupy? Gets muddier. Police action? Ok, what are the rules there? Do civilians still die? What is a civilian? What are legitimate targets? All these things have been made much murkier by the present administration. So murky in fact that otherwise rational people find themselves "rooting for" complete nut jobs.

No, I don't think US troops are terrorists. I don't think they are intentionally targetting civilians. I also don't think most of the "insurgents" are terrorists. Many of them I'm guessing would prefer killing soldiers of the occupying army. Or collaborators.

So the left isn't defending those actions, at least I'm not. Just not applying the brush broadly.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. I can see your point...

... but again I'm not calling anti-military fighters "terrorists" - I really don't like it when they kill US soldiers b/c I don't want to see American soldiers die. But I don't think they're being killed by terrorists - they're being killed by combattants in a war.

That said, there are a lot of insurgents that are targetting Iraqi civilians, especially Sunni insurgents who are targetting Sunnis. There really was intimidation not to go to the polls. That is terrorism in my view. Deliberately and indescrimately targetting civilians - that's terrorism.

[w13rd0]

15. Terrorism

ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

I can say confidently, "from the left", that I abhor terrorism as defined in all of its manifestations. But we do need to be seeking new ways to deal with these things.

We live in a world where it is becoming increasingly likely that a zealous few can, have and will achieve the means to control and/or destroy nations and people with surpassing ease and little internal conflict, a push button exercize.

as my sigline infers...there's IMO a less than one hundred year window in which we have to either get all our eggs out of the same basket, create a utopian society, or resign the human species to a fatal case of death by sudden hubris.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. For the record, I'm not accusing you of condoning terrorism

Believe me, I think we are far too warlike as a nation. We are too quick to jump to the conclusion that military action is the only solution. And ultimately the root of military conflict is in political or social grievances, most of them legitimate grievances. I agree that you cannot create a peaceful world without dealing with the underlying causes of anger and discontent.

I'm not sure we're really in disagreement. My point is quite narrow - I believe that insurgents in Iraq that target innocent Iraqi civilians are terrorists. Nothing more.

Personally I think just responding with heavy force to the Iraqi insurgents will only win them sympathy because of the inevitable "collateral damage." Only a political solution can solve the impasse.

[DrGonzoLives]

11. Washington didn't target civilians

There is a difference between the insurgents, who are attacking "coalition" forces, and terrorists blowing themselves up in the street.