Oh the noble insurgency.

[gh0st]

In a Washington Post article today (heres the whole thing http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19774-2005Feb12.html, sorry its register only. Not sure how I got to read it.), they had this to say about Iraqi insurgents:

In recent days, attacks across Iraq have been increasingly aimed at vulnerable civilians, as the strategy of the insurgency appears to have turned from targeting U.S. and Iraqi security forces to sowing general chaos and fear among the population. On Friday, gunmen massacred a family of 11 running a bakery, and a car bombing outside a mosque killed 13 people.

Despite a succession of arrests of insurgents, frequent vows of tough action from officials and the reported growth of Iraqi security forces, the attackers have continued to kill.

I hear a lot on these forums how these people are just soldiers like the US or Great Britains, and how they differ greatly from terrorists. I hear how if we were invaded by a foreign power, we would fight back too. Somehow I doubt we would resort to aimlessly killing our fellow civilians, and making our objective to sow FEAR amongt our fellow people. Theres just no difference between insurgent and terrorist.

edit: this is also relevant: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/11/iraq112203.htm

Increasingly, armed opponents of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq are targeting Iraqi civilians

 

[bliink]

II hear how if we were invaded by a foreign power, we would fight back too. Somehow I doubt we would resort to aimlessly killing our fellow civilians, and making our objective to sow FEAR amongt our fellow people.

I don't think they would either; it'd be one of two things- 1) Its not just "fellow civilians" being killed, maybe kurds or other religiously affiliated civilians- Iraq was a theocracy once (as most mid east countries are).. they have a very religious/class centric society, or 2) the more likely one, is that they see co-operating civilians as collaborators in some American invasion.

 

[gh0st]

the more likely one, is that they see co-operating civilians as collaborators in some American invasion.

Define "cooperating." They arent attacking insurgents, and as cptsterns geneva convention says, all those citizens are protected no matter what their political or religious affiliation. Most likely all they did was vote, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[bliink]

Define "cooperating." They arent attacking insurgents, and as cptsterns geneva convention says, all those citizens are protected no matter what their political or religious affiliation. Most likely all they did was vote, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Exactly.. they are voting for what the insurgents see as an inevitable puppet government (true or not, I'm sure thats how they'd see it)
And as far as geneva conventions go, they only apply to armed forces, like armies and such. An insurgent doesnt qualify.. they're basically just civilians too.

 

[gh0st]

Exactly.. they are voting for what the insurgents see as an inevitable puppet government (true or not, I'm sure thats how they'd see it)
And as far as geneva conventions go, they only apply to armed forces, like armies and such. An insurgent doesnt qualify.. they're basically just civilians too.

You wouldnt define an insurgency as an armed force? The UN does.

 

[bliink]

You wouldnt define an insurgency as an armed force? The UN does.

But they don't have a real command structure, they don't represent a real country or territory; they arent soveriegn- they are citizens of Iraq.. its technically just criminality.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Its neither criminality nor insurgency, its terrorism. These people arent freedom fighters or anything along those lines. They are scum.

 

[bliink]

Its neither criminality nor insurgency, its terrorism. These people arent freedom fighters or anything along those lines. They are scum.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. -thats the only truth on the matter IMO

 

[gh0st]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. -thats the only truth on the matter IMO

A freedom fighter does not target innocent people.

 

[seinfeldrules]

A freedom fighter does not target innocent people.

Exactly. If anybody is confusing these 'people' with freedom fighters than they should be ashamed. Reminds me of the Palestinian example. People say the same thing about young men who blow up busloads of children, I hardly see how that is fighting for any freedom. Must take a lot of courage to blow up a bunch of unprepared, unequipped civilians.

 

[bliink]

A freedom fighter does not target innocent people.

Like "terrorist", "innocent" comes down to an individuals perception- what you and I call innocent may be very serious to someone else.

 

[GiaOmerta]

If a freedom fighter is one who fights against freedom, they can bear the title.

 

[gh0st]

Like "terrorist", "innocent" comes down to an individuals perception- what you and I call innocent may be very serious to someone else.

Lets look at the original freedom fighters, the patriots during the revolutionary war. Did they attack and murder innocent civilians, even if they were loyalists supporting the english? No. Shows the difference between us and them.

If a freedom fighter is one who fights against freedom, they can bear the title.

Well said

 

[bliink]

If a freedom fighter is one who fights against freedom, they can bear the title.

Fights against the freedom of whom? how do they interpret freedom?

Of course, according to what you see as freedom, they are opposed, but their ideals are different to yours.

Lets look at the original freedom fighters, the patriots during the revolutionary war. Did they attack and murder innocent civilians, even if they were loyalists supporting the english? No. Shows the difference between us and them.

We're a long way past those days... before World war 1, the concept of "Total war" didn't exist.

 

[gh0st]

Fights against the freedom of whom? how do they interpret freedom?

Of course, according to what you see as freedom, they are opposed, but their ideals are different to yours.

Freedom is not being gassed for your religion, freedom is not being tortured and executed for your political beliefs, freedom is safety, knowing you will not be exploded by some nutjob. If your definition of freedom is anything else, you are wrong, simple as that.

Their idea of "freedom" is chaos.

 

[bliink]

Freedom is not being gassed for your religion, freedom is not being tortured and executed for your political beliefs, freedom is safety, knowing you will not be exploded by some nutjob. If your definition of freedom is anything else, you are wrong, simple as that.

What about Saddam? lets say he wanted to gas people (now, I agree of course that this is wrong), but he might see it as his right, under god, to do this (despite what you believe, all he knows is that he is correct), and if he goes and does this, he's excercising what he sees as freedom.

The true question is; how can you classify the beliefs/ideals of others as right or wrong, if you have your own perspectives that will invariably sway your opinion?
This is a Postmodernist/post-structuralist analysation of culture.

It's the philosophical school of thought that basically says there can be no absolute truth because everyone sees the world through "their own eyes."

 

[gh0st]

What about Saddam? lets say he wanted to gas people (now, I agree of course that this is wrong), but he might see it as his right, under god, to do this (despite what you believe, all he knows is that he is correct), and if he goes and does this, he's excercising what he sees as freedom.

The true question is; how can you classify the beliefs/ideals of others as right or wrong, if you have your own perspectives that will invariably sway your opinion?
This is a Postmodernist/post-structuralist analysation of culture.

Im not going to read through that whole thing, but all I can say is the minority imposing their view of "freedom" upon the majority who embrace democracy and western freedoms is despicable and wrong. How dont you see that t hey are the enemy?

 

[bliink]

How dont you see that t hey are the enemy?

They are, for you, for me; yeah, they are the enemy- but thats only because as far as my morals and ethics- my perception goes; I can only come to the conclusion that what they are doing is wrong: what they see of us is what we see of them almost inverted.

 

[gh0st]

They are, for you, for me; yeah, they are the enemy- but thats only because as far as my morals and ethics- my perception goes; I can only come to the conclusion that what they are doing is wrong: what they see of us is what we see of them almost inverted.

Tell me what you think of the rest of what I wrote, how this evil minority imposes their skewed view of freedom by servitude on the majority who are fully willing to embrace democracy. Is that "freedom", is that "right"?

 

[seinfeldrules]

The true question is; how can you classify the beliefs/ideals of others as right or wrong

We could play the PC game all day, but in the end it comes down to the basic principles of right and wrong. These terrorists are far from being on the side of righteousness. Sometimes looking at these situations from a 'different viewpoint' is downright stupid and a waste of time.

 

[bliink]

Tell me what you think of the rest of what I wrote, how this evil minority imposes their skewed view of freedom by servitude on the majority who are fully willing to embrace democracy. Is that "freedom", is that "right"?

Both sides are fighting for a cause they each believe is the "right" and good thing to do.
Which side the individual accepts as "right" comes down to their own perspective, and as a result, neither side can be absolutely right.

We could play the PC game all day, but in the end it comes down to the basic principles of right and wrong. These terrorists are far from being on the side of righteousness

The "basic principles of right and wrong" are different for everyone- because we are not a collective intelligence, there can never be a global blanket for "right" or "wrong" its only what you believe personally.

 

[gh0st]

Both sides are fighting for a cause they each believe is the "right" and good thing to do.
Which side the individual accepts as "right" comes down to their own perspective, and as a result, neither side can be absolutely right.

This is the liberal mindset thats destroying our foreign policy. We dont think were right, or anthings right, so were stuck in a vertex of inaction, forever trying to identify with our headcutting counterparts. Why bother? They kill our soldiers, they kill their fellow civilians, why pick apart their brains? Theres nothing to understand, only barbarism and cowardice.

They are attacking a majority who believes that we are right. They are cowardly anarchists who seek only destruction. They are the absolute antithesis of common sense culture. They dont value life, they only destroy it. No one but their terrorist friends think they are right.

 

[seinfeldrules]

This is the liberal mindset thats destroying our foreign policy. We dont think were right, or anthings right, so were stuck in a vertex of inaction,

Exactly, nobody is allowed to make such a basic statement anymore (such as "terrorism is evil") without being forced to admit you are wrong because you are not a terrorist yourself. Sometimes stances must be made, or else nobody would ever make any action without thinking "hmmm I wonder what person X in China would do!"

 

[bliink]

This is the liberal mindset thats destroying our foreign policy. We dont think were right, or anthings right, so were stuck in a vertex of inaction, forever trying to identify with our headcutting counterparts. Why bother? They kill our soldiers, they kill their fellow civilians, why pick apart their brains? Theres nothing to understand, only barbarism and cowardice.

They are attacking a majority who believes that we are right. They are cowardly anarchists who seek only destruction. They are the absolute antithesis of common sense culture. They dont value life, they only destroy it. No one but their terrorist friends think they are right.

Liberal mindset?

well, i'm not getting through, or explaining it all wrong so I may as well just give up now.

*waves goodbye*
be good and keep on topic y'hear?

 

[gh0st]

Liberal mindset?

well, i'm not getting through, or explaining it all wrong so I may as well just give up now.

No I do understand where you're coming from, I just disagree entirely with what you're saying.

We're a long way past those days... before World war 1, the concept of "Total war" didn't exist.

Tell that to General Sheridan.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

What about Saddam? lets say he wanted to gas people (now, I agree of course that this is wrong), but he might see it as his right, under god, to do this (despite what you believe, all he knows is that he is correct), and if he goes and does this, he's excercising what he sees as freedom.

The true question is; how can you classify the beliefs/ideals of others as right or wrong, if you have your own perspectives that will invariably sway your opinion?
This is a Postmodernist/post-structuralist analysation of culture.

It's the philosophical school of thought that basically says there can be no absolute truth because everyone sees the world through "their own eyes."

Not true. What defines freedom is all people having the same right as Saddam to ice a few fellow neighbors.

However since thats not what happened, we come down to this scenario:

Everyone having the same right to live, no matter what they're governmental, racial, or social status.

 

[GhostFox]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That is the most falacious truism I have ever heard.

Freedom fighter targets legitimate millitary facillities and personel.

Terrorists, under the modern definition, deliberately target innocent civillians in order to sow terror in an effort to cause govt. capitulation.

The two are not at all related nor easily confused.

 

[burner69]

This is the liberal mindset thats destroying our foreign policy. We dont think were right, or anthings right, so were stuck in a vertex of inaction, forever trying to identify with our headcutting counterparts. Why bother? They kill our soldiers, they kill their fellow civilians, why pick apart their brains? Theres nothing to understand, only barbarism and cowardice.

Because when you work out what it is they have a problem with, you can start making peace, or at least calm the violence down. Not saying it's possible in Iraq, but in general.
How do you know there's nothing to understand? Do you know their motives? If there's nothing to understand then how do you know it's barbarism and cowardice? What I'm saying is if we're fighting an enemy we need to understand why they're fighting us, what they believe, and not just labelling them as mindless killers.

They are attacking a majority who believes that we are right. They are cowardly anarchists who seek only destruction. They are the absolute antithesis of common sense culture. They dont value life, they only destroy it. No one but their terrorist friends think they are right.

And they'e saying exactly the same thing, just swapping the words terrorist with western - we're getting nowhere.

 

[seinfeldrules]

How do you know there's nothing to understand? Do you know their motives

I dont even want to know somebodys motive for purposely targeting and killing civilians. That is a motive I, nor anybody, should attempt to understand.

 

[burner69]

I dont even want to know somebodys motive for purposely targeting and killing civilians. That is a motive I, nor anybody, should attempt to understand.

I think that boils down to desperation. But the whole idea of why they're opposed to the coalition needs looking at, or else you're gonna have civilians being blown up in Iraq for many years to come.

To just ignorantly shrug off the notion that they have any legitimate reason to hate the west, and must therefore only hate freedom, will cause far more harm than good.

 

[DreamThrall]

I thought that most of the insurgents weren't even Iraqis, but rather foreign extremists who don't want a US-friendly Iraq because it would set in their eyes a "bad example" for the rest of the mid-east. This would actually make more sense, because it wouldn't exactly be Iraqis killing Iraqis, but rather foreigners killing Iraqis, trying to instill fear in the Iraqi people (shouldn't be too hard, they're used to it by now) and get them to oppose the US-led democratization.

On another note, the "we don't know what it is, don't care to try and understand it, so let's just kill it" ideology will be the downfall of Western civilization. Please, we're all (well, most of us at least) more civilized than that.

On yet another note, your title "oh the noble insurgency" completely overstates what you might call the "liberal point of view". I can't speak for other lefties, I don't believe that the insurgents are doing anything noble; however, it is just as far from killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, as it seems you like to look at it.

 

[Bodacious]

I think that boils down to desperation. But the whole idea of why they're opposed to the coalition needs looking at, or else you're gonna have civilians being blown up in Iraq for many years to come.

So what, do you think their motivation is? What is the "whole idea of why they're opposed to the coalition" is?

Do you remember Afgahnistan when the mujahaseen repelled the invasion of the soviets? From what I have read the Arab community took that victory to believe that Allah lead them to win. Why do you think so many people are traveling to Iraq to fight american's? Because, as far as what I have read, they believe it is their duty to fight westerners. If they can repel us, they are next to infallable, because Allah will have lead them to victory. That is why we cannot leave until the insurgency is crushed.

If you ask me they are almost obliterated. I mean, take a look at the context clues. Only kill 44 people on election day, using platic GI Joes for extortion, increased civillian attacks.

Another thing that motivates these terrorists is their hatred for the Jewish people in Israel. They are so upset over the 6 days war that they can't handle it.

To just ignorantly shrug off the notion that they have any legitimate reason to hate the west, and must therefore only hate freedom, will cause far more harm than good.

They are motivated by their hatred for the west and their hatred for jews. What else is it?

 

[CptStern]

bodacious watch tron's movie ...it really does explain why they do what they do

 

[burner69]

DreamThrall, I think you very accurately summed up my thoughts on this matter. Nice one.

So what, do you think their motivation is? What is the "whole idea of why they're opposed to the coalition" is?

Well there's the general anti-west sentiment, that's the underlying cause, but it stems from
* The west's interference in the middle east
* UN sanctions against Iraq resulting in half a million dead innocents
* The fact that we invaded under the flag of finding WMDs, and came out saying that we're here to spread freedom. Basically they think we just want to take the country and westernise it which is, well, what we're doing to some extent.

Do you remember Afgahnistan when the mujahaseen repelled the invasion of the soviets? From what I have read the Arab community took that victory to believe that Allah lead them to win. Why do you think so many people are traveling to Iraq to fight american's? Because, as far as what I have read, they believe it is their duty to fight westerners. If they can repel us, they are next to infallable, because Allah will have lead them to victory. That is why we cannot leave until the insurgency is crushed.

This may wel be true, but does by no mean remove their justification for attacking us. We have done a lot of damage to them, we have taken our own interests far above theirs in the past, we've jumped from one side of a war to another as it suits, and we've killed a lot of people over there.

If you ask me they are almost obliterated. I mean, take a look at the context clues. Only kill 44 people on election day, using platic GI Joes for extortion, increased civillian attacks.

I think I agree with you there. Although this by no means means that terrorism is over. I think if we go and invade another country after Iraq, which looks quite possible, we're gonna have another massive influx of anti-westerners fighting us off, and perhaps moving the battle back to our own soil. We need to start talking to them about what they want, not just labelling them as evil, shooting them, and walking off.

Another thing that motivates these terrorists is their hatred for the Jewish people in Israel. They are so upset over the 6 days war that they can't handle it.

I don't know a great deal about Israel, but yes, some members of terrorist organisations do hate them. Again, so far as I know there is reason, albeit it wrapped in goddam religion :frown:

They are motivated by their hatred for the west and their hatred for jews. What else is it?

Little else. But that hatred is because of actions in the past and present, they have good reasons to doubt our intentions, and good reason to hate us. When you invade a country you've f**ked about with time and time again its no wonder if you get a large enemy presence.

 

[Zorrander001]

It doesn't really matter why they do it, they are criminals and murderers. The must be stopped.

 

[burner69]

It doesn't really matter why they do it, they are criminals and murderers. The must be stopped.

Well we've killed more innocents than they have, but because we know our motives we aren't labelled murderers.

Does it occur to you that it really DOES matter why they do it? Because it's not like we're gonna stamp out terrorism in a hurry, so rather than trying to kill them all to stop them, why not try and understand what they want, and do things diplomatically.

 

[Zorrander001]

Well we've killed more innocents than they have, but because we know our motives we aren't labelled murderers.

They couldn't be saved. Saddam created the situation that civies were going to die, either by him or by someone making war in order to ouste him. It's regrettable that civies had to die, but we didn't create the situation.

Does it occur to you that it really DOES matter why they do it? Because it's not like we're gonna stamp out terrorism in a hurry, so rather than trying to kill them all to stop them, why not try and understand what they want, and do things diplomatically.

You do not conduct diplomacy with criminals. Do you have any idea how radical the idea is that you are putting forth. What do you suggest we do to appease them, entertaining the notion for a moment that appeasing murderers and lagitimizing their crimes is a viable course of action. This is truly sickening.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Well we've killed more innocents than they have, but because we know our motives we aren't labelled murderers.

Does it occur to you that it really DOES matter why they do it? Because it's not like we're gonna stamp out terrorism in a hurry, so rather than trying to kill them all to stop them, why not try and understand what they want, and do things diplomatically.

yes but theres a difference.. the terrorists kill innocents on Purpose, when the civilians being killed by americans are being used as shields by the terrorists. :/.

the terrorists are smart, and they know what will force hate against america. they know how to "play" the media. as the media are mostly on thier side. :cheers:

 

[Bodacious]

Well we've killed more innocents than they have, but because we know our motives we aren't labelled murderers.

Does it occur to you that it really DOES matter why they do it? Because it's not like we're gonna stamp out terrorism in a hurry, so rather than trying to kill them all to stop them, why not try and understand what they want, and do things diplomatically.

But they want to exterminate the jewish race. Are you saying we should let them annihilate israel?

 

[CptStern]

ah but you made a fringe radical group into a mainstream worldwide organisation ...iraq is one huge terrorist recruiting camp ...seriously I really think you've made the biggest blunder in american history by strolling into iraq ..one that will have reprecussions for americans for generations to come