Mephisto2

I think this thread has a lot of potential. And I think it's a very good question.

I don't think there is any easy answer to this. As I've said in the past, one man's terrorist is another man's insurgent (or rebel).

Let's look at some historical examples. In Ireland's War of Independence, the (Official) IRA fought against the British occupation and rule of the island of Ireland. Therefore, in one way, they could be called insurgents or rebels. But they also used tactics that could be called terrorism; selective assassination, bombs, intimidation etc. So which were they? Terrorists or insurgents? You could say both, but most people now agree that they were the latter.

Consider South Africa. Were the ANC terrorists or rebels? Again, the answer is that they were both.

I believe it is history that decides.

Another way of looking at this is asking yourself a different question. Would these attacks cease if America left Iraq? Or would the terrorists/insurgents carry on their fight and continue attacking America? I believe the majority of attacks would cease. That is not to say that amongst their number there are a small number of people who are more interested in attacking America than in freeing Iraq. I think there are.

So the nearest I can come to an answer is

Yes, most of them are insurgents or rebels. Some of their tactics can be described as terrorism, but that's the nature of the game. However, amongst them there are undoubtedly some "hard-core" terrorists, members of Al Queda or associated groups, that would and will continue to target America regardless of the occupation.


Mr Mephisto