terrorists or insurgents - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jazzbone · 10-31-2004, 09:55 AM

Those people we are waxing in places like Fallujah and whatnot... Are they terrorists or insurgents?
Is an insurgent, a terrorist?
They never say "we killed 37 terrorists" anymore, it's always "37 insurgents" now...

Are we killing these insurgents because the will grow to be terrorists?

Is it revenge we're still after? For 9/11? In Fallujah?

George says they hate us because they hate freedom and are evildoers...

Yet he's "determined and consistent" in force-feeding them a democratic government so they will be happy and love freedom and we can THEN go home right?

It's sad but I can see how "dubya" can drive people nuts enough to want to inserge... even here in the U.S.

I heard some woman on the radio saying the only reason she's voting for bush is because he's protecting her and her kids and keeping them safe...
Are people really that daft...?

I wonder if some foreign government came to her town in Texas and killed her 6 year old son with a missile... would she inserge?

I'm so proud...

What will happen to terror if dubz wins... Will it be stamped out? doomed?

When we win the war on terror, will terror be gone?

I suppose I'll find out Tuesday eh? LOL...

D Rice · 10-31-2004, 10:03 AM

the population of iraq is roughly 22 million. I believe i heard the number of terrorists or insurgents (i'm confused to) they estimate to be around 19,000. I have also heard the number of insurgents or terrorists in Iraq that are foreigners (Al-Quaida from Africa) is close to 15,000. I am not 100% sure on the facts but if this is the case then what bush is saying (we are fighting terrorism abroad) is true. Maybe the people of Iraq wanted thier freedom from Saddam. It looked that way when we first "liberated" them. They were tearing down statues, waving American flags, hugging soilders. I guess it took the people who hate America a few months to get there. Just a thought.

D Rice · 10-31-2004, 10:04 AM

Does anyone know where you can find estimates of the numbers of terrorists in Iraq and how many they suspect are not from Iraq?

Willravel · 10-31-2004, 10:33 AM

Saying we're in a war on terror is like Hitler saying he was having a war on ignorance. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT, WILLRAVEL? Well, let me clue you guys in. You cannot declair war on an ideal. It's obvious that terror is not a country. Terror isn't even a select group of people. Terror, just like evil, happieness, and a splean, is inside of all of us. We all have to capacity to carry out 'evil' acts that would be considered terrorism.

That being said, how can our President declair 'war on terror'? Simple, Watson. The powers that be know that 9/11 scared the pants and security off of a lot of voting Americans. They know that an American will vote with someone who they think share their ideals. So what do they do? They oversimplify a very serious situation and slap it on MSNBC for all of the Survivor watching, SUV driving Americans to take a gander at. Thye see war on terror and think, "Hmmm. That sounds like a war on the terrorists that actually effected my life back in 2001. Yes! Let's have a war on terror!". All along the powers that be use this simple tool to tweak and turn the rights of Americans, and push their own agenda. What agenda is that? If you don't know the answer to this question by now, you need to go back under your rock and wait for the apocolipse because nothing short of God can help you.

Does anyone remember everything from after WWII to the late 80s? Remember when we tried to force feed 'democracy' to anyone and everyone? Guess what, Mumar, we're still doing it. We (and by 'we', I of course mean the dubius asshats who call themselves politicans) think that democracy is the only way to civilize the world. They hold democracy the same way they hold God; and all fixing, supernatural force that can make everyone happy and la de dah. Of course anyone who knows their ass from their elbow knows that democracy is just as likely to work as socialism, communism, imperialism, or burgerkingism. It's a matter of eliminating the self serving part of human nature that determines how well a country works.

Now this Gomer Pyle hand puppet of a preident wants us to know we're going after the 'insurgents'. By the by, insurgent simply means rebel. Yes, I suppose these people could be called rebels. They are rebeling against the U.S. interfering (bombing, destroying, controling) with their countries. They are tired of DYING. Those 'evildoers' (does Bush remind anyone else of Adam West as Batman?) are sick and tired of dying. So what can they do? Terrorism! The one and only defence against our pummeling of their homes is to strike back with whatever they can get their hands on. Now, I am very sorrry that 3000 innocent people had to pay for our governments sins. They didn't deserve to die. Just like Iraqi and Palistininan children don't deserve to die. THEY DON'T HATE FREEDOM. Understand? These terrorists do not hate freedom. That is more simplistic b.s. They simply want their children to grow up alive.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

host · 10-31-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D Rice

the population of iraq is roughly 22 million. I believe i heard the number of terrorists or insurgents (i'm confused to) they estimate to be around 19,000. I have also heard the number of insurgents or terrorists in Iraq that are foreigners (Al-Quaida from Africa) is close to 15,000. I am not 100% sure on the facts but if this is the case then what bush is saying (we are fighting terrorism abroad) is true. Maybe the people of Iraq wanted thier freedom from Saddam. It looked that way when we first "liberated" them. They were tearing down statues, waving American flags, hugging soilders. I guess it took the people who hate America a few months to get there. Just a thought.

My research results influence me to suspect that we are fighting predominantly
the hornets from the nest that Bush chose to disturb. Bush launched a "war on
terror", attacked a country where he determined that the perpetrators of the
9-11 attack were receiving sanctuary and support, and then, after an unsuccessful hunt for these ringleaders, Bush chose to shift a signifigant portion of our military forces to an elective invasion of a country unrelated to
the 9-11 attack that represented no signifigant threat to it's neighbors or
to us, using multiply inaccurate pretenses to garner the support of the U.S.
press and a majority of Americans. This invasion led to the destabalization of
Iraq and the necessity of Bush keeping a force of nearly one quarter of our
active military personnel on the ground in Iraq to contain the destabilization
from spreading to the rest of the region and endangering the security of
much of the world's oil supply. Bush must distract from his earlier misleading
statements used to justify Iraq's invasion, and the fact that it was unnecessary, costly in terms of U.S. casualties and cash, and has destablized
a country that had been shrewdly marginalized by the policies of the 2 past
presidents' administrations, by deceptively creating an impression that we
are "fighting terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here", when our
troops are in reality fighting an enemy that is made up of Iraqis who are
only resisting in response to Bush's unnecessary invasion, while those who
Bush identified as the ringleaders of the 9-11 remain at large. Bush had
disguised his failure by not mentioning Osama Bin Laden for the last 2 years,
and by feigning ignorance when he contradicted Kerry in a debate when
Kerry pointed out that Bush went from vowing to kill or capture Bin laden in
late 2001, to telling the press that he did not think about Bin Laden and
that capturing him was not that important, just 6 months later, in spring, 2002. Bush must continue to falsely maintain that Iraq is a place to lure
foreign terrorist to, rather than run the higher risk of having to engage them
here in the U.S., or even his base of support will at some point awake to his
deceptive tactics intended to distract them from his colossal mistakes in Iraq.

Quote:

Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, U.S. Military Says

Tue Sep 28, 7:55 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq (news - web sites) to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military's own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.

In a U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke of foreign insurgents "flooding" his country, and both President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), have cited these fighters as a major security problem.

But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

Foreign militants such as Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi are believed responsible for carrying out videotaped beheadings, suicide car bombings and other high-profile attacks. But U.S. military officials said Iraqi officials tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq to obscure the fact that large numbers of their countrymen have taken up arms against U.S. troops and the American-backed interim Iraqi government.

"They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don't think so," said a senior military official in Baghdad. "What's the main threat? It's internal."

In interviews during his U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke ominously of foreign jihadists "coming in the hundreds to Iraq." In one interview, he estimated that foreign fighters constituted 30% of insurgent forces.

Allawi's comments echoed a theme in Bush's recent campaign speeches: that foreign fighters streaming into the country are proof that the war in Iraq is inextricably linked to the global war on terrorism.

Kerry has made a similar case, with a different emphasis. In remarks on the stump last week, he said that the "terrorists pouring across the border" were proof that the Bush administration had turned Iraq into a magnet for foreign fighters hoping to kill Americans.

Yet top military officers challenge all these statements. In a TV interview Sunday, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, estimated that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was below 1,000.

"While the foreign fighters in Iraq are definitely a problem that have to be dealt with, I still think that the primary problem that we're dealing with is former regime elements of the ex-Baath Party that are fighting against the government and trying to do anything possible to upend the election process," he said. Iraqi elections are scheduled for January.

U.S. officials acknowledge that Iraq's porous border — especially its boundary with Syria — allows arms and money to be smuggled in with relative ease. But they say the traffic from Syria is largely Iraqi Baathists who escaped after the U.S.-led invasion and couriers bringing in money from former members of Hussein's government.

At the behest of the interim government, U.S. forces last month cracked down on traffic along the 375-mile Syrian border. During Operation Phantom Linebacker, U.S. troops picked up small numbers of foreign fighters attempting to cross into Iraq, officials say.

Yet the bulk of the traffic they detected was the kind that has existed for hundreds of years: smugglers and Syrian tribesmen with close ties to sheiks on Iraq's side of the border.

Top military officers said there was little evidence that the dynamics in Iraq were similar to those in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in the 1980s, when thousands of Arabs waged war alongside Afghans to drive out the Soviet Union.

Instead, U.S. military officials said the core of the insurgency in Iraq was — and always had been — Hussein's fiercest loyalists, who melted into Iraq's urban landscape when the war began in March 2003. During the succeeding months, they say, the insurgents' ranks have been bolstered by Iraqis who grew disillusioned with the U.S. failure to deliver basic services, jobs and reconstruction projects.

It is this expanding group, they say, that has given the insurgency its deadly power and which represents the biggest challenge to an Iraqi government trying to establish legitimacy countrywide.

"People try to turn this into the mujahedin, jihad war. It's not that," said one U.S. intelligence official. "How many foreign fighters have been captured and processed? Very few." <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays</a>

Quote:

Most Fallujah insurgents are Iraqis: US
Apr 26 07:50
AFP

Most insurgents battling the US-led coalition in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners, according to a US marine intelligence officer at the forefront of the battle to control the hottest part of the Sunni triangle.

"The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are local and not foreign fighters," said Captain Ben Connable, the intelligence deputy for the US 1st Marine Division, in charge of the western al-Anbar province.

Al-Anbar, a scorched desert province of more than 1 million people, encompasses the flashpoint town of Fallujah which has been under a US marine siege for three weeks.

It boasts a high concentration of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's military and intelligence service veterans. Its long borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia serve as gateways for foreign fighters.

A burgeoning population of criminals dabbles in weapons-running, drug trafficking and car smuggling in a province notorious for smuggling, Connable said.

But all three groups collaborate and wrap themselves in the cloak of mujahideen or Islamic holy warriors, he added.

"There are very few actual mujahideen and jihadists. There is a tendency to wrap yourself in a flag, so to speak, and use it as a cover for operations," Connable said.

The cells are usually run by a military or intelligence veteran, with access to funding from abroad, including neighbouring Syria, he added. "The former regime elements have connections with other countries."

A cadre of professional fighters led by Jordanian-born Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the alleged mastermind of al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, work alongside the Iraqis, the US intelligence officer said.

But most foreign fighters are thought to be raw recruits with nothing more to offer than zeal and a willingness to die. "They're cannon fodder," he added.

Marine officers have speculated that the combatants firmly ensconced in besieged Fallujah are now only foot soldiers, both foreign and Iraqi, while the masterminds of the insurgency have skipped town.

The Zarqawi network often recruits the disaffected unemployed youths in Anbar with the promise of jihad (holy war).

"What they try to do is get local and disaffected youth and pound their heads with jihad. They are roving the street (looking) for your classic 16- to 24-year-old," the intelligence officer said.

"They themselves rarely get shot or killed. They take these kids and run them out into firefights. It's a cynical approach," said Colonel Buck Connor of the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, in charge of the Anbar town of Ramadi.

Zarqawi also can smuggle in fighters, weapons and cash to the various constituencies in the ramshackle insurgency, Connor said.

"What we are seeing is a melding of former regime elements, Ba'athists, Fedayeen, and crime syndicates," he said.

"Zarqawi uses these groups. He arranges money for heavy weaponry, smuggles people. He arranges financing... It's more like a loose spider web."

Criminals, many of them freed under a general amnesty by Saddam in October 2002, sometimes encompass the bulk of a cell. The running of drugs, weapons and other smuggling also help finance attacks, according to Connable.

He believes the unskilled foreigner with a zeal for 'holy war', combined with Iraqi criminals, are the greatest short-term threat in Iraq, while the former Saddam security professionals pose a danger in the long-run.

But he said some elements of Saddam's security services could still be redeemed.

US overseer Paul Bremer announced plans last week to recruit former high-ranking military officers for Iraq's security services.

Still, the insurgency defies categorisation.

Cells vary in size and multiply, with old structures dying off and rapidly giving birth to new ones.

"The guy is an insurgent one day and the next he is not," Connor said.

US military officials are confident they will eventually drain out the insurgency, but know that even a victory in Fallujah won't spell the end of violence.

"There are no overnight solutions," Connor said.

But for many Iraqis, Fallujah has become a symbol of the insurgency directed against the US-led coalition since the start of the occupation a year ago.

"The Americans are deluding themselves if they think they can subdue Iraqis by force or through bribery. When an Iraqi is humiliated, he rebels," said Mohammad Hamadani, a Sunni nationalist from Fallujah. <a href="http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/26/1082831466486.html">http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/26/1082831466486.html</a>

powerclown · 10-31-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazzbone

Those people we are waxing in places like Fallujah and whatnot... Are they terrorists or insurgents?
Is an insurgent, a terrorist?

I'd like to answer this with an illustration if I could.

*The individual on the left is the "INSURGENT"

*The individual on the right is the "TERRORIST"

The difference is clear and unmistakable. What distinguishes between the 2 is the chosen footwear which is unique to either faction.

INSURGENTS are known to be lazy slackers, much accustomed to leisure. They prefer a more comfortable, less restrictive and airy sandal-type footwear. The priority is COMFORT.

TERRORISTS are known for their cunning, ruthlessness, and work ethic. They prefer a complete footcare solution, and therefore choose a full coverage boot to help them navigate in whatever conditions might arise.

SLM3 · 10-31-2004, 11:12 AM

The Iraqis I know who have been back since the war started have all told me that the majority of the resistance is stemming from the people themselves. Not "terrorists" or "insurgents" or any other buzzword. They fought the British and they'll fight the Americans. Dictatorships led by the minority Sunnis have been a long, sad story created by the West so please excuse them if they don't take Bush at his word.

SLM3

host · 10-31-2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D Rice

the population of iraq is roughly 22 million. I believe i heard the number of terrorists or insurgents (i'm confused to) they estimate to be around 19,000. I have also heard the number of insurgents or terrorists in Iraq that are foreigners (Al-Quaida from Africa) is close to 15,000. I am not 100% sure on the facts but if this is the case then what bush is saying (we are fighting terrorism abroad) is true. Maybe the people of Iraq wanted thier freedom from Saddam. It looked that way when we first "liberated" them. They were tearing down statues, waving American flags, hugging soilders. I guess it took the people who hate America a few months to get there. Just a thought.

With the numerous and still growing volumes of evidence convincingly
demonstrating the misleading nature of the Bush administration as to the
justification for invading Iraq, and the staged toppling of the Baghdad
statue of Saddam. and the staged "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, do you
regularly search resources such as google news to learn the details of the
Iraq war, or do you depend on more narrow sources, such as Fox News or
the Washington Times to base your conclusions on?

Quote:

<a href="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:AIpTZfz1hCoJ:www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~1511~2458510,00.html+&hl=en&start=1">How Bush turned into another Nixon</a>
.....Bush could recoup by Nov. 2 for all manner of reasons, including his showing in the subsequent debates, both yet to come as I write. John F. Kerry is no John F. Kennedy. But the liberal blog Daily Kos had the big picture right: On Sept. 30, "months of meticulous image manipulation" by the Bush-Cheney forces went "down the toilet in 90 minutes."

That's a shocking development because, until recently, that manipulation had been meticulous and then some. The administration has been brilliant at concocting camera-ready video narratives that flatter if not outright fictionalize its actions: "Saving Jessica Lynch," "Shock and Awe," the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue (a sparsely populated, unspontaneous event, when seen in the documentary "Control Room"), "Mission Accomplished."

Bush has been posed by his imagineers to appear to be the fifth head on Mount Rushmore; he has kept the coffins of the American war dead off-screen; he has been seen in shirtsleeves at faux-folksy Town Hall meetings that, until his second debate with Kerry, were so firmly policed in content and attendees that they would make a Skull and Bones soiree look like a paragon of democracy in action.

Time reported last spring that even the Department of Homeland Security was told to take a break from its appointed tasks to round up one terrorism-fighting photo op a month for the president.

To enforce the triumphalist narrative of these cinematic efforts, the Bush team had to cut out any skeptical press, or, as Bush once put it, "go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people" (as long as they're pre-selected).

Quote:

<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm">Eyewitness Report: The Toppling Of Saddam Statue: Video & Text</a>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html">http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html</a>
I-Team: Toppling of Saddam's Statue Staged?
Thursday July 22, 2004 4:32pm Reporter: Andrea McCarren
.....THE I-TEAM OBTAINED AN INTERNAL ARMY REVIEW WHICH DETAILS THE TOPPLING OF THE STATUE.

IT REVEALS THAT A PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS UNIT ON THE SCENE PLAYED A KEY ROLE.

Story:

A PIVOTAL MOMENT IN THE WAR WITH IRAQ - THE STATUE OF SADDAM BROUGHT TO THE GROUND IN BAGHDAD'S AL-FIRDOS SQUARE. THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CITIZENS REJOICING IN A SPONTANEOUS CELEBRATION. OR WAS IT SOMETHING ELSE?

Professor Christopher Simpson, American University: "This particular event was more of what you might call a propaganda event. It was a publicity, a photo-op if you will."

IN FACT, THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THE I-TEAM INDICATES THAT AN ARMY PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS TEAM ORCHESTRATED MUCH OF WHAT TRANSPIRED.....

hammer4all · 10-31-2004, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'd like to answer this with an illustration if I could.

*The individual on the left is the "INSURGENT"

*The individual on the right is the "TERRORIST"

The difference is clear and unmistakable. What distinguishes between the 2 is the chosen footwear which is unique to either faction.

INSURGENTS are known to be lazy slackers, much accustomed to leisure. They prefer a more comfortable, less restrictive and airy sandal-type footwear. The priority is COMFORT.

TERRORISTS are known for their cunning, ruthlessness, and work ethic. They prefer a complete footcare solution, and therefore choose a full coverage boot to help them navigate in whatever conditions might arise.

Nice.

quicksteal · 10-31-2004, 03:26 PM

I think an "insurgent" is a member of an army-type group that is fighting the coalition forces. A "terrorist" is someone who attacks civilians. Naturally, these two activities would require different footwear. Is that a good distinction?

I haven't polled the Iraqis myself, but if I were in their position, I would be quite glad that Saddam is gone. I also would hold no trust in the American government, and the "we come as liberators" theme. Iraqis have heard this before, and it did not turn out well for them. So, the quicker we can get Iraqi troops trained and an initial government in place, the better. Remember that the first US government was crappy (Articles of Confederation), and we had to make a new one. So we just need them to be on their own. UN support would be nice too, at least them saying that what we're doing is acceptable.

molloby · 10-31-2004, 03:58 PM

Well I guess it would make them insurgents then, considering that they are not attacking civilians, they are attacking the Coalition, the Iraqi army, the police force, diplomats and foreign contractors. I.e. people who are all there doing what they are doing to support/profit from the administration.

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molloby

Well I guess it would make them insurgents then, considering that they are not attacking civilians, they are attacking the Coalition, the Iraqi army, the police force, diplomats and foreign contractors. I.e. people who are all there doing what they are doing to support/profit from the administration.

Which news are you listening too?

nofnway · 10-31-2004, 05:37 PM

The use of the term insurgents strikes me as a euphamism for terrorists. Most of the "insurgents" are foreign islamic militants.

Its like calling herpes cold sores.

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 06:41 PM

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

Unright · 10-31-2004, 08:44 PM

I seem to vaguely remember there was a similar problem when Reagan was in office. Many considered Reagan a hypocrite because he labeled Iranian as "Terrorists", but labels Nicuaraguans <sp?> as "Freedom Fighters'.

To me, they are terrorists when they are attacking a foreign target on foreign soil. If they are attacking a foreign target on their own soil, then their insurgents.

smicer · 10-31-2004, 10:48 PM

Let me give you all some insight. My mother in law just returned from Iran. According to her the Iranian and Syrian governments are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for the U.S. in Iraq. Whether it be monetary support, strategical support or footsoldiers(insurgents/terrorists).

Mephisto2 · 10-31-2004, 11:09 PM

How is that insightful?

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 10-31-2004, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

Let me give you all some insight. My mother in law just returned from Iran. According to her the Iranian and Syrian governments are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for the U.S. in Iraq. Whether it be monetary support, strategical support or footsoldiers(insurgents/terrorists).

I'm very glad your mother in law knows so much about Iran. So Iranian and Syrian soldiers (official military) are engaging US soldiers? I'm glad we have your insight.

smicer · 11-01-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm very glad your mother in law knows so much about Iran. So Iranian and Syrian soldiers (official military) are engaging US soldiers? I'm glad we have your insight.

I don't understand the need for the sarcasm. I hope she knows about Iran after all she was born and raised there.

Snide comments such as yours are the reason I shy away from posting on message boards. Back to my anonymous lurking I go.

Boo · 11-01-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

Let me give you all some insight. My mother in law just returned from Iran. According to her the Iranian and Syrian governments are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for the U.S. in Iraq. Whether it be monetary support, strategical support or footsoldiers(insurgents/terrorists).

I really hope this is not so. Fighting a 3 nation war would just... well suck ass. Think of the trouble getting support from our allies. I wonder what our current president or future president would do with this lil' tidbit of info (actually, I would HOPE that we would already know this from our intelligence).

WWCD. What would China do?
WWNKD. What would North Korea do?

Please, please, no film at 11 or ever!

Willravel · 11-01-2004, 09:12 AM

Who said I was being sarcastic? Reread it without the sarcastic voice in your head. It was actually sincere. I didn't know about Iranian soldiers were so directly involved in the second gulf war (thanks again CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. for covering it (<---sarcasm)).

irateplatypus · 11-01-2004, 09:57 AM

the question isn't terrorists or insurgents (like there are either 1 or 0 bits)... i don't think it's an either/or situation.

i think of it like a broader category labeled insurgents with a subset of all insurgents being terrorists. you can be both an insurgent and a terrorist though i'm not sure you can be a terrorist and not an insurgent.

additionally, to me it seems like insurgency implies a particular blend of circumstance/purpose while terrorism seems to imply a methodology.

insurgent as its used in the media these days seems to be a euphemism used for political correctness... not because they believe it fits best in every circumstance it is used in.

powerclown · 11-01-2004, 10:01 AM

How Timely!

Here we have a real-world example of a TERRORIST in action, just today!

Police: 3 dead in Tel Aviv suicide bombing

This particular individual strapped bombs to his own body and blew himself up!

Or possibly somebody else strapped on the bombs for him. Nevertheless.
Now, no one said a TERRORIST was smart, but they are cunning and ruthless. And they WILL die with their boots on, too. Didn't even have the common decency to behave like a normal psychopath and do something rational like, oh, say, unload an automatic rifle into a crowd of people. Probably would have killed more people that way, too.

Just no respect for anything; even for the Art of Murder!

flstf · 11-01-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

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.

I think the terrorists are convinced they are on a mission from Allah and the attacks here would/will continue as long as we have a presence in the middle east, especially our support of Israel. I don't think our being in Iraq makes that much difference to them, just piss them off more than they already are.

The insurgent/terrorist argument can also apply to our Revolutionary War citizen soldiers.

I think that once we leave, the Iraqis may vote themselves an Islamic government run by the Mullahs. Not sure how good this is for us in the long run but I guess they will be free to do so.

D Rice · 11-01-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My research results influence me to suspect that we are fighting predominantly
the hornets from the nest that Bush chose to disturb. Bush launched a "war on
terror", attacked a country where he determined that the perpetrators of the
9-11 attack were receiving sanctuary and support, and then, after an unsuccessful hunt for these ringleaders, Bush chose to shift a signifigant portion of our military forces to an elective invasion of a country unrelated to
the 9-11 attack that represented no signifigant threat to it's neighbors or
to us, using multiply inaccurate pretenses to garner the support of the U.S.
press and a majority of Americans. This invasion led to the destabalization of
Iraq and the necessity of Bush keeping a force of nearly one quarter of our
active military personnel on the ground in Iraq to contain the destabilization
from spreading to the rest of the region and endangering the security of
much of the world's oil supply. Bush must distract from his earlier misleading
statements used to justify Iraq's invasion, and the fact that it was unnecessary, costly in terms of U.S. casualties and cash, and has destablized
a country that had been shrewdly marginalized by the policies of the 2 past
presidents' administrations, by deceptively creating an impression that we
are "fighting terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here", when our
troops are in reality fighting an enemy that is made up of Iraqis who are
only resisting in response to Bush's unnecessary invasion, while those who
Bush identified as the ringleaders of the 9-11 remain at large. Bush had
disguised his failure by not mentioning Osama Bin Laden for the last 2 years,
and by feigning ignorance when he contradicted Kerry in a debate when
Kerry pointed out that Bush went from vowing to kill or capture Bin laden in
late 2001, to telling the press that he did not think about Bin Laden and
that capturing him was not that important, just 6 months later, in spring, 2002. Bush must continue to falsely maintain that Iraq is a place to lure
foreign terrorist to, rather than run the higher risk of having to engage them
here in the U.S., or even his base of support will at some point awake to his
deceptive tactics intended to distract them from his colossal mistakes in Iraq.

Alright we all know the facts of what is going on in Iraq are confusing as hell. Example the weapons missing. I hear reports of Russians taking them, all weapons stolen by terroists, Americans securing the weapons...whatever. Anyways here is an article about Africans fighting the U.S. in Iraq:
Half of insurgents captured at Samara were Africans

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
BAGHDAD – The U.S. military has established that Al Qaida-aligned insurgents from North Africa have played a leading role in the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

Officials said about half of the insurgents captured in Samara last week were nationals from Arab states in North Africa. They said an initial interrogation has determined that the insurgents arrived from such countries as Egypt, Sudan and Tunisia.

About 150 insurgents were said to have been killed in the combination of air and ground strikes by U.S. units and Iraqi forces, Middle East Newsline reported.

U.S. officials said insurgents from such countries as Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Tunisia have been recruited for operations against the Multinational Force in Iraq. They said many of the insurgents were recruited by the Salafist Brigade for Combat and Call, based in Algeria and regarded as the leading subcontractor for Al Qaida.

The presence of North African insurgents was highlighted during the U.S. military operation to capture Samara, under the control of a coalition of Saddam Hussein supporters and Al Qaida-aligned agents since October 2003.

The insurgents were said to have been recruited by Salafist operatives in North Africa and transported to Iraq via Syria. Many of them then joined the Tawhid and Jihad group, headed by Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq. The recruits were provided with Iraqi government documents that listed their professions as everything from electricians to farmers.

Officials said resistance by Saddam and Al Qaida-aligned forces continues despite the capture of Samara. They said the military has not captured the heads of the insurgency.

The U.S. military and the Defense Department has assessed that the lion's share of insurgency attacks have been conducted by former members of Saddam's military and security forces. But they said the suicide bombings in Baghdad and cities in the Sunni Triangle have often included foreign volunteers.
http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_10_05.html

D Rice · 11-01-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

With the numerous and still growing volumes of evidence convincingly
demonstrating the misleading nature of the Bush administration as to the
justification for invading Iraq, and the staged toppling of the Baghdad
statue of Saddam. and the staged "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, do you
regularly search resources such as google news to learn the details of the
Iraq war, or do you depend on more narrow sources, such as Fox News or
the Washington Times to base your conclusions on?

The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch? Yes i do try to get a broader view on events in the news This is where i got the information on the African insurgents: http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_10_05.html

D Rice · 11-06-2004, 02:06 PM

once again more information about how the insurgents or terrorists are not all from Iraq
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041106/D866D46O1.html
read half way down when they report there are only about 1200 hardcore insurgents only have of which are Iraquies

10-31-2004, 09:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
Jazzbone Upright Location: Earth	terrorists or insurgents Those people we are waxing in places like Fallujah and whatnot... Are they terrorists or insurgents? Is an insurgent, a terrorist? They never say "we killed 37 terrorists" anymore, it's always "37 insurgents" now... Are we killing these insurgents because the will grow to be terrorists? Is it revenge we're still after? For 9/11? In Fallujah? George says they hate us because they hate freedom and are evildoers... Yet he's "determined and consistent" in force-feeding them a democratic government so they will be happy and love freedom and we can THEN go home right? It's sad but I can see how "dubya" can drive people nuts enough to want to inserge... even here in the U.S. I heard some woman on the radio saying the only reason she's voting for bush is because he's protecting her and her kids and keeping them safe... Are people really that daft...? I wonder if some foreign government came to her town in Texas and killed her 6 year old son with a missile... would she inserge? I'm so proud... What will happen to terror if dubz wins... Will it be stamped out? doomed? When we win the war on terror, will terror be gone? I suppose I'll find out Tuesday eh? LOL...

10-31-2004, 05:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	The use of the term insurgents strikes me as a euphamism for terrorists. Most of the "insurgents" are foreign islamic militants. Its like calling herpes cold sores. __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

10-31-2004, 06:41 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	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 Last edited by Mephisto2; 10-31-2004 at 06:52 PM..

11-01-2004, 09:57 AM	#22 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the question isn't terrorists or insurgents (like there are either 1 or 0 bits)... i don't think it's an either/or situation. i think of it like a broader category labeled insurgents with a subset of all insurgents being terrorists. you can be both an insurgent and a terrorist though i'm not sure you can be a terrorist and not an insurgent. additionally, to me it seems like insurgency implies a particular blend of circumstance/purpose while terrorism seems to imply a methodology. insurgent as its used in the media these days seems to be a euphemism used for political correctness... not because they believe it fits best in every circumstance it is used in. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-31-2004, 10:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	the population of iraq is roughly 22 million. I believe i heard the number of terrorists or insurgents (i'm confused to) they estimate to be around 19,000. I have also heard the number of insurgents or terrorists in Iraq that are foreigners (Al-Quaida from Africa) is close to 15,000. I am not 100% sure on the facts but if this is the case then what bush is saying (we are fighting terrorism abroad) is true. Maybe the people of Iraq wanted thier freedom from Saddam. It looked that way when we first "liberated" them. They were tearing down statues, waving American flags, hugging soilders. I guess it took the people who hate America a few months to get there. Just a thought.

10-31-2004, 10:04 AM	#3 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	Does anyone know where you can find estimates of the numbers of terrorists in Iraq and how many they suspect are not from Iraq?

10-31-2004, 10:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Saying we're in a war on terror is like Hitler saying he was having a war on ignorance. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT, WILLRAVEL? Well, let me clue you guys in. You cannot declair war on an ideal. It's obvious that terror is not a country. Terror isn't even a select group of people. Terror, just like evil, happieness, and a splean, is inside of all of us. We all have to capacity to carry out 'evil' acts that would be considered terrorism. That being said, how can our President declair 'war on terror'? Simple, Watson. The powers that be know that 9/11 scared the pants and security off of a lot of voting Americans. They know that an American will vote with someone who they think share their ideals. So what do they do? They oversimplify a very serious situation and slap it on MSNBC for all of the Survivor watching, SUV driving Americans to take a gander at. Thye see war on terror and think, "Hmmm. That sounds like a war on the terrorists that actually effected my life back in 2001. Yes! Let's have a war on terror!". All along the powers that be use this simple tool to tweak and turn the rights of Americans, and push their own agenda. What agenda is that? If you don't know the answer to this question by now, you need to go back under your rock and wait for the apocolipse because nothing short of God can help you. Does anyone remember everything from after WWII to the late 80s? Remember when we tried to force feed 'democracy' to anyone and everyone? Guess what, Mumar, we're still doing it. We (and by 'we', I of course mean the dubius asshats who call themselves politicans) think that democracy is the only way to civilize the world. They hold democracy the same way they hold God; and all fixing, supernatural force that can make everyone happy and la de dah. Of course anyone who knows their ass from their elbow knows that democracy is just as likely to work as socialism, communism, imperialism, or burgerkingism. It's a matter of eliminating the self serving part of human nature that determines how well a country works. Now this Gomer Pyle hand puppet of a preident wants us to know we're going after the 'insurgents'. By the by, insurgent simply means rebel. Yes, I suppose these people could be called rebels. They are rebeling against the U.S. interfering (bombing, destroying, controling) with their countries. They are tired of DYING. Those 'evildoers' (does Bush remind anyone else of Adam West as Batman?) are sick and tired of dying. So what can they do? Terrorism! The one and only defence against our pummeling of their homes is to strike back with whatever they can get their hands on. Now, I am very sorrry that 3000 innocent people had to pay for our governments sins. They didn't deserve to die. Just like Iraqi and Palistininan children don't deserve to die. THEY DON'T HATE FREEDOM. Understand? These terrorists do not hate freedom. That is more simplistic b.s. They simply want their children to grow up alive. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

10-31-2004, 11:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	The Iraqis I know who have been back since the war started have all told me that the majority of the resistance is stemming from the people themselves. Not "terrorists" or "insurgents" or any other buzzword. They fought the British and they'll fight the Americans. Dictatorships led by the minority Sunnis have been a long, sad story created by the West so please excuse them if they don't take Bush at his word. SLM3

10-31-2004, 03:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	I think an "insurgent" is a member of an army-type group that is fighting the coalition forces. A "terrorist" is someone who attacks civilians. Naturally, these two activities would require different footwear. Is that a good distinction? I haven't polled the Iraqis myself, but if I were in their position, I would be quite glad that Saddam is gone. I also would hold no trust in the American government, and the "we come as liberators" theme. Iraqis have heard this before, and it did not turn out well for them. So, the quicker we can get Iraqi troops trained and an initial government in place, the better. Remember that the first US government was crappy (Articles of Confederation), and we had to make a new one. So we just need them to be on their own. UN support would be nice too, at least them saying that what we're doing is acceptable.

10-31-2004, 03:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
molloby Tilted Location: Sydney, Australia	Well I guess it would make them insurgents then, considering that they are not attacking civilians, they are attacking the Coalition, the Iraqi army, the police force, diplomats and foreign contractors. I.e. people who are all there doing what they are doing to support/profit from the administration.

10-31-2004, 08:44 PM	#15 (permalink)
Unright Crazy Location: Florida	I seem to vaguely remember there was a similar problem when Reagan was in office. Many considered Reagan a hypocrite because he labeled Iranian as "Terrorists", but labels Nicuaraguans <sp?> as "Freedom Fighters'. To me, they are terrorists when they are attacking a foreign target on foreign soil. If they are attacking a foreign target on their own soil, then their insurgents.

10-31-2004, 10:48 PM	#16 (permalink)
smicer Tilted	Let me give you all some insight. My mother in law just returned from Iran. According to her the Iranian and Syrian governments are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for the U.S. in Iraq. Whether it be monetary support, strategical support or footsoldiers(insurgents/terrorists).

10-31-2004, 11:09 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	How is that insightful? Mr Mephisto

11-01-2004, 09:12 AM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Who said I was being sarcastic? Reread it without the sarcastic voice in your head. It was actually sincere. I didn't know about Iranian soldiers were so directly involved in the second gulf war (thanks again CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. for covering it (<---sarcasm)).

11-01-2004, 10:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	How Timely! Here we have a real-world example of a TERRORIST in action, just today! Police: 3 dead in Tel Aviv suicide bombing This particular individual strapped bombs to his own body and blew himself up! Or possibly somebody else strapped on the bombs for him. Nevertheless. Now, no one said a TERRORIST was smart, but they are cunning and ruthless. And they WILL die with their boots on, too. Didn't even have the common decency to behave like a normal psychopath and do something rational like, oh, say, unload an automatic rifle into a crowd of people. Probably would have killed more people that way, too. Just no respect for anything; even for the Art of Murder!

11-06-2004, 02:06 PM	#27 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	once again more information about how the insurgents or terrorists are not all from Iraq http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041106/D866D46O1.html read half way down when they report there are only about 1200 hardcore insurgents only have of which are Iraquies