A month ago when iraqi snipers and suicide boomers were killing, on average, one american solider a day. I called these cowardly murderers “terrorists”. A few others on Straightdope Great Debates call me to task for using the term “terrorists” and offered that they were “freedom fighters” protesting their country’s occupation by american forces. The debate…
Did freedom fighters blow up the UN headquarters?
Did freedom fighters blow up the oil pipeline to Turkey?
Did freedom fighters blow up the water main to Baghdag?
No. I’m not using this forum as a pulpit. I truely believe that there are those who visit this board who believe that such actions can be somehow excused and can be easily explained away as a iraqi form of self-defence.
Provided, of course, that they are not (as the adminisration certainly hopes they are not) simply large numbers of irate Iraqis who wanted neither Hussein nor Bush to run their country. (And if they are the remnants of the Ba’ath party, yet they are still able to garner the support of half the counmtry, or more, will they still be terrorists?)
Of course, there is certainly the possibility that these latest bombings (embassies and pipeline) are the work of terrorists. However, especially with the inclusion of the UN, it would seem much more likely that it would be the work of an Islamist group–say al Qaida–now that the U.S. has removed the Ba’ath party who were more successfully keeping al Qaida out of the country.
Since the U.S. has not made any serious effort to rebuild the country (putting the broadcast industry into U.S. hands, rigging the deck so that only U.S. (or their designated) companies can get the communications contracts, failing to seek U.N. support for reconstruction and setting up rules that will keep other countries from wanting to help, using combat troops as police officers (that worked so well at Kent State University in 1970)), we have now created the situation where Iraqis who truly did welcome the U.S. intervention are getting tired of their inability to feed their families or live in peace, so they are more likely to support–or even join–the terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever we choose to call them.
I was thinking something similarly today after hearing of the tragedy at the UN building. I was wondering if this might make some rething their position that UN troops in Iraq would attract as much enemy fire as US troops have received in the last few months.
However, since there was essentially no freedom in Iraq prior to the US invasion, calling the rebel soldiers “freedom fighters” is Orwellian at best. To the extent that the rebels fight directly against US troops, no, they are not terrorists. To the extent that they deliberately target civilians and the facilities of civilians (water, power, etc.), then they are terrorists.
It might help if we had definitions of “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” that we can all agree on. Since you brought the subject up, Milum, perhaps you can get us started.
On the one hand, “freedom fighters” is blatantly propagandistic; on the other hand, “terrorist” does not fit people who are carrying out armed attacks against soldiers and military targets. A reasonably neutral term for irregular forces carrying out raids and suprise attacks against U.S. troops would be “guerrilla fighters”. There is a thin line between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, since as we’re seeing guerrilla warfare will often involve acts of sabotage against economic targets or “infrastructure”, and many guerrilla movements have also crossed the line into outright terror attacks on civilians in an attempt to coerce non-support of the regime or occupation the guerrillas are fighting against.
terrorist: Non-state forces that one objects to and considers illegitimate for political reasons.
guerilla: Non-state forces that one may or may not object to, but admits to some degree of legitimacy, perhaps grudgingly.
freedom fighter: Non-state forces who one considers to be good guys for political reasons. The government they are fighting is illegitimate.
There’s nothing that prevents the same groups from sliding through the classifications over time. Witness, for example, the mujahideen in Afghanistan who went through all three classifications in the minds of the same people: Freedom fighters and guerillas against the USSR, later becoming terrorists once Afghanistan was over and they went overseas.
I would submit to you that the Saddam loyalists responsible for all attacks prior to the UN bombing can not be, in any stretch of technical definition be called freedom fighters.
First of all, they are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting to reclaim their former way of life which was oppressing the Iraqi people.
Second of all, they are delaying any progress being made by the Iraqi people to obtain freedom by blowing up essential resources and terrorizing them into inaction.
And third, they only wish to remove the US and British troops so that THEY can occupy the country. Their objection is not that Iraq should be free of all occupiers. Their objection is that theyre not the ones doing the occupying.
These are hardly the hallmarks of freedom fighting.
But still, given even these circumstances, they were not Terrorists. Their targets were military, their objective is to regain power. While their tactics unconventional, their goal was well defined.
UNTIL Today. Blowing up the UN headquarters which had objected to the invasion, who are there merely to feed and comfort the people of Iraq, who have no control over the actions of either the US or Britain, who potentially could be a powerful ally to the new Iraqi nation, is a wanton act of terrorism, pure and simple. Its only objective is to terrorize. There was no military gain, no strategic advantage, and absolutely no effect on diminishing the force and will of their enemy, the US. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now the UN will stand off any thoughts of supporting the legitimacy of Saddam loyalists. The US forces will step up its security on the most essential areas and have a good reason to increase their presence there.
When will these people learn that any act of terrorism now increases American resolve instead of diminishing it?
Why should the UN have any opinion regarding the Ba’ath Party before anyone knows who actually set off the bomb?
(The UN may bery well pull out, given that the best “nation building” team in the world was killed in the blast, but reactions to the Ba’ath Party or Hussein loyalists are premature until it is known that they were involved.)
The U.S. will step up its military presence, but there is no reason to belive that this administration has any clue as to how establish the resources to rebuild the country.
Resolve? Talk resolve when we have clearly won the people to our side or when we have taken our thousands of body bags and gone home. We certainly have not demonstrated any resolve in Afghanistan and we have not yet begun to see war-like casualty lists. I hope the U.S. does get its act together, and I hope we do not get involved in another multiple-year (multiple decade?) “pacification” process, but I see no reason to believe that this crew even understands what they need to do.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
I would submit to you that the Saddam loyalists responsible for all attacks prior to the UN bombing can not be, in any stretch of technical definition be called freedom fighters.
First of all, they are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting to reclaim their former way of life which was oppressing the Iraqi people.
[quote]
The Iraqi people seemed less opposed to being ruled by Saddam Hussein than to being ruled by the USA.
Some people believe freedom is worth more than material comfort. Do you think most Americans would welcome being occupied by an Iraqi army if that meant they would get a raise in salary? Wht makes you think the Iraqi people are so miserable that they would sell their freedom and their soul for a hot meal? The question, obviously, is rhetorical as the situation is worse now that it was with Saddam Hussein, in spite of the sanctions. I find it humorous that the USA says they can’t govern because the Iraqis are not cooperating. The Iraqis want the occupation forces to go home. that is pretty clear to me.
Well, that is what you say but, in any case, it is their country and it is for them to sort things out, not for the USA to impose their colonial rule. A large number of Americans felt that prsident Bush stole the election. How many Americans would have welcomed outside intervention? Zero. If Americans prefer to sort out their own matters why would Iraqis be any different?
[quote]
But still, given even these circumstances, they were not Terrorists. Their targets were military, their objective is to regain power. While their tactics unconventional, their goal was well defined.
UNTIL Today. Blowing up the UN headquarters which had objected to the invasion, who are there merely to feed and comfort the people of Iraq, who have no control over the actions of either the US or Britain, who potentially could be a powerful ally to the new Iraqi nation, is a wanton act of terrorism, pure and simple. Its only objective is to terrorize.
[quote]
It is a way of disrupting the functioning of the government of the country. nyone who collaborates with the administration imposed by the USA is a target. That is what they are saying and doing. they have not killed random civilians. they have killed people actively engaged in the support of the American-imposed government.
That is disputable. If the situation continues for months i believe the support by the American public will diminish. And no one has demonstrated they were “Saddam’s loyalists”. That is just spin and propaganda of the American government.
The primary difference between guerrilas & terrorists is their targets. I basicly agree with John Mace, as follows-
Guerrilas attack military & political targets. They want to weaken the Government so that it gives up. In general, those it attack are opposed to their agenda. They usually have some goal for the attack, like a military outpost which is in their area. Guns & rockets are used more often than bombs, as bombs are too indescriminate. To a large extent, guerrila attacks kill those 'who knew the job was dangerous when they took it" and are capable of fighting back.
Terrorists attack primarily civilian targets. They want to get publicity, and gain political recognition for their goals. Their victims can be actually sympathetic to their goals, but they don’t care. They just want terror & deaths. Bombs are very often used- CBR are also justified. To a large extent, terrorism kills innocent & helpless civilians, including women & children. The bombing of a schoolbus by Palestinians is a classic example.
“freedon fighters” is just a term for guerrilas on OUR side.
Some can be both- for instance, a IRA bombing of a police station can be said to have a para-military target, however, when the bomb is placed in the waiting room area, it is more terrorist, as it kills anyone who is there, not just policemen.
So far, most of the attacks in Iraq have been guerrila warfare. If care was taken that no “innocents” were killed by th eblast, even blowing up water mains could be considered “guerrila”. The bombing of the UN HQ would seem to be “terrorism”.
>> The bombing of the UN HQ would seem to be “terrorism”.
I can’t see how the UN personnel can be considered civilians. They are there cooperating with the American government. I am not saying it is the best chosen target but they are not local civilians going about their lives by any stretch of the imagination. They are working with a government which has been imposed by an occupying force.
And who would benefit from all this violence against Iraqi resources? The Shiites? The Turks? The Iraqi people themselves? These things being destroyed are not American possesions, they belong to the people of Iraq. The Saddam Loyalist have been proven to put their objectives above the welfare of the Iraqi people while they were in power, why should they act different now that they are struggling for survival.
If not the Ba’ath party or the Fedayin, who? Which group of civilians have the organization and rudimentary command and control to impliment sabotage? If these are just all random acts of violence then its a police matter, and as acting police, the US military will react accordingly until such time as Iraqi police will do that job. If its Al Qaeda, then they are certainly not acting for the benefit of the Iraqi people by contibuting to the insecurity of the Iraqi people. They only reason things are worse than when the Iraqi people were under Saddam is because there arent enuf Iraqis helping to make Iraq a better place. They are too busy looking out for themselves to help others, a survival instinct brought about by a cruel and ruthless regime.
Is coordinating the humanitarian aid to help feed the Iraqi people considered “helping the American govt”?
Is it really selling your soul to have a hot meal, to be given a chance to vote for your own candidate, be able to live normally without the threat of death by your own people, to have a job and be paid a decent salary, to not have your relatives or friends disappear mysteriously, to be forced to join one single party whether you like it or not under pain of imprisonment or death.
The anti-war people have a saying that is best applied to the Iraqi people now that the war is over.
Well keep in mind that half of the people on this board are college students and bored office workers who have never been near a terrorist bombing and who are eager to debate some tidbit they read in Newsweek or learned in Poli-Sci class that week. Most of these people have the luxary to twist everything into a semantic debate in order to support whatever political belief they have at the moment.
It is largely irrelevant if you call these people ‘guerillas’, ‘terrorists’, ‘freedom fighters’, ‘joy-joy fun warriors’ or whatever. These are people who are blowing up their own infrastructure in order to make a political statement. They don’t care about the Iraqi people otherwise they wouldn’t be blowing up Iraqi water lines. Where were these “freedom fighters” when Sadaam was gassing his own people and murdering Iraqis wholesale? Are these people going to rebuild the infrastructure they destroy if and when we decide to pull out of Iraq?
And what makes anyone think that a few nut-jobs bombers and snipers are representitive of the Iraqi people? It doesn’t take that many people to create a lot of trouble. I’m sure most Iraqis just want to get on with normal lives without Sadaam, American soldiers and foreign Islamic warriors on weekend jihad.
As I implied, earlier, al Qaida would love to simply disrupt anything involving the U.S. and, unlike the Ba’ath party and the Fedayeen, the U.S. has not been successful in keeping outside agitators out of the country.
If we are judging solely by “who benefits?” then al Qaida is far ahead of the Ba’athists (who might actually want someone like the U.N. to support them against U.S. actions).
I have seen no reputable claim that al Qaida has taken credit for the blackout, but you seem to want to hang this on the Ba’athists without any particular motive on their part, either.
