Hey Salam and Aldebaran, I can only assume that your earlier lives have been lacking in worldly sophistication. Shoot, fellows, don’t you know that if it wasn’t for the constraints of the antiquated social system that you enjoyed, you might even be smarter than me. Maybe smarter.
Maybe.
Usually I just spy on topics on the SDMB, but for the first time this particular thread made me feel the need to put my two cents in.
To everyone who claims these people are terrorists, remember that not 250 years ago, a bunch of terrorists tarred and feathered British tax collectors, raided ships carrying tea, and organized an entire revolution based on not liking a foreign occupying power. Their Osama Bin Laden was Thomas Jefferson, who gave them the ideas to die for. Their Saddam Hussein was George Washington, who realized a war could not be fought and won against the British using the current rules of war at the time.
Not all of America was behind the revolution. In fact, only about a third of people wanted independance. Another third actually favored British rule, and another third did’t really care either way. I would say that in Iraq, far less than a third of the people like the Baath party.
And just because we are helping them get rid of the former oppressive regieme, don’t think they will feel indebted to us. We certainly didn’t like the British, even though they helped us in the French and Indian War. In fact, we hated them because they rolled the cost over onto the colonies. You think the Iraqis are going the all get low taxes and free handouts from the US?
I’ll believe it when I see it…
I see little difference between what Iraqi resistance is doing now and what the French resistance did some 60 years ago. Both were fighting an occupying force through guerilla tactics, ambush, and sabotauge of both military and economic/infrastructure targets. It seems two-faced and self-serving to make the only differences between “legitimate resistance” and “terrorist attacks” be that of wether they’re fighting against the good guys or the bad guys.
Or would you call the French resistance of the early 40s “terrorists” as well?
Hmm…if folk here can make comparisons but can’t make distinctions then why are we talking.
What distinctions would you like to make Milum ?
If you were answering Phoenix Dragon 's point then it seems to be in agreement with your earlier point that “terrorists” and “freedom fighters” should be defined by their actions, not who they are.
I would have to go with the distinctions already made by Dissonance.
All three groups can use tactics that are terrorist and/or guerilla, what you call them depends on whether you see the US invasion and occupation as good or bad.
Another distinction, I haven’t seen made clear yet…
Despite Bush’s “ I now declare the war over.”, as far as Saddam is concerned the war is still on and these are the troops he is fighting it with…
If these people are indeed what is often called ‘remnants of Saddam’s regime’, that just means they are loyalist troops. There hasn’t been a peace treaty or official surrender, therefore they can’t really be called illegitimate. They would be official troops still fighting for their government, using guerilla tactics.
Seen that way, of the three terms ‘terrorists’ seems the least appropriate.
Actually, Latro, he never quitesaid that.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” is the exact quote. Rather different and pretty accurate. If what you said is what was reported in the Dutch press, it must have been very confusing. And oh yeah, some translator didn’t earn his money.
Ah, you are right, I see.
That was however the impression.