Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

I love how people who label them insurgents based on their methods of war are oblivious to our methods of war.

50 Cent -"(Our military doesn't) fight fair, (we're) dirty dirty" (originally I don't and I'm in parentheses).

Justifying the label of insurgent based on bombings, shootings, and murders of civilians is ludicrous. Especially when 1 ton bombs blow up civilians, us troops blast civilians with heaters, troops make Iraqi civilians jump in rivers as punishment, etc.

Did anyone miss the quote from the Pentagon - "We don't do body counts." Wait, then why do we keep a tally on dead us troops?

BTW, the reason Iraqis call them insurgents is the media. Just like we call or called the Black Panthers militants, even if we sympathized with them. It's the media spin on things.

Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject of physical harm and death, what about us torture? Trust me, Abu Ghraib is just the tip of the iceberg. Hell, on Boston Legal recently, the moral of the story was that torture is good, as long as we do it. See how the media twists things around so cleverly?

I'm sure that the freedom fighters commit atrocities, but hey, if someone was raping your mom and sister with large objects, I'm sure you'd cut off their head too.

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Iraqi civilians were the sole target at the recruiting station. How does that make them collateral damage?

In order to understand the mentality of the Iraqis you need to put yourself in their position. They see recruits as supporters of the Occupying US Military Force. Thus they are joining up to fight againt them. In thier mind they are untrained enemy targets.

Originally posted by eaglewingz
In the other incident, if the terrrorists waited until the convoy moved away, then attacked it, I could see your point. But no, they detonated the explosives in the crowd. 35 iraqi children were killed, and only 10 U.S. soldiers were even wounded.

Blowing up homemade bombs made under 3rd world conditions is not as precise as say laser guided bombs. Their targets were most like the US Military and the Water Treament Facility. They again were probably working off bad intelligence as to what the facility was and how it was going to be used. They are dead and can't of corse tell us. I'm would bet they had no idea the children would come to get candy from US Soldiers.

I may not agree with what is going on over there. But I would bet that if it was happeneing here, we'd all have similar incidents that we would not be proud of. But we'd continue to fight none the less.

Phae

lets again visit our english dictionary at www.dictionary.com...:

freedom fighter
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]


insurgent.
1.Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2.Rebelling against the leadership of a political party

1.a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent
2.one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]


so what is the MAN diffrence between these two?
apparently the main dffrence is as always the point of view.

if you look at the definition mentioned above, you can come to a conculsion that all freedom fighters are insurgents at the same time. since they are engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government, and members of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment.
so why do some poeple call them freedom fighters and others call the insurgents?
every insurgent is a freedom fighter for himself. he belives in his struggle and nobody can convince him otherwise.
and ofcourse they are terrorists for every man and woman that oppose to their struggle. so basicly we can put every label on them, since we can not really specify their true nature and their true intentions.
it is a very turbulant situation in iraq, and there is not just one group of people fighting against the current iraqi goverment and the u.s. forces protecting it. i belive there are many groups, and every group is special in their own way. that is why we cant label them with a simple tag.


here i have some questions for you:

russian invasion of afganistan:
were the fighting mujahedeen freedom fighters? insurgents? guerrilas? terrorists?

serbian invasion of kosovo:
were the fighting albanian forces freedom fighters? insurgents? guerrilas? terrorists?

german invasion of yugoslavia during ww2:
were the fighting partisans freedom fighters? insurgents? guerrilas? terrorists?

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Souljah]

as posted by Souljah
so what is the MAN diffrence between these two?
apparently the main dffrence is as always the point of view.

First off, I understand that your reply is on page three of this discussion. As such, did you happen to read the first two pages?

They are essentially the same. What separates the two is the methods and their goals, then they move from being insurgents and freedom fighters to terrorist.
This might be a good start in understanding this?
Defining Terrorism:
Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?


You see Souljah, the real question and clarification process here is not necessarily defining or clarifying insurgent from freedom fighter, but insurgent, freedom fighter, and/or guerilla from terrorist.




seekerof

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by SouljahYou see Souljah, the real question and clarification process here is not necessarily defining or clarifying insurgent from freedom fighter, but insurgent, freedom fighter, and/or guerilla from terrorist.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Terrorist vs. Guerilla Warfare

Here's the ATS thread for that Terrorist vs. Guerilla Warfare thingy...Frankly I'm all for Terrorism if that's what they label Guerilla Warfare these days. Check out the link. Here's an introductary quote:

First, I believe terrorism is an effectivev weapon against goverments and believe it to be a new label for what I call Guerilla Warfare. I believe a true Revolutionary Warrior must be trained and understand the tactics of Guerilla Warfare. In my thoughts I am labeled a terrorist for the way I would fight the goverment would utilize Guerilla Warfare.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by 00PS]

Originally posted by Seekerof
This might be a good start in understanding this?
Defining Terrorism:
Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?

great page.

You see Souljah, the real question and clarification process here is not necessarily defining or clarifying insurgent from freedom fighter, but insurgent, freedom fighter, and/or guerilla from terrorist.

ok, but that is a very hard job.
word "terrorism" was invented by the west; a very one-sided view.
what really separetes freedom fighters/insurgents/guerrilas from terrorists?
hard question.

I understand they are fighting an opposing government but they aren't fighting for FREEDOM!!!!! If we were to pull out of iraq would the iraq's then be free HELL NOOOO!!!!! so how exactly are they fighting for freedom. We should call them dictator fighters

people have to look at where the fighting is taking place. 90% of the country is peaceful except for the sunni triangle. this of course is where the media will focus its attention because that is where all the action is taking place. if 99.99% of the country was peaceful and 1 person committed a robbery there would be a breaking news headline on all the news networks. everyone knows that positive news like building schools, hospitals, pipelines, etc is not popular rating grabbing news.
it would be funny if a arab news agency started publishing all the murders, kidnappings, robberies, and other violent crimes that happen in the united states every day.

Eaglewingz, since a joint U.S.-Iraqi survey has determined that U.S. forces have killed 100,000 Iraqis (mostly civilians) since the onset of our invasion of Iraq; we've tortured and raped Iraqi women and children, and murdered Iraqi civilians we've held prisoner (in criminal violation of the Geneva Accords)...how can we call ourselves "liberators". To set the record straight, the children who were killed in those blasts were not targeted by the insurgents, U.S. troops or "collaborators" with the "invaders" were targeted. If Chinese "liberators" were in America and had arrested your grandmother and 15 year old sister (because you had served in the Alabama National Guard and they thought that you might be involved in the "insurgency") and "repeatedly raped" your 15 year old sister, and sexually assaulted your 72 year old grandmother with a broom handle and made her crawl around the cell block on all fours while a Chinese soldier rode her back all the while calling her a donkey...and your neighbor who lived at the end of the street was working as a translator for the Chinese troops. Would you kill that neighbor for collaborating with those occupiers who had committed those unspeakable acts against your sister and grandmother? Would killing that neighbor be an act of "resistance" intended to oppose the occupation of your country, or would it be an act of terrorism, since your neighbor was an American collaborating with the Chinese and not actually a Chinese soldier occupying your country? Was Benedict Arnold a traitor? Was Vidkun Quisling a traitor? If shedding innocent blood classifies a combatant as a terrorist, then yes, the Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists"...but since U.S. forces in Iraq have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, then our forces must be "terrorists" as well. But, if resisting the occupation of your homeland by a foreign invader (Americans vs. the British 1776, French vs. Germans 1940) makes you a freedom fighter, then, yes, the Iraqi insurgents are "freedom fighters". And those Iraqis who collaborate with the "invaders and occupiers" would then be "quislings" or "traitors", as "collaborators" always are. So, wouldn't these "traitors", these "collaborators", be legitimate targets for the "freedom fighters"? There are no VERSIONS of truth...only TRUTH. Did we "liberate" the 100,000 Iraqi civilians we've killed with indisciminant bombing...or did we simply kill them? Just to make a clear point, in the strict interpretation of Judeo-Christian law, "murder" is the shedding of innocent blood. When you drop a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb on a "terrorist safehouse" in the middle of a desert, and kill the neighboring farmers cow...you've created an angry Iraqi farmer. When you break into that farmer's house at 2 A.M., drag the farmer and his 15 year old daughter to Abu Ghraib prison (because the farmer's cousin was in the Republican Guard and you think the farmer "might" know where the cousin is) and the interrogator rapes the farmer's 15 year old daughter in front of the farmer (because if the farmer knows "anything" he'll talk to keep you from raping his daughter again)...well now you haven't created an angry Iraqi farmer...you've created a "terrorist". Or would he be a "freedom fighter"? Again, I say, any person fighting to free his homeland from the oppressive boot of a foreign invader occupying his homeland IS a "freedom fighter"...whether that entails killing the foreign invader or the quisling collaborators working with the invader. This rule applies to all political situations and all geography.

that is absolutely insane and makes no sense. these people that are attacking the troops in iraq are not freedom fighters because the entire country is not fighting against the coalition troops. if every person in the country rose up and attacked the troops then maybe you would have a point. when a small group of people compared to the rest of the entire country begin attacking the troops there is nothing else to call them except terrorists. the majority of the country realize that what is going on is best for them and they do not attack us. you get some outside terrorist influence and some remnants of the old iraq and thus you have violence. everyone jumps on the violence the media shows in iraq and thinks the entire country is in shambles.

And how many people are left to fight? 100,000+dead, civillians, not freedom fighters, I can see why the people aren't willing to fight. They saw what happens. You fight, your city is bombed, house, school, hospital, doesn't matter, we can blow it up. So, who are the terrorists? We have terrorized millions in Iraq, killed 100,000+ civillians. Iraq has what? 10 American civillians? OBL has about 3,000+ civillians, but we have over 100,000+ civillians dead. Who are the terrorists?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
And how many people are left to fight? 100,000+dead, civillians, not freedom fighters, I can see why the people aren't willing to fight. They saw what happens. You fight, your city is bombed, house, school, hospital, doesn't matter, we can blow it up. So, who are the terrorists? We have terrorized millions in Iraq, killed 100,000+ civillians. Iraq has what? 10 American civillians? OBL has about 3,000+ civillians, but we have over 100,000+ civillians dead. Who are the terrorists?

I'm pretty sure it's 100,000+ injured or killed.

The civillians that have died by coalition hands were not targeted and like in EVERY single war that has ever been fought on this planet, they were an unfortunate casualty. The thousands that have died at the hands of OBL and the insurgents were targeted and purposely killed. That's a huge difference.

Even antiwar has the Iraqi civillian count at less than 20,000
www.antiwar.com...


edit: and that includes those that were killed from insurgents

[edit on 3-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

``

everything i've seen so far has been viewed from 'western eyes'
western/American culture values western/American philosophy

the Great-Satan is what the AmericanWay is called
democracy is just a barely controlled chaos
capitalism is a tool of plunder & enslavement
western-& American economic control is satanic
Why is there Fatwas and Jihaid against such a 'benevolent' USA?

sure some factions of guerrillas have done acts that are called terrorism
sure some cells of insurgents are doing some self-serving acts
sure some terrorists intersperse among the freedom fighters
sure some civilians consort with Americans, some with the rebel-saboteurs
the reasons & causes that drive each individual,
are personal & sometimes................... passionately creative or destructive

Feklar and ThatsJustWeird, I still have not heard a lucid, factual, point-by-point rebuttal. I'm sorry if it distrubs you, but the official count of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion has been set at 100,000 by a joint U.S.-Iraqi survey (please see www.asc.org/iraq/default.htm).
Secondly, a U.S. commissioned survey by the Zogby polling organization revealed that 94% of Iraqis want the U.S. forces OUT of their homeland.
I haven't yet read a factual rebuttal to my point of "acts of terror" properly define one as a "terrorist". Does "repeatedly raping" a 15 year old girl, sodomizing a 15 year old boy, raping women, sodomizing a 72 year old grandmother with a broom handle constitute "acts of terror". Are those who committed those bestial acts "liberators" or "terrorists"?
Even the British government condemned our "indiscriminant" bombing of the city of Fallujah.
Neither of you have yet to respond to the "Chinese analogy" I set forth. Would the Americans in that scenario be "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"?
Were members of the Dutch Resistance fighting the German invaders "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? They were few in number, and they attacked Germans, but also Dutchmen who were collaborating with the German "liberators".
Again, I say, any person fighting to free his homeland from the oppressive boot of a foreign invader, is a "freedom fighter".
I look forward to a FACTUAL point-by-point response. Please, this is a serious thread...please do NOT waste our time with more platitudes...YOU are losing the debate...arm yourselves with facts.
Explain to me why the torture, rape, and murder of Iraqi civilians by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib are NOT acts of "terror", and the U.S. personnel ARE "liberators".

ThatsJustWeird, if you had read the link at antiwar.com listing the Iraqi Body Count at less than 20,000 you would have seen that was based on a Guardian Unlimited newspaper article from May 2003!!!!! That's nearly 2 years old!!! The count now stands at 100,000!!!! Please see www.afsc.org/iraq/default.htm.

There are no versions of truth...only truth.

Originally posted by wwrfla
ThatsJustWeird, if you had read the link at antiwar.com listing the Iraqi Body Count at less than 20,000 you would have seen that was based on a Guardian Unlimited newspaper article from May 2003!!!!! That's nearly 2 years old!!! The count now stands at 100,000!!!! Please see www.afsc.org/iraq/default.htm.

*yawn*
1. Dude, look at it again. The site is constantly updated and it links to another site that is constantly updated showing the same thing. If you really read it, you would see the (June 2003) article was when the count was at 5000.
If there were 80,000 more deaths (instead of 10,000) since then, you would know it. 80,000 more deaths in a year which we change from offensive to defensive is highly highly highly unlikely.

2. Your link doesn't work

3. Here's another link that was updated today www.cbc.ca...
That site also has a link talking about the 100,000 deaths number and where it came from. But that number has been debunked.

4. Less civillian deaths is a GOOD thing! It's ok to be wrong on this point. If you want there to be more deaths just to prove a point, then something is wrong with you.

Does "repeatedly raping" a 15 year old girl, sodomizing a 15 year old boy, raping women, sodomizing a 72 year old grandmother with a broom handle constitute "acts of terror". Are those who committed those bestial acts "liberators" or "terrorists"?

Could you link to where US soldiers are accused of this? If you can't provide a link...then what's your point?
If these were done by soldiers in a war zone, these would be war crimes.

Your "analogy" is really jumbled and doesn't make much sense btw. Maybe you can clear it up a bit. Either way it's irrelevant concerning the situation in Iraq.

Were members of the Dutch Resistance fighting the German invaders "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? They were few in number, and they attacked Germans, but also Dutchmen who were collaborating with the German "liberators".

The Germans weren't liberators...also unlike what the Americans, British, and Iraqis are doing the Germans weren't spending billions of dollars to make rebuild their country, improve their way of life, and protect the rest of the populace. Again you choose a bad analogy.

Again, I say, any person fighting to free his homeland from the oppressive boot of a foreign invader, is a "freedom fighter".

Hey, I agree with you.
Unfortunately for you, that's not what the insurgents are doing. Sorry.

YOU are losing the debate...arm yourselves with facts.

Besides posting irrelevant stories, and posting wrong data. What have you done? Where are your facts?

[edit on 3-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

ThatsJustWeird, sorry, but you're still coming up short. Just go to the web site I've listed and see the numbers for yourself...it's 100,000 killed...but are 20,000 civilians killed by our forces really any less egregious?
You still have not addressed the fact of whether or not you consider the Dutch Resistance to have been terrorists. Or the Americans in my Chinese "liberation" scenario.
Please set forth a consisitent definition of a terrorist.
As for the rape, tortue, and murder, simply do a web search for the COMPLETE report from Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, US Army. That's the source!!! Yes, those acts are war crimes as defined under the Geneva Accords; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has issued a secret executive order authorizing the use of "cruel, inhuman, and sexually degrading treatment"...visit the ACLU website to view the documents they obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
You must be a seeker of truth...and not expect to have it spoon-fed to you be FoxNews.
Read Maj.Gen. Taguba's report in which he states "Col. Thomas Pappas...directed and encouraged the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees". Col. Pappas was the Army Military Intelligence officer who was placed in command of Abu Ghraib prison by order of Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez...read this and then ask yourself why the newsmedia kept asking the question "Were those MP's ordered to abuse the prisoners?" Why ask, Taguba had already answered the question.
The bottom line is simply this, the Iraqi resistance IS fighting to force U.S. forces from their soil...they didn't start attacking American troops until AFTER we invaded their country.
If you're aware of the rules of debate, I'm afraid you've failed to support your position with facts, as well as having failed to factually counter mine.
I take no pleasure in the facts that our country is currently engaged in an illegal occupation of a nation; an occupation which followed an illegal aggressive invasion (take the time to familiazrize yourself with the Laws of Land Warfare, 3rd Geneva Accord, 4th Geneva Accord, and United Nations Charter). And that as a matter of official policy certain of our forces have systematically committed the most despicable of any war crimes.
If you can provide any documentary evidence that the Iraqi resistance has ceased targeting U.S. occupation forces inside Iraq, please do so. Each day I watch the news, and there is almost each day an additional report of U.S. troops being killed or wounded by the Iraqi resistance.
You seem anxious to delude yourself that an aggressive invasion is actually a liberation so long as we're the ones doing the invading. And that an indigenous people fighting the occupiers of their homeland are not freedom fighters, but are terrorists, because they are attacking our troops. And rape, torture, and murder are not terrorist acts if they're committed by us...but a car bomb targeting armed soldiers IS a terrorist act. You know, the German people were completely convinced that their invasion of Poland was an act of "liberation" as well. Take the time to actually type in the web address I listed previously for you, and read for yourself, take the time to search for Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report and read it for yourself, visit the ACLU web site and read the Bush administration documents for yourself. If you are seeking TRUTH you will find it!! If, however, the truth disturbs your political loyalties, then you will, of course, avoid it.
FREEDOM FIGHTER: any person fighting on his native soil to free his homeland from the oppressive boot of a foreign invader.
TERRORIST: any person who employs tactics (kidnapping, rape, sodomy, child rape, and torture of women) intended as methods to instill terror and subjugate an indigenous people.
I've stated my definitions...state yours.

ThatsJustWeird, here are my sources

100,000 Iraqis killed: Lancet (British Medical Journal)

Rape, Child Rape, Sodomy, Child Sodomy, Murder of civilians held at Abu Ghraib prison by US forces: Report of Investigation by Maj.Gen. Antonio Taguba, US Army.

All sources have been quoted accurately.

I look forward to reading your authoritative sources, as well as your DEFINITION of terrorist and DEFINITION of freedom fighter.

Unfortunately, your lack of facts, and failure to respond with point-by-point factual counterpoints have simply served to reveal the lack of substance to your position.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better with your sources. Do you know how to post a link (that actually works)?
"www.asc.org/iraq/default.htm"
DOES NOT WORK. Can you hear me now?
I even went to the asc.org to see I can find the link from there. Nothing.
That site has nothing to do with Iraq.
Looks to be some cult site or something
Surely you can provide a more reliable source than that.
I have provided concrete evidence showing otherwise, yet you continue to insist it is over 100,000 based on what??? Show me where you're getting your info from.
As well as the child rape and all that stuff. You're talking, but words mean nothing if you can't back them up.

And I did answer your Dutch question (even though it was a very bad analogy)
Read above in previous post:

The Germans weren't liberators...also unlike what the Americans, British, and Iraqis are doing, the Germans weren't spending billions of dollars to make rebuild their country, improve their way of life, and protect the rest of the populace. Again you choose a bad analogy.

If you're aware of the rules of debate, I'm afraid you've failed to support your position with facts, as well as having failed to factually counter mine.

LOL
I've provided links with actually evidence. You just told me something and expect me to believe you. Why should I?
Actually...reading your post again....it's hard pressed to find ANY (backed up) facts in your posts...

Wow.
I'm honestly not joking.
Some of your posts are long, but...they're just words. No substance.

If you are seeking TRUTH you will find it!! If, however, the truth disturbs your political loyalties, then you will, of course, avoid it.

The same applies to you bud.

As far as your definitions of Freedom fighter vs. Terrorist, those are actually pretty good. And Yep, I would say the insurgents definately fit the description of Terrorist. Kidnapping, beheading, suicide bombings, etc. and yes they have been doing that against their own people....yep sounds like a terrorist to me.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]