Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    32

    Default Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

    Sir,

    Thank you for your patients with my rambling on this topic. I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

    Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight. However, some experts will quickly say that insurgency and terrorism are inextricably linked. In doing so however, they would fail to recognize the consequence of this association. In my studies, the two are only loosely connected but often each gains tremendous momentum when the two are used interchangeably. I also believe that when we misrepresent one as the other, we do damage to our effort. It is, in our terms "a combat multiplyier" for the enemy in its most synergistic form. For example, when I associate what is happening in Iraq to a religious Jihad or a struggle against demoracracy, it gives the appearance of unification of one large group against another, and of a large scale almost global struggle. The risk is that we incite globally--“Beware the zealous leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a fervor, for this is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by hatred, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am, Caesar.” Quote from Julius Caesar.

    I think a new thread would be helpful to me too. We should define the two.

    Here are some of the things that I believe are the salient differences between the two:

    Insurgencies are conditions in which the insurgents spawn within a population because the government will not, or simply cannot provide the appropriate governance for life (law, order, security, water, electricity, sanitation, etc. This population can be likened to the criminal gang and organized crime elements more then freedom fighters or terrorists. Their cause is never an ideology or idealistic dogma, (it is more primal and basic) and therefore they will have the propensity to ebb and flow based on the need of the day and the targets of opportunity. In other words, their cause can change based on the situation. Today insurgents might attack American fighters in response to the surge, tomorrow they might strike a Mosque in a form of sectarian retaliation, the next day it is the Iraq security forces. Their targets are most often tactical. Their goal has nothing to do with winning although they don't mind the enemies (plural) failing--they will fight anyone who tries to bring order. They win if the struggle is protracted because it is from the pure chaos that they get their Utility. Insurgencies are not religiously motivated; in as much as “they” want to present the appearance that they are religious in nature. This is in direct conflict with the traditional paradigm that the war fighter is accustomed. It is important to recognize that religion is ideological; an insurgency is not. This is not to say that religion and religious rhetoric is not important--it is to the insurgents because it gives the appearance of broad support, and it quickly organizes society for them into “us against them.” They gain if they breed hatred and distrust among other religious groups: Sunni, Shiites, Muslims and Christians. However, because they are not driven by a single ideology, members can quickly apostatize. This can be used as a COIN tool, and their members can be reformed.

    The insurgents in Iraq are decentralized in their operations, are local within a small territorial range (kilometers from their home) and recruit their fighters from local talent. Here is an equation that predicts the probable distance from an IED strike to the insurgents' home base. P(b) = A * e**-Bx Where A and B are empirical constants determined from the enemy data sets. It is an exponential decay function. As the distance X from the insurgent’s base increases, the less probable that a single group committed it. It is believed that 90% of all insurgent attacks will occur within 15 km of their base.

    The Terrorists on the other hand, have very much centralized command and control (decentralized in their execution) and will operate hundred up to thousands of kilometers from their command and control base of operations.
    Their struggle is based on the terrorist’s commitment to violence as a small group (usually ranging in group size from few to less than one-hundred- fifty "card carrying" members) in order to intimidate a population or government to cause their perceived fundamental change. The group size is limited by command, control and confidentiality capabilities. Their cause is always ideological and political, based on group-actualization rather than self-serving. In other words, their belief is that what they do is for the "Public good"--acting on behalf of "all." It is aimed at the establishment, not decapitated states. Terrorism however enjoys the freedom to organize and operate unabated in failed states. Finally, rarely will anyone ever develop a counter-terrorist strategy to change this group’s apostasy--it is analogous to trying to change Rush Limbaugh from the right to the left--it simply cannot be done. Their beliefs are so deeply held that they appear to the world as radical and extreme. Terrorists may or may not be highly trained and their operations are top driven and centralized from the command and control elements. Their targets are always strategic. Because the terrorists act on behalf of all, they will never engage in grass roots fighting unless cornered into it. As a result, in my "Opinion," we have very few terrorist cells living in Iraq. Although the insurgents hope that we think differently.

    I think a new string would be very helpful.

  2. #2
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I think a new string would be very helpful.
    Done sir. Your original post in the Philippines thread remains, and this is a copy to begin further discussion.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    Sir,

    I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

    Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight.

    I think a new string would be very helpful.
    I think that you can't differentiate between insurgents and terrorists in that way.

    Insurgency is in my opinion the overall term and encompasses all members of an insurgency movement. That is the Leaders, Theorists, Financers, Sponsors, Helpers, Computer-Experts, Media-Experts, Technicians, Bomb-Makers, Spies, ..... and of course the actual fighters. Among the fighters you may then find the terrorists, simply because Terror is a useful method insurgents use to achieve their goals.

    This makes it also clear, that by military means alone you can't win against an insurgency movement, because it's made of more than just fighters and terrorists.

    The fight against terrorists is therefore just a part in the fight against insurgents.

    There are, of course, other terrorists as well, which are not related to an insurgency and which also can't be directly compared with insurgents one on one.

  4. #4
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Agreed Bruz

    I agree with Bruz Lee. My own experiences in Lebanon, Sudan, Turkey, and Rwanda as well as time as a regional and terrorist analyst makes any attempt to draw clear lines between terrorists and insurgents. Terrorism and terrorist are labels with variety of meanings attached. They are also a means or a tactic. And they are also a statement of intent.

    Insurgent is somewhat better defined and perhaps clearer in the intent of its meaning. Even so there are great debates and I am sure you have heard them about whether or not someone is an iinsurgent or a wave of violence is an insurgency.

    Because of the connotations and simultaneous spin associated with the term terrorists, I have over the years shifted to the word extremist.

    Best

    Tom

  5. #5
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default Agree ... with some caveats

    Hi Folks,

    In general, I agree with Tom and Bruz, but I do have a few cavils or caveats on that agreement (hey, I'm an academic, what did you expect? ).

    First off, how be if we drop the personal forms and look at the group forms: "insurgency" and "terrorism". This makes it easier to examine since individuals may be affiliated with more than one group form.

    Wikipedia defines an insurgency as "An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority." The OED defines insurgency as "The quality or state of being insurgent; the tendency to rise in revolt", an insurgent as "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." and an "insurgence" as "The action of rising against authority; a rising, revolt." (personally, I always preferred the OED).

    So, the core relational meanings of the term are:
    1. a "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion"
    2. against "authority"; defined as "an established civil or political authority" in Wikipedia and as "constituted authority" or just "authority" in the OED.
    3. with the implication of conflict; defined as armed revolt in wikepedia, undefined in the OED.


    The relationship is between two groups, #s 1 & 2 and takes the form of 3.

    Let's look at the groups in this little social drama. A "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion" against "authority" (of some type). The implication of this is fairly obvious, group 1 lacks "authority" that is held by group 2. As such, an "insurgency" implies a redefinition of "authority" between the two groups.

    Let's look at the relationship (#3) next. In its broadest form, the OED definitions, it does not state the type of authority other than "constituted". This means that the authority relationship is, in all probability, housed in some type of institution: political, military, religious, academic, familial, etc.

    As to the specific tactics of such an insurgency, the OED only uses the phrase "a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent". Now, the definition of "belligerent" is crucial to this - "A nation, party, or person waging regular war (recognized by the law of nations)" [n] and "Waging or carrying on regular recognized war; actually engaged in hostilities" [adj]. Now this certainly implies armed revolt, but I would also point out that conflictual metaphors are common in many non-kinetic conflicts. More importantly, note the use of terms such as "regular war" and "regular recognized war". This implies the existence of rules of combat, and these rules can exist only within institutions. For example,our current "Rules of Warfare" derive from the Treaty of Westphalia. Notice, however, that all institutions have specific rules of "conflict" (broadly construed), and hat all the OED definitions really say is that an insurgency is characterized by tactics that stand outside of the "accepted" (socially contracted) rules of conflict within the institution.

    Okay, let's shift to "Terrorism":

    • from Wikipedia - "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."
    • from the OED - "A system of terror", "Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4)", "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized".


    Terrorism is a specific "social contract" or system. The term was originally coined in France - "terrorisme (1798 in Dict. Acad., Suppl.)" - and referred to the system put into place by Robespierre. It is systemic and aimed by one group against another - originally by a government against its citizens, later by any group advocating political or ideological goals and choosing to use these tactics. Originally, this tactic took place within a social contract, but that seems to have dropped from the definition fairly quickly.

    So, back to definitions: an "insurgency" is an attempt to redefine power / authority relationships within an institution, while "terrorism" is a specific tactic or system employed by one group against another to achieve specificf ends.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    And when a bad guy pulls out his weapon to participate in an RPG party against a wayward convoy one day, and then drives an explosive-laden Caprice Classic into a crowded market the next (under directives from a centralized cmd) he can be both, depending upon interpretation.

    Semantics aside, they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    ...they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.
    If you are fighting a simple terrorist without popular backing than you are right.

    If you are talking about a terrorist-fighter within an insurgency movement it can be better not to kill him (i think that is what you mean by "dispatching") but to get him over to your side. Than you get the most valuable Actionable Intelligence you can get and you may be able to drain the insurgency.

  8. #8
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    I would also add a geographic component to the discussion. Insurgents tend to operate in (or near) the region they are rising against/in, while terrorists (in the classic sense) are trans-national. They operate where and when they can. The contention that terrorists have a centralized command structure is also something of a misnomer. They can and do operate as independent units without a central command aside from a shared ideology, while insurgents can have a central command structure.

    It's also important to mark a difference between a terrorist and terrorist-like methods. Insurgencies can use terrorism as a weapon, but they are not classic terrorists in my view. Insurgents have a geographic focus or base of operations, while terrorists can, but do not have to.

    I think the confusion arises because terrorism is a tool as well as a group naming methodology. One can use terroristic tactics without being a terrorist, and this applies to insurgents and organized crime elements alike.

    There are a number of other differences as well, but I'd need to organize my thoughts a bit better. Perhaps the biggest (to me) lies in the realm of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy. Insurgents often have (or can present themselves to have) legitimate and justified complaints against the regime existing in their region (usually tied to concrete and achievable changes or goals), while a terrorist group may have a political/ideological "goal" or "statement," but its objectives are usually Utopian or unachievable. By the second generation, most groups use these "goals" simply to justify more killing and bloodshed, and they become more nebulous and unattainable. Tom's use of extremist is good, but that term also does not convey the level of violence that a fully mature terrorist group can and will use.

    Because of the political nature of many terrorist groups, you will often find disenchanted members joining an insurgency, or even providing training to such groups.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Sir I agree with your distinction between the two and as a new member I will be getting my feet wet with all the input by others. It has been my exp. in Afghanistan that there are few Terrorists and more insurgents, but what I have seen or understand is that the few Terror cells, control these insurgents. These uneducated misguided insurgents will shoot an RPG or dig in an IED for a few thousand Pakistan Rupees with no reason behind it, except to get money. They have no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most. So what do we do target the Terrorists or the insurgents? I think it is a double edge sword, because if you kill the terrorists, more will fill the ranks because of beliefs and ideals. As for the insurgents they will lose heart because they have no real stake in the struggle but you will not get at the head or the money. I think if you have a solid IO campaign and specific targets you could stop the local recruitment and cut the terrorists pool of warm bodies off and then they will show themselves in desperation in order to discredit the government and or coalition. If I had to pick I would go after the insurgents and conduct a grass roots campaign getting into the villages and establishing relationships with these peoples families and friends.

  10. #10
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi fthoya,

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    It has been my exp. in Afghanistan that there are few Terrorists and more insurgents, but what I have seen or understand is that the few Terror cells, control these insurgents.
    That certainly matches what I had heard from other sources, and it's one of thereasons why I think we have to be careful with our labels .

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    These uneducated misguided insurgents will shoot an RPG or dig in an IED for a few thousand Pakistan Rupees with no reason behind it, except to get money. They have no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most.
    Then the "simplest", and by that I don't mean either cheap or easy, solution is to rebuild their economy. I used to work with a friend who grew up in the camps around Peshawar and, from what she told me, you could easily hire an army of "insurgents" as long as you had enough cash and a decent cadre. Honestly, I think the best way to change this is to rework the entire refugee camp system (and I promise I won't start in on my UNHCR soapbox ).

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    So what do we do target the Terrorists or the insurgents? I think it is a double edge sword, because if you kill the terrorists, more will fill the ranks because of beliefs and ideals. As for the insurgents they will lose heart because they have no real stake in the struggle but you will not get at the head or the money. I think if you have a solid IO campaign and specific targets you could stop the local recruitment and cut the terrorists pool of warm bodies off and then they will show themselves in desperation in order to discredit the government and or coalition. If I had to pick I would go after the insurgents and conduct a grass roots campaign getting into the villages and establishing relationships with these peoples families and friends.
    In general, I would agree. The problem, as I see i in the case of Afghanistan, is that a lot of the source pool is in Pakistan, both Pakistan proper and the border territories. Since Pakistan is an "ally", it is a touch tricky to send the troops into the areas where they should be going (e.g. N & S. Waziristan). I think some of these problems could be solved if Musharef would return those provinces to Afghanistan, but I doubt he would.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Raiding strategies

    Aggressors chose a raiding strategy because they are too weak to chose a more effective strategy. Some raiders are in it for the booty and some are in it for bigger prizes like the people or the real estate.

    Using a force to space ratio adequate to cut off enemy communications and movement to contact has been used often. The Europeans eventually repulsed the Viking raids by building strategic fortifications along routes used by the raiders. Alexander used a similar strategy in Afghanistan.

    Eastern Europe is an interesting example of an effective counter insurgency strategy by the Soviets. They infiltrated organizations that were attempting to resist their rule as well as the spy services in the west that were attempting to send aid and men to help the resistance. The history of US and UK infiltration into Eastern Europe is filled with failure. The people sent in were either caught and killed or turned in almost every case.

    I am surprised that so little study has been done in the most effective counter insurgency operation in recent history.

  12. #12
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I am surprised that so little study has been done in the most effective counter insurgency operation in recent history.
    Maybe it was because the communists attempted to take religion out of the equation, and our current fight is rife with it. In all seriousness, I think it's reasonable speculation.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson
    ...I am surprised that so little study has been done in the most effective counter insurgency operation in recent history.
    There has been a tremendous amount of study conducted on Soviet suppression of resistance and dissident networks, both in the USSR and in its satellite nations. However, most of that has not been in the context of COIN, but instead with a focus on a broad spectrum of HUMINT ops from the perspective of both sides. Not to mention the occasional crisis interplay of major geo-political actions (i.e. the Suez Crisis and the Hungarian Revolution)

    But recently, some of those who have an interest in Dark Networks have spent a considerable amount of effort looking at Soviet bloc resistance/dissident groups in that specific context, to glean lessons-learned for dealing with terrorist networks.

    Here's one interesting look at the subject: When Dark Networks Become Desirable: What Can the Experience of Political Dissidents Teach Governments About Terrorism?
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 02-13-2007 at 08:41 PM.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Soviet COIN

    Thanks Jed, I will check it out.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    32

    Default Insurgents vs. Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    Sir I agree with your distinction between the two and as a new member I will be getting my feet wet with all the input by others. It has been my exp. in Afghanistan that there are few Terrorists and more insurgents, but what I have seen or understand is that the few Terror cells, control these insurgents. These uneducated misguided insurgents will shoot an RPG or dig in an IED for a few thousand Pakistan Rupees with no reason behind it, except to get money. They have no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most. So what do we do target the Terrorists or the insurgents? I think it is a double edge sword, because if you kill the terrorists, more will fill the ranks because of beliefs and ideals. As for the insurgents they will lose heart because they have no real stake in the struggle.
    "Then the 'simplest', and by that I don't mean either cheap or easy, solution is to rebuild their economy. I used to work with a friend who grew up in the camps around Peshawar and, from what she told me, you could easily hire an army of "insurgents" as long as you had enough cash and a decent cadre."Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D

    Gentleman, you are right-on target. That is the reason I wanted to make it clear that we must make a distinction between a Terrorist and an Insurgent. The Insurgent has "no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most," they are motived by primal human needs, wants and desires. The terrorist (individuals) on the otherhand are nothing but an Ideology. They have such deeply held beliefs that they are considered radical, and extreme. They will not apostatize.

    I say this to make the point that in order to create sustainability in Iraq, we must jumpstart the economy through a government work program for the men 18-45. It is the "Velocity of Money" that will solve the problems in Iraq.

  16. #16
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    "Then the 'simplest', and by that I don't mean either cheap or easy, solution is to rebuild their economy. I used to work with a friend who grew up in the camps around Peshawar and, from what she told me, you could easily hire an army of "insurgents" as long as you had enough cash and a decent cadre."Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D

    Gentleman, you are right-on target. That is the reason I wanted to make it clear that we must make a distinction between a Terrorist and an Insurgent. The Insurgent has "no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most," they are motived by primal human needs, wants and desires. The terrorist (individuals) on the otherhand are nothing but an Ideology. They have such deeply held beliefs that they are considered radical, and extreme. They will not apostatize.

    I say this to make the point that in order to create sustainability in Iraq, we must jumpstart the economy through a government work program for the men 18-45. It is the "Velocity of Money" that will solve the problems in Iraq.
    I think the problem is that there are three groups:

    - Insurgents: Fight to overthrow an existing order.
    - Terrorists: Whatever they are fighting for (money, an idea, a religion, the creation of a state, etc.), their tactic is terror.
    - Poor Schmuckatellis: Will fight for money or not to be killed by one of the former.

    Insurgents can use terrorism, and terrorists can serve in an insurgency.

    Insurgents most certainly can be committed to an ideal. Nationalism is one, and the Chinese Communists in WWII are a good example thereof.

    Terrorists most certainly can be superficial bastards out for little more than personal gain.

    Poor Schmuckatellis deserve our sympathy and assistance. They are the sea within which the first two fight, and if they are given the means to be resolute in their opposition to the latter two, and are given the means to thrive otherwise, the first two will be losers (or just the odd crackpots or criminals with which even the most successful societies must contend).

  17. #17
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Sargent,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sargent View Post
    I think the problem is that there are three groups:

    - Insurgents: Fight to overthrow an existing order.
    - Terrorists: Whatever they are fighting for (money, an idea, a religion, the creation of a state, etc.), their tactic is terror.
    - Poor Schmuckatellis: Will fight for money or not to be killed by one of the former.
    ....
    Poor Schmuckatellis deserve our sympathy and assistance. They are the sea within which the first two fight, and if they are given the means to be resolute in their opposition to the latter two, and are given the means to thrive otherwise, the first two will be losers (or just the odd crackpots or criminals with which even the most successful societies must contend).
    On the whole, a good trichotomy! Let me toss in one final comment - the "Poor Schmuckatellis" also provide the next generations of both terrorists and insurgents. For me, it's not only about human decency and helping out someone who has bee shat on by fate - there is also a very rational, self-interest component to it .

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  18. #18
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    So assassination makes the user an insurgent or a terrorist? What about a VBIED?

    I don't think it's the tactics so much as the targets, and the attitude toward collateral damage. Blowing up an Iraqi Police station is an insurgent attack, where commiting atrocities on random civilians (market goers for example) is terrorism. Were the badguys in Iraq to limit their targets to ones acceptable under the Geneva Accords, I would buy their claims to being insurgents. But a lot of their targeting is aimed at opposing factions civilians, so they are terrorists who are worth less than the bullet they richly deserve. They'll make excuses, but it always comes back to "you did this, look what you made me do", a denial of responsibility for their actions. If they won't accept responsibility for their actions, you can't negotiate.

    It's kind of like telling a kid "If you want to be treated like a grownup, you have to act like one". Partisans have a clear status under international law, but to merit that treatment, they have to live up to certain standards. The terrorists in Iraq haven't displayed a willingness to act like they deserve recognition as anything other than bandits.
    Last edited by Van; 06-03-2007 at 02:23 PM. Reason: typo

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Targeting collaborators is a completely legitimate thing. The geneva conventions doesn't have some clause against it.
    And Why not? they target the resistance along side their american masters.
    Traitors deserve to be executed. Traitors are more filthy scum than the mercinaries.
    Assasinating the puppet leaders the americans set up, you act like it's a bad thing.
    And just for the record, the resitsance would never hurt Iraqi civilians, the very people they are fighting for.

    The cell leaders themselves said they were guided by a blend of Islamist teachings and pan-Arab nationalism. Both spoke disdainfully of “Wahabbis,” as hard-line Sunni Muslim followers are called. Abu Mohammed said there was no contact with members of al Qaida at his level;

    ...

    Can you describe a man who defends his country as a terrorist?” asked Abu Abdullah, who said he was 31. “Iraq is the land of prophets and the birthplace of civilization. We will fight until we shed the last drop of our blood for this country.”

    ...

    “We are Islamist in that we are protecting our religion. We are nationalist in that we are protecting our country,” Abu Mohammed said. “We don’t care about our lives. We care about the lives of our fellow Iraqis.”


    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0913-08.htm
    ------

    TDK was it...

    Your postings take on more meaning when we know where you're coming from. Update your profile and introduce yourself in the appropriate thread.
    If you're curious about who i am and where i come form, why don't you just ask nicely?
    But since i'm sure you won't, you'll just have to be patient and it will become apperant to you when i choose it to be.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •