Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[Van]

Targeting collaborators is a completely legitimate thing. The geneva conventions doesn't have some clause against it.

This is pretty broad license. What rules of evidence are used to identify collaborators? Or is it anyone not actively resisting the opponents of the insurgency? If there is no due process or competent military targeting process, this is terrorism. Is the intent of targeting collaborators to neutralize a threat to security of the insurgency? If so, then this is the same as targeting a recon element. If the intent is to "send a message", or intimidate the civilian population into submission, it is terrorism. Is the insurgency keeping records so that it's leaders can be held to the same level of accountability that the insurgents would like to see President Bush held to?

I'm not saying this is the case, but reading both Western and Middle Eastern news sources, it appears that the various insurgent groups in Iraq are not prepared to hold themselves to the same standard they would like to see others held to. But this is not unique to Iraq, you see in virtually every small war, and frequently on both sides at the same time.

Assasinating the puppet leaders the americans set up, you act like it's a bad thing.

No, I did not say this, and if you got this impression, you misinterpreted my comments. Assassination is a tactic. Once an American acknowledges that the downing of Admiral Yamamoto's plane was a legitimate military operation, it is hypocrisy to repudiate assassination as a tactic of national power. Currently, popular opinion and political opinion in the U.S. is opposed to assassination on principle, but these people would say that the raid on ADM Yamamoto's plane was wrong if they were in possession of all the facts. But again, targeting, weapon selection, and intent. Is the target part of the military command and control structure, or the national government executive branch? Is the weapon to be used consciously selected to minimize collateral damage, and likely collateral damage been carefully assessed? Is the intent to directly degrade or disrupt the threat's military capabilities or other aspect of the apparatus that prosecutes the war? If it's yes to all three, it sounds like a legitimate targeting of a command and control node of the threat forces. Now if the insurgency says these things, then kills thirty bystanders and misses the target, or if the insurgency's intent is to intimidate members of the government or civilians, or to generate a media event, this is terrorism.

Frankly, nothing I've seen in the pro-insurgency media releases demonstrates these kind of processes. Not saying they're stupid, they're just not making an effort to concern themselves with international law, or looking beyond the perceptions of the Islamic world (but the insurgents and their supporters are so quick to accuse the West of the same failings...), and this is a short-sighted attitude. Perhaps the various insurgent groups should get together and demonstrate moral behavior superior to that of the West rather than murdering more of their own youth, women, and children, as

the "Iraqis who happen to be around are “sacrificed.”

In case it's not obvious, "Assassination; History, Theory, and Practice" from American Public University System's (www.apus.edu) graduate program was one of the best courses I've taken in decades.