Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[marct]

2. The aim of the insurgent activity is never political —namely, the goal is not to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, or even winning the "war." It is however, aimed at protractedness and disrupting the lawful act of governance. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is included in the definition of insurgency. It is never an ideological struggle. Most analysts fail to recognize this and, hence, tend to discuss certain motives (sectarian, religious, tribal) as logical or necessary aspects of insurgencies. They are not. At best, they are attempts to incite others into the chaos by breeding hatred, mistrust and playing on strongly held belief systems such as religion. That is why religious entities are often targets.

This is nonsense! There is always a motive. You may not understand it, but it is there. It answers the question who benefits.

And, I have to say, that a broad generalization of "The aim of the insurgent activity is never political" is equally nonsense. GP, do you think that Ganoris ever bothered to read Lenin, Mao or Guevera? I find it incredible that anyone who had, or had had studied any history, could make such an outrageous claim.

In the end, it is important that we separate the two in order to effectly understand and engage each.

I certainly agree with the sentiment . I would, however, add in the caveat that such a separation does require that the terms not be completely redefined.

Marc