I been wanting to have this debate for a while now, but I wasn't sure how to start. Then I read this:

Perfect.

We have had thread with dealt with the Iraqi "resistance" to coalition "occupation" before now. We have danced around what I believe to be a key issue. But this statement makes it easy to get right down to it.

I don't believe the majority of Iraqis conducting attack are simply "freedom fighters" in the sense that there attacks are targeted solely (as opposed to ultimately) forcing coalition troops out of Iraq. I believe that they are terrorists in the sense that many of their attacks are targeted toward creating suffering for the larger Iraq population rather than simply against US troops. In that way, they terrorize the Iraqi people. The use of the word "majority" may draw some deserved criticism. I don't know any thing about the actual proportion, that part of my argument is intuitive. I stress, however the evidence that many of these attacks are meant to terrorize civilians.

How?


pipeline blast 'was sabotage'



But like the British in Basra, the officials said their efforts have been plagued by continued sabotage and looting of Iraq's power and oil infrastructure.
In Basra, Worst May Be Ahead


Baghdad faces months of on-and-off electricity


Saboteurs hinder rebuilding in Iraq

So then, are these freedom fighters or terrorists? Is their genuine armed resistance attacking US troops in order to be "free" of them? Or is their something more at work?

As an addition, the clearest example of terrorism yet...

Fighting for freedom by cutting off water and sewage. Right...

You need to make a distinction between the Isamist and Ba'athist resistances. For me the Ba'athists resistance are terrorists, since they sabbotage and destroy efforts to reconstruct the country and have no problem with blowing up civlians. Moreover they have little popular support, surely the most important part to being a "freedom fighter".

The Islamists on the other hand seem to focus more on killing American soldiers rather than ordinary Iraqis and they have significant popular support.

Just like the term terrorist, freedom fighter needs a clear definition. Fighting against an established government that is perceived to be illegitimate must by justifiable in some context.

I think the Sons of Liberty are a good measure. They looted and vandalized. They took an economic lifeline and disrupted it (Tea Party) The British empire definitely would have considered it some type of terrorist organization.

They harassed citizens and British officials that tried to implement British taxes. (And serious stuff like tarring or burning down houses at the extreme.)

Were they freedom fighters or terrorists. I think we tend to call them freedom fighters. By that standard the Iraqis operating inside Iraq against a US government or against US collaborators (if you accept this term, it is loaded but I cannot think of a better term) has to be either considered a freedom fighter or a criminal, but not a terrorist. (Until it is a campaign against unaffiliated civilians for purpose of scaring people into supporting (at least tacitly) the rebellion)

While I agree with drawing a distinction between the Islamic and Ba'athist resistances, I don't know that either of them qualify as terrorists. While the actions mentioned in this thread are hurting Iraqi civilians, that doesn't appear to be the intent of the attacks. I haven't heard news where militants were reportedly conducting attacks to make the lives of their neighbors more miserable. Coalition forces and American business in the region need those facilities operating as much as the Iraqis which would seem to make them legitimate targets for resistance fighters.

In other conflicts and wars it's not uncommon for an organized army to target natural resource facilities to gain an advantage. It isn't considered terrorism in those cases, so I fail to see why it should be any different here.

Though I would have supported the US revolution (at least I think so...) I would have called many of the actions taken by the revolutionaries terrorism (and the perpetrators therefore terrorists) These actions were certainly meant to terrorize civilians, correct?
Some important points.
The terms "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are not mutually exclusive.
A terrorist is not a freedom fighter when he/she harms indiscriminately the people he/she is supposed to be freeing.
That is what these terrorists in Iraq are doing.

I have seen no evidence that the attacks of water/sewage facilities are hurting coalition troops.


Evidence of this distinction in who carries out what type of attack?

It's terrorism no matter how you look at it. They are targeting infastructure targets and causing chaos. Destroying basic services and damaging the economy is what they are doing when they attack the oil pipelines, thus that makes it terrorism.


Turnea:



Destroying the basic necessities of Iraqis make them mad, so they take the anger out on us because we are doing nothing about it

From what I understand, turnea, our soldiers are getting their water and electricity from the same places as Iraqi civilians.

Other than the car bomb outside the Baghdad embassy, I don't know that they are indiscriminately harming the people they are supposed to be freeing. Attacking the water and electrical facilities does affect Iraqi civilians, but it is also their only real means at striking Coalition forces on a larger scale.

I would consider terrorism not only harming indiscriminately, but directly harming indiscriminately. If you leave it open to indirect indiscriminate harm we'd be guilty for half the actions we conducted during the war.

As much as we may dislike them, and as much as I want our soldiers to be safe, they seem to me to be freedom fighters. This push by those in the administration to see them classified as terrorists seems a weak attempt to justify this war by ensuring it's a part of our "War on Terror."

Edited to add:
Is it "terrorism no matter how you look at it" simply because we targeted infrastructure targets and basic services? Because, as I pointed out before, that is something done routinely by organized armies in order to weaken an enemy. In those cases it is not terrorism but strategic targeting. If you decide to label this terrorism, you're opening up another can of worms...

I seem to remember that the Allies bombed the power stations during the war, does that make us terrorists goamerica? Surely that was indirectly hurting civilians?

I agree with Abs, apart from the actions of the more ruthless of the Ba'athist networks, so far, the actions of the resistance can be called "freedom fighters". Moreover, is there any evidence that if the oil does start selling that it will go to reconstruction rather than paying of Americas national debt?

Uh, we're talking about combatants in warfare here: neither "freedom fighters" nor "terrorists" applies.

Are some of us forgetting that the US is the aggressor in this campaign? This is an invasion, not a civil war nor a rebellion nor an internal insurrection. Regardless of their tactics (or their political goals), any Iraqis opposing US forces can only be seen as "defending their homeland" - whether we like it or not. They are citizens opposing a military which invaded their country with the aim of destroying a government that it didn't like and replacing it with one that it did like, regardless of the desires of the native population.

Whether the remaining opposition forces in Iraq are "good" or "evil" is irrelvant to defining them - they require neither glorification nor condemnation as a descriptive. Let's just call them what they are: soldiers.

I'm not sure where coalition troops are getting water/using sewage facilities. I would appreciate more info on that. What I was pointing out was we have seen no sign at least that these attacks have done anything but harm ordinary Iraqis.



Saboteurs blamed for Iraq disruption
ahem...

As to your definition of terrorism. Does that mean an attack on a water facility in the US isn't terrorism. That would be indirect harm, correct?




The implication is that you consider (at least some of) these terms (solider, freedom fighter, terrorists) mutually exclusive. Could you explain why?

how do you know that was even us? Maybe it was saddam. Maybe it was us. Who knows. There was a lot of SAM fire shooting at us and us shooting at them. MAybe the SAMs that were meant for our planes came back down and hit the station.

Note: I'd like this thread to focus on the Iraqi fighters actions, please try not to get too far off topic (there is already a "definition of terrorism" thread)

Sure. Obviously, there can be overlap in these terms. Often, for the purpose of propaganda, the overlap is exploited because of the subjectivity of the terms and the political charge of words like "freedom" and "terror". Some are doing that here. It's just that, in the present case, I personally see no such overlap - by the very definition of the terms themselves.

To me (and to Wikipedia) the term "freedom fighter" refers to someone "rebelling against an established government" that is believed to be oppressive and illegitimate. In this case, with ongoing combat and no clear government at all, the term simply does not apply. These are people rebelling in order to prevent (what they see as) an oppressive and illegitimate government from being established in the first place.

To me (and, again, to Wikipedia), the term "terrorist" refers to someone who "deliberately and specifically selects civilians as targets of violence" in order to pursue political ends. In my opinion, a pipeline - whether it carries oil or sewage - is hardly "a civilian". The people in question are combatants and they are targeting the infrastructure which could help support an invading army. They may be saboteurs, but (so far, at least) they are no terrorists.

So: I don't see the terms as being mutually exclusive in general, but I don't see either "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" applying to anyone in Iraq at the moment. Should the US prevail and manage to install a puppet government with the cessation of combat, it's possible that both terms could apply...

A puppet government is not the solution. That would just ruin the whole idea of 'Liberation' of the country! All this fuss about Iraq would surely become a joke. And what about the men and women who died in combat, or because of combat? Is it a good way to honor their death? Certainly not for me.

Mr Bush and a part of the American people wanted this war to happen. Now, the soldiers are there. America must face the duties it created for itself.

Welcome to the forum, Horyok - it's always good to see a few non-Americans here. I'd love to respond to three or four of your observations, but they're all off topic!

Maybe the Was invading IRAQ the right decision? thread would be more appropriate?

Sorry about that Wertz... You're right indeed. Please feel free to send me a short message to dicuss your comments if you wish to.

I prefer discussing issues in public and keeping private messages for - well, more private stuff. I've edited the above to add a possible thread for pursuing your points...

I see. Well it seems we have different definitions. According to The American Heritage Dictionary (as provided by "Dictionary.com") terrorism is:

I think the actions of some Iraqi militants fall under that definition quite nicely.

Then what about insurgents?

Dicitonary.com: Insurgents



Now, in this case, the established authority would currently be either the new Iraqi Council or the U.S. administration that is stationed in Baghdad.

But since they are destroying things like water & oil pipelines, which are both necessity and basic need, they can be called terrorists

I would still maintain that acts of terror are difficult to define in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. If Iraq were at peace, as it had been prior to the US invasion, and these people were spontaneously sabotaging pipelines, then those could possibly be considered acts of terror by the definition turnea cites. If these actions can be construed as "terror" (which I think is a bit tenuous), then surely it would be more appropriate to characterize them as "war crimes"...

As these combatants are simply refusing to capitulate - not allowing an invading force to take over without any resistance - I think they can hardly be described as "rising". Again, insurgency strikes me as something which would occur when a country is at relative peace.

The main point I would make is that those using the term "terrorists" to characterize combatants engaged in an ongoing conflict (which was initiated by an invading force) are doing so solely for propagandistic purposes. The same, to a large extent, could perhaps be said for those using the term "freedom fighters" - though these do seem to be people acting to "defend their homeland", however much we may disagree with their political position. I think a parallel can be drawn between them an the French Resistance - with the Iraqi Council standing in for the Vichy government. Obviously, the comparison stops there.

I take it from this statement that you consider blowing up oil pipelines, water pipelines and electrical grids to be the acts of 'soldiers'? Do you also consider today's attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad to be legitimate acts of some sort of a legitimate 'resistance'?

Attacking a country's infrastructure has been a tactic of warfare for centuries. Recent examples: During WWII, the French Resistance routinely destroyed bridges and railroads, for example, in an effort to thwart and impede the Vichy government. I suppose you would consider Charles de Gaulle an arch terrorist. In August 1943, a single allied attack destroyed 350,000 barrels of oil and half the refining capacity at Ploesti, Romania - a key source of german power. When we targeted twenty-six synthetic fuel plants in the Ruhr valley, Germany's synthfuel production dropped by about 90% - and was key to crippling their efforts at the end of the war. During the Korean conflict, the US targeted hydroelectric dams on the Yalu River, which were crucial for supplying electricity to North Korea and parts of China. In 1975, during the Mayaguez incident, we bombed a centralized oil refinery in Cambodia. Also, during WWII, the US and her allies obliterated at least three entire cities of no military significance whatsoever (Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki) - which, presumably, included a few pipes. Acts of terror, Aquilla, or acts of war?

According to Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (the source for some of the above facts), "energy-system attacks are now part of US standard tactics" - the emphasis is mine. I presume you would say this means that we have become a terrorist country as a matter of policy.

Suppose the Peoples' Republic of China invaded the US, ousted Bush, and occupied Washington, DC, setting up their military headquarters in White House. You and I, Aquilla, might decide to sabotage their power grid. We might try to cripple the control towers at Dulles. We might try to disrupt their water supply or their sewage. You might think of us as terrorists in such a hypothetical. I would not. We can't decide that people are "terrorists" simply because they are not on our side - especially when, in warfare, we do exactly the same thing - if not far, far worse.

It is propaganda, pure and simple - and rather hypocritical propaganda at that.

The UN headquarters had no strategic value and no infrastructure value.

Also, each of the examples you cite (Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden) were bombed for their military value, as opposed to civilian value. The Japanese cities were chosen because they were military targets (with, obviously, a civilian population). Tokyo was specifically NOT chosen because it was so large.

I think targeting infrastructure is fine, actually. targeting civilians is not.


By the way, Wertz, I found your comparison of the US (via the Iraqi Council proxy) to the Vichy government a bit out of taste (but not out of character)

Do you feel then that two forces engaged in war cannot commit acts of terrorism at all, even if the victims are not on the other side as I believe is the case here?

The bombing of the Canal Hotel was certainly an atrocity, but Baghdad is a city in the midst of an armed conflict. If civilians were intentionally targeted, this could be considered a war crime, but I still maintain that, to me personally, it is difficult to distinguish acts of terror in the midst of warfare. Was My Lai terrorism or war crime? Also, it has been suggested that the target of the hotel attack was L. Paul Bremer, the Presidential envoy to Iraq and the senior Coalition official in the country, responsible for overseeing the creation of the new government. If so, that sounds like a pretty strategic target to me.


[Veering slightly from the topic, but for historical accuracy: Dresden was not a military target. The only potential strategic target (otherwise ignored throughout the war) was the railroad yard - which wasn't even firebombed in the three waves of attacks that erased the rest of the city - and its entirely civilian population. Hiroshima was not a military target - neither was Nagasaki. In fact, both cities were chosen because they were "pristine" (not previously having been military targets of any kind) and could be used to gauge the effects of the new bomb. The few military factories outside Hiroshima were clearly not the target of a bomb dropped in the dead center of the civilian population. Nagasaki was chosen largely because of weather conditions (it was less likely to be fogged in, making it a clearer target) - not because it had a port which couldn't be used as a staging area for warfare. Do the words "shock and awe" ring any bells? ]


That was my intention. I was trying to make it clear that calling opposition forces "terrorists" merely because they are opposed to the US is similarly "a bit out of taste" - though also quite in character for some.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

turnea: Certainly, atrocities can be committed during warfare, but because of the political implications of the word "terrorism" it is best to avoid using it. Clearly, these combatants are being forced to resort to guerilla tactics, but that does not detract from the fact that they are confronting an invading force which has occupied their country.

Were we not so obsessed by "terror" at the moment - and were it not so essential to the Bush agenda to try to tie the whole notion of "terror" into the Iraqi campaign somehow, I doubt anyone would even be contemplating the use of the word. There have been far greater atrocities committed in almost every armed conflict in human history than the sabotage of a few pipelines and a car bomb, yet the term "terrorism" has not, to my knowledge, been previously used to describe any act of war. It. Is. Propa. Ganda.

I think that the current situation can be more accurately referred to as guerilla warfare, in the tradition of Francis Marion and John Mosby, than terrorism. We need to set up elections quickly. I think the Iraqis, by ans large, welcomed Saddam's overthrow. They are not in favor of a long-term occupation. The longer this situation continues, without instituting Iraqi soveriegnty, the worse the situation will get. We should install a Shiite moderate as head of Iraq now.

It seems to me that an important distinction is being overlooked in my argument.
From the opening post:

There lies the key difference from many of these other "acts of war" that have been referenced (except for the "Sons of Liberty" which I believe is a pretty accurate parallel)

I glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. The only difference is that I would call that terrorism.

So what did I mean by "important distinction"?

Certainly attacking an enemy's infrastructure, however as Eeyore suggest, I believe the purpose of these attacks is not to harm coalition infrastructure but to terrorize the Iraqi population.

What keep US troops from getting water elsewhere? I imagine they are much more capable in that sense that ordinary Iraqis. Why insist on believing this attack was targeted at coalition troops when the only evidence of damage is to ordinary Iraqis?
What need to be rethought in my opinion, is just who were the targets in these attacks.

I don't recall the administration using the words terrorism to describe the attack on water/sewage/oil facilities. I'd like to think that was my idea . As for propaganda.

If you mean my own personal propaganda then I suppose the shoe fits. Though that is pretty much what we do in this forum (with the added bonus of receiving scrutiny)... If you're looking for a purpose other than an appeal to emotion (I believe that was the root of your concerns about propaganda) I would suggest you (or anyone, not trying to get personal) note again the topic post. It was in response to this post and other like it.

Okey dokey...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p......7¬Found=true

Is there any doubt that those are the actions of terrorists?

Yes it does. The UN building was part of the rebuilding "committee". They had plans to build the police force, which they would turn over to the former NYPD chief who is doing just that and mintues before they experienced the bombing, they were talking about what to do about guarding the oil pipelines.

In other words, they were helping Iraq get back together, and the TERRORISTS & Freedom Fighters don't want that to happen. They want Iraq to be our defeat.

HUGO:



True. and they would be recruited by these terrorists/freedom fighters/gurreilas

I don't have a lot of faith the Iraqis can create a stable democracy or even a decent country. I don't even think they want to. If they are so proud they'd rather die than accept that Jews and Americans are they're brothers they don't deserve a good state. The people who are destroying their own country with attacks against Americans seem to be ideologically opposed to civilization. They aren't fighting for freedom but nationalistic, selfish, narcissistic pride. They'd rather be right and live in a state of sub-human religious and economic bondage. That's a very human idea I guess. If America is going to stop these attacks they're going to have to be more like John Brown than Napoleon Bonaparte.

So... you agree with the "terrorists" designation?

Scrolling down through this recent BBC article, I noticed where there are reports of Saudi authorities fearing some 3,000 or more Saudi men have gone "missing" in the last two months. While they say it is unlear how many have crossed over into Iraq, there appears to be the possibility of many foreign nationals crossing the border to join in the fight against Coalition forces.

In addition to this development, it seems we never have any idea exactly who has struck in the almost daily attacks occuring in Iraq. I think to label all forms of resistance as terrorism is wrong. There likely is a strong force of former Iraqi soldiers operating simply as guerilla fighters, other Iraqi civilians taking up arms as freedom fighters, and foreign nationals taking the opportunity to launch any manner of attack against American occupational forces.

I think it's to be expected that some Iraqis will put up their own resistance. I don't consider the actions of such people to be terrorist actions unless they are responsible for targeting civilian populations. What we seem to be overlooking, however, is that our presence in Iraq has likely presented foreign terrorists with an opportunity they can't refuse. Not every resistance fighter is a terrorist, nor every act of resistance an act of terror.

Theres nothing wrong with fighting for nationalism Rancid. As for human bondage, the Americans are imposing their own corproate cronys and economic system on the Iraqi people, not the other way around, Your contempt for their religion saddens me, religion can be a great unifying force and should not be patronised.

I expressed a similar idea in the opening post...



Clearly we do now know what portion of these "resistance" fighters have been committing the acts of terrorism laid out in this thread, any estimate is short even of an educated guess...

I simply wanted to point out that some of these fighter are using terrorists tactics against the Iraqi people and that this fact means something important for the nature of this war.

Then this would indicate that this is a major terroist operation that is trying to take on the United States in Iraq

I'm not so sure, GA. I initially thought that the French Resistance was perhaps the best parallel to what's going on in Iraq (purely as a structural model, not to elicit or imply sympathy with the Iraqi guerillas). In light of the BBC article Abs cited, though, it's starting to sound a bit more like the Spanish Civil War. This, to my mind, does not bode well.

In common parlance of course ("you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"), anyone who is not behind our conquests 100% is going to be labelled a "terrorist". And, no, Turnea you are far from the only one bandying the term about - I heard President Bush referring to "the remaining terrorists" in Iraq last night and the word has been in newspaper and online headlines every day for about a week.

Clearly, trying to get people to stop abusing the language, to refrain from using inaccurate and inflammatory epithets (even at a time when what we might need most is a bit of conciliation and understanding of other people's needs and concerns) is going to be like trying to stop the tide. Nevertheless, I think my quixotic efforts are worth it. If we characterize anyone we choose as a terrorist at the drop of a hat, our language ceases to have meaning. We will soon - by the loosest possible definition - be spotting terrorist enemies everywhere (alarmingly similar to the "reds under the beds" panic of the fifties), becoming an increasingly paranoid - and violent - nation. Not good. Not good at all.

You know how "yellow journalism" is Wertz:

It is more exciting if there are "terrorist" attacks in Iraq rather than simply "resistance".

From a certain point of view, attacking the civilians, infrastructure, and humanitarians CAN BE labeled terrorist. Sure, most of us academians would disagree, but that doesn't change the perception that these are terrorist attacks.

The people involved in alot of these attacks likely ARE terrorists (or would be in another context). Having them attack our relatively ready military rather than our unsuspecting citizenry seems to be working out decently well (for a "war zone").

And, you are incorrect to assert that anyone against "US conquests" is labelled a terrorist. Please be accurate: Bush said that in the War on Terror, you are either with us or with the terrorists. Don't expand his comments into another context simply to try to score some points.

I was referring here to the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns. Are you admitting that neither has much, if anything, to do with a "war on terror"??

No, they are both "linked" to the War on Terror.

You are dancing around the issues. Being against the US invasion of Iraq did not get anyone labelled a "terrorist" domestically, did it? It flies in the face of your assertion:


You even stressed the word anyone.

Abusing the language? Let's check that definition again...


Definition of terrorism

The underlined portion is inarguably true. What is left seems like the purpose of these massive attacks on the water/sewage system of hundreds of thousands of civilians to me and to others in this thread including Eeyore who apparently still disagrees with the designation. Clearly you disagree. Why not explain why rather than simply brand the designation innaccurate and dangerous without evidence? I thought we were here to debate

Could you explain what this context is and how it affects the definition of terrorism. Or possibly volunteer a new definition, it is impossible to debate an argument based solely on one's opinion on the definition of a word.

In Iraq, it is hard to distingush who is a terrorist and who is what's left of the old Saddam regime. You say the attackers of the water and oil pipelines are terrorists but how do you know? Sure, they are committing a terrorist act but they could be from the old regime, which makes them gurrilles and resistance fighters and not from Al-Queda, Hezbollah or Anar-Islam

Are you saying that they couldn't be both?
If so why?

To be more clear, why this insistence on having our own personal definitions of terrorism stand as law? Some have said they don't believe acts of terrorism can be committed by combatants in a war. Clearly that idea isn't coming from the dictionary... so where?


MOD NOTE: Closed due to age. -Jaime