I read this article in the LA times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...la-news-comment

If you hate them you can call them thugs, assassins, maybe terrorists. If you like them they're freedom fighters, patriots, maybe mujahideen. The non-partisan news media says resistence, guerrillas, insurgents, sometimes feyedeen or rebels.

So, the question is, what is the most fair non-political way to term Iraqi fighters?

(or, for that matter, what should we call the American fighters in Iraq? In an article I saw in Time today they called Bremer the American proconsul, which is an explicitly imperialist colonial term. He is often called administrator but that seems a little vague. To say "coalition" is supportive of the occupation since "coalition" is the way the US likes to address itself, using the term "allies" being even more biased since it sounds WWII like. )

Indigenous guerrillas.

These are locals fighting us because we're occupying their country. For the most part, they aren't al Qaeda, according to our own generals. They're locals who are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off and dangerous.

What we call our troops over there is this: sons, daughters, friends, loved ones. What the Iraqis call us is up to them.

I started a very similar topic a while ago.

I lay out the reasons why the term "terrorists" applies there.

Freedom Fighters

The war is simply not over. These folks are either feyedeen or soldiers who dropped their uniforms and are fighting on. The ex loyalists have little to lose since their support is largely gone.

Once they are captured or killed the country will be better off.

Since it seems we can pick up the debate here I'll post the gist of the justification for "terrorists"




Baghdad faces months of on-and-off electricity

Saboteurs hinder rebuilding in Iraq


and the most clear example of terrorism against the Iraqi people...

Baghdad terror blasts kill dozens

The term terrorists is crucial to understanding this situation this isn't US vs. Iraqi people.

Rather
Coalition+Iraqi people vs. a group of murders

as a rule, there may be exceptions of course but this isn't a fight for freedom at least not on their side...


That's because forces in Iraq are members of a coalition... .

This isn't about political support it's about accurately describing the situation so that it might be better dealt with.

I would have to say "terrorist" is perhaps an inappropriate term. At best, they are resistance-opposition fighters. The word "terrorist" is used way to promiscuously to connotate anyone who dares oppose us.

Whether or not the term is misused in other cases I believe the evidence I've put forth justifies it's use in this case. Terrorism is a term with an objective definition, the actions of these attackers in Iraq fits that definition so we can conclude they are terrorists.

I would disagree, it's more subjective if you ask me. The British viewed the colonists in the same light. One's definition of "patriot" and "terrorist" depends upon which side you are on. If terrorism is an act by a nation towards others that harms them, then I'm sure that you could say that we are terrorists ourselves. Overthrowing democratically elected leaders, supporting ultra-right death squads in El Salvador(who have a propensity for killing priests and nuns) as well as being convicted in the world court for mining Managua harbor is evidence alone to support the theory that the U.S. is a rogue state.

They're terrorists, plain and simple. They are killing their own people, civilians. They are fighters for a dead TERRORIST REGEME. Freedom fighters makes them seem like they're victims in all of this, and they're not.

CP

Killing their own people? We call that "collateral damage" The officials and police officers? The colonists did the same thing to Tories and their property. Iraq was a terrorist state? Then what does that make us? We gave them money and military aid all throughout the 1980s. We even were responsible for killing a U.N. provision condemning the Baathists for gassing the kurds. We provided military intelligence so as to prevent Iran(who was justified) from taking Iraq. Rumsfeld gave Saddam a pair of golden spurs. Are we too cozy with dictators? In regard to your last assertion, I never stated in any post that they were freedom fighters. I stated that they are resistance/opposition fighters, which is what they are. The term "terrorist" is still very subjective in this case. Iraqi teens throwing rocks at occupation forces are not in the same league as the "pilots" who flew their planes into the trade towers.

The Dictionary Master strikes again ...



The reason terrorism seems subjective is because no one actually examines what it mean. What is important is not simply the act put the purpose, to "intimidate societies"

The terrorists have attacked Iraq water, power , and the red cross. This was not a case of collateral damage, the military wasn't hurt, just ordinary Iraqis trying to get on with their lives.

You're not suggesting that undermining Iraqi society doesn't undermine the American occupation are you?

I suggesting that it does so by use of terrorism.

Terrorists use attacks to intimidate Iraqis which makes it hard for the American occupation.

Once everyone involved understands this,
*that it is the Iraqi's future that must be protected
that these terrorists are clearly not out to protect it and indeed intend to harm it and *that this one of (if not the) single most dangerous threat to the Iraqi people (not occupation, which rather than being the problem is part of the solution)...

then the world can make efforts to support Iraqis effectively.

I find it hard to consider a group which bombs the Red Cross as a legitimate resistance, non-terrorist effort. A 'militia' whose modus operandi depends on the goodwill of its adversaries...throwing grenades from hospitals and school houses, for example, with the knowledge that their strongest offense is through the direct endangerment of their own civilian population because the enemy attempts to protect them, certainly needs its own definition. But I can't think of any at the moment that wouldn't violate the rules for profanity.

Does it really matter, in the end what we call them, or what they choose to call themselves? The fact is that regardless of name or description, they are ambushing coalition forces, and blowing up politically or economically important buildings. They just need to be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible, be that arresting them, or, if in battle, killing them.

Niteguy has it right. Names are meaningless. They are what is left of one of the most represssive regimes in the world and they appear to be resisting the loss of their power.

Killing them may be our best option since they really don't have a future in Iraq anymore than known SS troopers did in post war Germany.

Excellent Point!

Though as obvious as this may seem to you and I, there is a school of thought that these people must be appeased (brought on by the mistaken assumption that these terrorists represent a significant section of Iraqi opinion). The administration may have fallen for this to some extent with their new plan to turn over sovereignty (which really doesn't address the true problem.)

That is why the language we use is so important, accurate descriptions of a probelm help to form successful solutions.

These aren't freedom fighters, not home-grown opposition to failed US policy, they are terrorists.

If language wasn't important then I know a lot of professionals would be out of a job...

You can't call them terrorists. That term is propaganda of the Bush administration used to name anyone who opposes the US, as has been posted before. As long as the United States, not the United Nations, heads the Iraqi rebuilding process, any attacks are not terrorist attacks, but the attacks of a nation whose sovereignty has been violated by another sovereign nation.

This is kind of a rhetorical post, but why call them by some broad, stupid, inaccurate label? On a practical level, I understand the need to call all the combatants something, but I think having some pointless philosophical debate on whether you can be a freedom fighter while trying to restore a cruel despot or a terrorist when your target is an occupying military. In the rare instances where we know who was fighting, can't we acknowledge the complexity of the situation by referring to former Republican guard, Fedayeen, foreign terrorists, disgruntled Shi'ites, etc.? I honestly believe it's perfectly fine to call the above mean names, but insisting on it seems abit childish, just as asserting noble motives to Al Qaeda elements taking advantage of situation is abit, well, "headgear-and-short-bus-special".

Disregarding the fact that the administration does not of course refer to everyone who opposes the US as terrorists ...

Who in charge of Iraq doesn't matter terrorism is violence used to terrorize a populace, their have been a number acts of terrorism committed in Iraq and there perpetrators are terrorists by definition. Objective not subjective.


1. Because we can't be sure who's committing what attack.

2. Because occasionally we might want to refer to the attackers as a whole.

If this is an organized campaign (and it seems that it is) then it is certainly accurate to call them terrorists because they engage in acts of terrorism against Iraqis. As I've said before once this is understood the true problems in Iraq can be seen and rectified.

Attacks targeting coalition forces are not terrorism, of course, but those are not the only types of attacks going on. Indeed, in my opinion, they are not the most seriously threatening to the future of the Iraqis.

It's a matter of focus, using "terrorist" as a term places focus on the plight of Iraqis (where it should be).

If you are seriously going to suggest that definition of terrorism then the American soliders are clearly terrorists...and it seems difficult to think of a scenario in which a war could be conducted without terrorism.

"The unlawful use"= War is by definition a violation of soverignty, an instance in which the law is contested. Blowing stuff up and bombing goverment buildings was understandably unlawful in Saddam's Iraq, as it is in any country, and, that didn't stop the US from doing it because that is the point of war. The invasion also violated international law: a UN member cannot invade anouther UN member except as a response to an act of war or a security council declaration authorizing the use of force explicitly(this is Article 2 of the UN charter). Since the United States has signed and ratified a treaty accepting the UN charter and becoming a UN Member State (in fact, the host state) violating this peice of international law also violates American law.

Incidently, while the Islamist sucide bombers are criminals in the international law sense, the Feyedeen and other guerrilla style Iraqi fighters are acting lawfully under the Third Geneva Convention, a treaty to which the United States is a "High Contracting Party."

(specifically, artical 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention. Any Baathist or Feyedeen as a member of a "Volenteer corp" of the the Iraqi goverment, a "Belligerent Party" in the conflict is automatically a "Legal Belligerent" under article 4 section 1. Any non-Baathist or a Baathist who joined the resistence without the approval of Saddam Hussien's officers who belongs to a military cell or other rebel unit is acting within the laws of war under article 4 section 2, if they are using AK-47s, morters, RPG, or other bombs (the exeptions being individuals who fight alone or sucide bombers who conceal their bombs on their person, who might be criminals). Under article 4 section 3, any uniformed militant who claims alligance to Saddam (since he was a head of state) or the former Iraqi goverment, is also a lawful combatant, even if they don't meet the conditions in section 1 or 2.

And, even if an Iraqi is neither a former member of the Iraqi Army, a member of an armed cell, or a militant who claims political alliagence with Saddam's former goverment, they can still according to the laws of war, shoot at American troops as lawful combatants (as long as they're using visible weapons, again suicide bombs don't count unless they're worn outside of clothing). This is established in article 4 section 6 of the same treaty governing civilians who spontaniously take up arms against an occupying power.

These four sections of the third geneva convention basically confirm that any violence(with the exeption of suicide bombers who hide their explosives and are neither members of the Iraqi Army or uniformed supporters of Saddam Hussien) against the "Coalition" is a legal act of war and not a war crime. Anyone who engages in violence against the coalition is, at least in the legal sense, a soldier, not a terrorist, and they are legally entitled to treatment as Prisoners of War and not criminals if they are captured.


As for the rest of your definition...all wars are meant to coerce goverments, and while economics are clearly involved, the reasons sited are normally political and/or ideological. What reason other than to force a goverment to do something or stop doing something can you think of to go to war?

Take a close look at the definition, the purpose of an act of terrorism is to intimidate a society not a government. For instance since our fight was not with the Iraqis during the war our attacks were meant to intimidate and render harmless Saddam's government. The fear of the Iraqi populace was never part of the plan (indeed it would have been counter-productive).

The terrorists in Iraq on the other hand are attempting to strike fear in Iraqi society, in the civilian public.

There lies the difference.

It is not that attacks on coalition troops that make these people terrorists it is their attempts to terrorize Iraqi society.
Edited to add:
Placing foot firmly in mouth, it seems governments also fit the defintion. So that Makes the US terrorists (If you consider the war illegal, I find that arguable) as well, though there terrorism is of a less insidious nature.

Do you honustly think that campaigns of "SHOCK AND AWE!" and "IRON HAMMER!" aren't meant to intimidate the Iraqi populace? You can't attack a goverment without also attacking the populace, if only as a side effect. The same applies with the Iraqi resistence fighters, they target the coalition and the occupation goverment, civilians are sometimes collatoral damage (keep in mind that no mainstream American news reports Resistence collatoral damage of more than 300 where as all estimates put the American collatoral damage at at least over a 1500, some claiming tens of thousands).

The Americans in their rhetoric explicitly tell the Iraqis to fear them anyways.

But, this is all besides the point, we cannot see inside the heads of any of these people so we ought to confine our discussion to what they are doing not what the intended effect is.

If you read my arguement it would seem that at least in the letter of the international law, the American forces are engaged in a war crime and the vast majority of the Iraqi resistence are conducting a legal war. Perhaps you could reply to that?

"Meant to" is the key point here the words "Shock and Awe" and "Iron Hammer" sound tremendous on paper, but the effect on the ground in Iraq has not been shown to be large at all when it comes to the average Iraqi. Capital letter and exclamation points have great visual effect here but...

As I've mentioned before the fear of the Iraqi populace cannot be the desired outcome of US actions because this would run counter to US interests while providing zero benefit.. This is shown by the fact that a majority of those in Baghdad felt US soldiers were conducting themselves well according to Gallup polls.


No, they also target civilians and civilians facilities of Iraqis killing independent Iraqi aid worker at the red cross and depriving hundreds of thousands of water by bombing pipelines.


It is often useful to infer intent from action in a number of life's situations (justice and politics come to mind) why should this be different?



Let's check out article two:

Nothing about requiring UN approval for every war...

Of course attacks against coalition troops are legal acts of war, this is not what I'm referring to as terrorism.

Aside from questioning your grasp of the term "rhetorical", I suggest you might want to read the entire post of someone you're replying to:



Anyway, my point stands, and the non-rhetorical point is that the quibbling over what broad, catch-all term to apply distracts from how woefully simplistic the general populace sees the Iraq situation. Everything from the argument for the war to even most of the public debate of the coverage of the aftermath has been dumbed down. I've seen only a handful of many dozens of commentators on the Iraq situation portray it as anything more complex than well-earned Bedlam or Heaven on Earth.

Shouldn't we be forcing big, hard-to-pronounce words upon the viewing public, so that they realize that the world outside of our borders is populated by more than the direct lackeys of Saddam and bin Laden and eager supporters of the U.S.? It's no wonder our citizens are clueless about the rest of the world when people worry more about what blanket term to call opposition than who the opposition actually is, and issues like whether or not or invasion has brought more foreign terrorists into Iraq than were there previously.

This is, of course, a debate site, a place were any rhetoric posted is open to response...

If you're going to ask why a broad term is needed and then list reasons...


What news are you listening to?! I see so called "experts" toss around "insurgents", "Fedayeen", "Sunnis", and "Shia" all the time. There's is a whole list of buzzwords that have been chosen so that the media may sound in depth.

The use of the word terrorist does not dumb down the Iraqi situation is sharpens the focus on the key issue, the problem in Iraq is a group of people that is out to destroy there chances for a peaceful future.

Is that painting the solution with a broad brush?
The truth is we don't know, which is why pretending to know detail is worse than dealing in generalities.

"Big and Hard-to-Pronounce" are poor substitutes for accurate and meaningful...

You are missing a LOT here.
guide to Geneva Conventions

First, although the section of the Geneva convention you mentioned does encompass resistance forces, it also states one qualifier you left out at the end. Combatants must be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

Laws of warfare are violated, according to Protocol I, Art. 48, when Combatants don't distinguish between civilian and military property They can attack only military property. This doesn't include the Red Cross, or the UN embassy building, or a host of other facilities they have targeted. Having an armed guard at the entrance of a facility by no means automatically makes it qualify. In fact, we have war lawyers who analyze every target beforehand to determine if enough evidence indicates that it is military property.

The Geneva conventions also explicitly include a category for those who do not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. In Protocol I, Art. 37
Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: a. the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; b. the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; c. the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and d. the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. That would include dropping grenades from hospitals, shooting from ambulances, schools, ect.

To continue, because the issue of house searches was raised earlier...Convention IV, Art. 64 states civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

In our love for acronyms, generally we refer to them as "FRL's = Former Regime Loyalists". Sometimes even IZ's - the two letter code for Iraq. Hajji is a generic term that's used around here for all the local guys. But my favorite term that's used regularly in reporting on the bad guys is "non-compliant elements". It sounds almost benign.

But media reporting is very different. They hate acronyms, because they know most people don't understand them. "Former Regime Loyalist" is too long and clumsy a term for the soundbites, although it is occasionally used. "Iraqi", of course is far too generic. "Non-compliant elements", as I've already stated, sounds too benign and doesn't catch attention like "Terrorist". A lot of foreign media outlets refer to them as "Resistance Fighters", the BBC and even CNN lately has been referring to the "Insurgents". Most of the media switches to "Terrorist" for reporting yet another suicide bombing, but will go right back to whatever term they were using after that.

Personally, I prefer "insurgents" out of the lot.

Mustang, I'm wondering why the term "Hajji" is used? It means someone who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca.

I agree with your choice of "insurgents."

I find "insurgents" a little iffy. It mean revolutionaries against an established government. I'm not sure this is the case with these attackers in Iraq. The main problem is that they've been fighting since before the CPA was established and I don't think the provisional authority is there target.

Of course I can't be sure.

I don't see these people as anti-establishment types, guerillas and terrorists, for me.

If attacking infrastructure for the sole purpose of hurting civilians is criteria for terrorism, then one could logically extend that label to the United States. Our embargo against Iraq did not hurt any of the leaders in Iraq. It was done to drive the people to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which is why then secretary of state Madeline Albright said that the sanctions were "worth it" inspite of the number of mounting deaths(children mind you) from disease, dehydration, and malnutrition.

Seeing as the Iraqi populace had zero control over Iraqi policy, the sanctions were not (and could not be) targeted and intimidating Iraqi society which is part of the definition for terrorism.

That and the sanctions were legal and not violent. I would refer you again to the definition.

That is an awfully broad definition of terrorism under which a whole array of activities can be placed. Also terrorism/terrorist has become such a loaded buzz term.

It is possible to be an insurgent using tactics that can be defined as terrorism. The United States has yet to define the terrorism that it is at war with. The people of Iraq have no legitimate government that they can point to and if they believe they are being repressed they have the right to strike out against their oppressors. I am not cheering for this, but not all activities taken against US and its allied forces should IMHO be characterized as terrorism.

Were the Yugoslavian partisans fighting under Tito in Yugoslavia terrorists? Were the Contras terrorists? Were the Free French terrorists? If your answer to all of these questions is yes, then you could consider all the actions against the US forces terrorism. If you answer no to one of these then the answer is not so clear.

There are terrorist attacks going on in Iraq. Attacks on police stations and military installations, however, are not so clearly defined as terrorist attacks without the concession that they also can be labeled by a term with a more positive connotation.

But the American soldiers have zero control over US policy OR Iraqi policy...

If sanctions specifically resulted in deaths, why would that not be considered violence? If bin Laden were able somehow to stop all food and water from entering Manhatten, resulting in thousands of deaths, would you say that is not terrorism? Not violent?

Oh that's certainly correct, but a number of the attacks against groups of Iraqi civilians certainly can. The fact that this "resistance" is organized (and by all measures have little popular support) seems to suggest this group, which doesn't not always use terrorism as a tactic (neither does Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan...) does do so enough to be called by that name.

Again, the use of the term "terrorist" put the focus on the plight of Iraqis, which is the key point in this issue.

No "terrorist" organization always uses terrorist tactics but use them enough and a group "earns" the term.

I have yet to be convinced that there is a centrally organized resistance or that those fighting the Americans have little popular support.

Just because some polls show that the majority of Iraqi don't want the Americans to leave right now(and leave no other security agency in their place) does not mean that they embrace the Americans as liberators.

I don't think there is enough information on this one to call the resistance organized. If not then there are probably different types of groups that sponsor attacks against . . .

well I guess I need to go do some research, because I haven't seen much proof of attacks specifically designed to terrorize Iraqi civilians. I have seen attacks that target pro-American politicians, Iraqi police forces, American allied soldiers, foreign organizations, and the American troops

I also remember a piece about attacks on Shia cleric leaders that were supposed to be carried out by a rival upstart cleric who was anti-American.

I don't see an organized terror campaign against civilians. I'll go hunt a little. I see infighting and I see an effort to oust a foreign presence. (And yes I do recognize the attacks on the Red Cross and the UN as terror attacks.)

I'm going to research because I am now rambling.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my posting. Having looked over your response for awhile now, here are some comments that I think while you may not agree with, are my perceptions on this problem.

First, I have to disagree with the assertion tha because the Iraqi people had no control over policy, that they couldn't have possibly been targeted. I would point out that the Iraqi people did have a degree of control. The line of reasoning was that if the sanctions were put in place and many people were put in misery, that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown. We were shaking the bottle and hoped dearly that those at the bottom would push those at the top out. That is the feeling that I get when you read between the lines. If you want to look at what the lines say-then the reasoning is that the sanctions would never be lifted unless Iraq had a new leader(the implication being....what I outlined earlier) While it is true that the sanctiond were "legal" it must be pointed out that the US fought rather hard for the sanctions not to be modified, which is what many UN member nations desired.

"International support for the embargo has dwindled amid a growing perception that they hurt the Iraqi people more than President Saddam Hussein. The US and its allies are reported to be facing difficulties persuading Turkey, Syria and Jordan to give up their profits from a lucrative trade in smuggled Iraqi oil. Syria has been buying more than 100,000 barrels a day of Iraqi oil, at a discount because the money goes straight to the Iraqi Government, not to the UN account which receives most oil revenues."--courtesy of globalpolicy.org


Our actions regarding the embaro were terroristic in nature. Terror can be illegal or legal in nature. The difference is very minimal. Intention does not matter. The end result, is the basis that we need to consider. If children die, whether or not our government purposely set out to do so or not, is not relevant in my opinion. The first rule should be: "Do no harm" When this rule is broken, then terorrism has been engaged in. And most certainly, our leaders at the top had to know that the common people would be hurt by these sanctions. Restricting trade which is tied to food supply is something I'm sure was discussed. How could they have not possibly known about it? Obviously they assumed that the people would blame Saddam and that the people would give us the government that we wanted to work with.

"More than one million Iraqis have died-567,000 of them chldren--as a direct consequence of ecnonmoic sanctions...As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted, and 29% underweight."
-United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) December 1995

I certainly would never argue the fact that sanctions adversely effected the population of Iraq, and were overall a bad idea, but those results are much less direct than your post would indicate.

First, the rationale behind the sanctions was to prevent Saddam's military buildup, and directly buying the crude would offer no such assurance. The oil-for-food program was set up to ensure that the Iraqi population would receive what it needed from the oil money, but that money would have to go towards supplies and food. Unfortunately, the sanctions were ignored by some, and a black-market underground for the cheap oil was created. During the time of the sanctions, Saddam built himself new palaces with marble steps and hand-painted tile while his citizens starved.
Two options were available (unless I'm missing something): 1)Buy oil and give Saddam money for military buildup or 2)Sanction the country and buy oil in exchange for food and supplies. Although I might agree or disagree with option 2, I don't see the 'terrorist' angle behind that choice.