Soldiers, insurgents and terrorists

[Lux]

From this page.

If you asked a 'terrorist' whether or not they were one, they'd likely tell you that they were a soldier fighting for their country/deity/etc. which isn't all too far from the response you'd get asking a 'soldier'.

[...] You may believe that you're liberating Iraq, but so do they. Who's right? Which are terrorists?

I think there should be a distinction between terrorists and U.S. soldiers. Equating the two is going a bit too far.

But, as East of Eden mentioned about those so called 16000 terror attacks -- that's different.

There is a difference between a terrorist attack against civilians and local militants & international insurgents. They may kill civilians and they may be terrorists, but when they attack - it's an insurgent attack.

I would like that we all note the difference between insurgent and terrorist, because there is a difference.

Insurgents are those who organize a resistance against an established power, be it an elected government, a de facto government, a foreign army, etc. A lot of times non-military Iraqi fighters are called terrorists when in fact they are insurgents.
If a country invaded the USA and installed a de facto government and an army, non-military americans rising against that power would be insurgents.

A terrorist or terrorist organization is a person or group with the ultimate intent of forcing another group of people into acting a certain way involuntarily, by use of terror, and usually for religious or political reasons. Some of the non-military fighters in Iraq are in fact terrorists rather than insurgents, but there is no indication as to how many fall into each category.


Questions for debate:

1) Is there a difference in outcome and intent between terrorist acts and careless soldiers' acts?

2) Is there a reason to consider insurgency as any worse than military actions taken in Iraq?

[Kuan]

Yes there could be a difference. Usually the soldiers make a mistake and when they realize it they will stop. Terrorists are not making a mistake and this was there intention the whole time.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can know how soldiers think, other than perhaps knowing a few in person and knowing their personal opinion. All we can do is assume that the US soldiers are the good guys.

Being optimistic, we could say that terrorists think they're working towards a good/fair cause, know that innocents will be killed in the process but proceed anyway. The same can be said for soldiers. Even in the best case scenario for both (neither purposefully being jerks), they both know they'll either participate or be directly responsible in the killing of innocent people but consider that their cause is worth it, so they proceed.

Of course we cant know how they think unless we were to be one. (I actually am thinking of signing, so maybe i could provide some input later on if this is still going on...) But when people claim what we are doing over there is wrong and we are as bad as terrorists, thats where they are wrong. The question, does the ends justify the means? comes to mind...

Sorry if i sound like an idiot...Finals week...

[LiamOS]

But which 'end' is more justified?

And good luck in finals. I have exams too, but after Thursday they're all easy.

[Kuan]

But which 'end' is more justified?

And good luck in finals. I have exams too, but after Thursday they're all easy.

Who knows anymore...

[Lux]

Of course we cant know how they think unless we were to be one. (I actually am thinking of signing, so maybe i could provide some input later on if this is still going on...) But when people claim what we are doing over there is wrong and we are as bad as terrorists, thats where they are wrong. The question, does the ends justify the means? comes to mind...

Sorry if i sound like an idiot...Finals week...

I think that the USA going to Iraq was a mistake. I'm not sure if I'd say that the soldiers are as bad as the terrorists though, because I think there's a difference in intent for the most part. However, in foreseeable outcome, I don't see a difference between the two. Like I said, they both knew they would be involved in the deaths of many innocents but assumed their cause was worth that.
What I think is wrong is when people imply that the soldiers killing civilians is ok, especially if at the same time they suggest that when the terrorists kill people that's wrong. Why? They are still people. 95,000 dead iraqi civilians is not just a number, it's 95,000 human lives lost, tens of thousands of loved ones devastated.


No, you don't sound like an idiot. Good luck with the finals

[Kuan]

Of course we cant know how they think unless we were to be one. (I actually am thinking of signing, so maybe i could provide some input later on if this is still going on...) But when people claim what we are doing over there is wrong and we are as bad as terrorists, thats where they are wrong. The question, does the ends justify the means? comes to mind...

Sorry if i sound like an idiot...Finals week...

I think that the USA going to Iraq was a mistake. I'm not sure if I'd say that the soldiers are as bad as the terrorists though, because I think there's a difference in intent for the most part. However, in foreseeable outcome, I don't see a difference between the two. Like I said, they both knew they would be involved in the deaths of many innocents but assumed their cause was worth that.
What I think is wrong is when people imply that the soldiers killing civilians is ok, especially if at the same time they suggest that when the terrorists kill people that's wrong. Why? They are still people. 95,000 dead iraqi civilians is not just a number, it's 95,000 human lives lost, tens of thousands of loved ones devastated.

Intents a big issue.

Personally, im actualy fine with being in Iraq. I figured we would end up there sooner or later. Of course I have no clue what im talking about since I dont know politics. Im still trying to get into it though...

[ChaosBorders]

Of course we cant know how they think unless we were to be one. (I actually am thinking of signing, so maybe i could provide some input later on if this is still going on...) But when people claim what we are doing over there is wrong and we are as bad as terrorists, thats where they are wrong. The question, does the ends justify the means? comes to mind...

Sorry if i sound like an idiot...Finals week...

I think that the USA going to Iraq was a mistake. I'm not sure if I'd say that the soldiers are as bad as the terrorists though, because I think there's a difference in intent for the most part. However, in foreseeable outcome, I don't see a difference between the two. Like I said, they both knew they would be involved in the deaths of many innocents but assumed their cause was worth that.
What I think is wrong is when people imply that the soldiers killing civilians is ok, especially if at the same time they suggest that when the terrorists kill people that's wrong. Why? They are still people. 95,000 dead iraqi civilians is not just a number, it's 95,000 human lives lost, tens of thousands of loved ones devastated.

Intents a big issue.

Personally, im actualy fine with being in Iraq. I figured we would end up there sooner or later. Of course I have no clue what im talking about since I dont know politics. Im still trying to get into it though...

Why do you figure we would have ended up there anyways? At any rate, even assuming we would have attacked Iraq anyways (despite not having a good reason to), from a military perspective a much better startegy would have been building up in Afghanistan (crushing the Taliban entirely in the process) and then going into Iraq.

I still do not think that would have been a good idea, but at least it would have been preferable from a military perspective.