Insurgents vs Terrorists: A Debate not finished IMO

[twowords]

Some responses this time please.

BluffTHIS:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making an artificial distinction here regarding terrorists and insurgents. There are not two different types of enemy here, but only one which uses different tactics in different situations against their enemies. Al-Queada makes this clear since its operatives both carried out the 9/11 attacks, and also carry out guerilla actions in Afghanistan. Same thing with various palestinian groups that have both carried out homocide bombings in Israel, and also fought small pitched battles/ambushes with small Israeli military units.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MMMMMM:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong, Cyrus. Nearly all of the attacks now in Iraq are the work of foreign jihadists and foreign terrorists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






BluffTHIS seems to want to go to war against every group in the entire world which engages in the despicable war tactic called "terrorism." When you fight a war that you can't win conventionally, terorrism and guerilla tactic become your main tactics. Of course, attacks on civilians are despicable, but most peoples consider the highest virtue in war is to win it as we have seen throughout history. Thats not to say that these tactics are not employed by states too, they've been employed in almost every modern war including WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc (Hiroshima, Tokoyo fire bombing, "Christmas bombing" in Vietnam). Our war today is not (or shouldn't be!) against a freaking war tactic, it is against an actual group of people who use such a tactic, their name is Al-Queda and they attacked us. Obviously we hate non-conventional war in general since conventionally we are utterly dominant, but to declare war on anyone who uses the tactic of terrorism is ludicrious and only serve to link various groups you don't like with our enemy, when in reality it is simply a dirty tactic in war. I repeat, this is not a war against anyone who uses this tactic, it is agaisnt Al-Queda. Palestinians and Insurgents ARE NOT AL-QUEDA, they are people fighting various wars using terrorist and guerilla tactics.

And MMMMMM, Bush says we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and we must defeat these terrorists. Pehaps this or other rhetoric has convinced you of your quote above. However, foreign fighters constitute 5-10% of the insurgency by all accounts regardless of no matter how active that small percentage is, so stop suggesting otherwise. We are NOT fighting the war versus Al-Queda in Iraq in any direct way.

Indirectly, in the long run the war in Iraq may help the war on Al-Queda via democratisation. But for our lifetimes, it has hurt the war with Al-Queda badly. Iraq is currently a new recruitment tool for OBL (to add to the old 3 from his announced jihad), a clear setback in the battle for hearts and minds of moderate muslims. When all US troops leave, he should be denied this tool if a democracy is left behind and the lives of Iraqis improve. Of course this does nothing for the relatives of the 30,000+ dead, many of them may become recruits anyway. However, this means we do have to leave completely so the government cannot credibly be called a collaborationist regime. All this assumes the Iraqi government survives in one piece, which is certainly not assured.

1) If the nationalism is not there, we cannot create it, we can only hold the place together with troops which would be deterimental to our "other" war.
2) If the nationalsim is there to keep Iraq together, then we can leave fairly soon and then see how our gamble plays out.

I truly hope situation 2 previals, but remember we cannot create nationalism. Tom Friedman said it well, "Iraq is either the Arab Germany or its the Arab Yugoslavia." It's hard to say when we will know for sure.

[BluffTHIS!]

Pit Bull vs Doberman. Both just different breeds of related dangerous dogs. Shoot them both.

i think terrorist is a poorly defined and rather useless word. in my view, a terrorist is someone using violence for the duel purpose of inflicting physical harm, and causing fear. in addition, they must not be acting on their own soil, nor may they be the direct arm of a government. my definition excludes the ira, tim mcviegh, basque seperatists, native iraqi insurgents, and arguably hamas. in my book, mcveigh was a mass murdurer, and the other groups were/are all conducting various degrees of war against there own governments. not labeling a group a terrorist is not the same as condoning their behavior, it is merely an attemtp to give some meaning to the word.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And MMMMMM, Bush says we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and we must defeat these terrorists. Pehaps this or other rhetoric has convinced you of your quote above. However, foreign fighters constitute 5-10% of the insurgency by all accounts regardless of no matter how active that small percentage is, so stop suggesting otherwise. We are NOT fighting the war versus Al-Queda in Iraq in any direct way.


[/ QUOTE ]

How did you manage to so completely miss my point in the thread where I addressed this? I even SAID that foreign fighters comprised only a small percentage of the insurgency. The POINT was that most all of the very recent attacks had been the work of foreign terrorists. Moreover, the former Sunni insurgents even offered to stand guard to protect the voters in Sunni regions from attacks by foreign terrorists. I elaborated upon, and even reiterated most of this, in that thread as well.

So please don't tell me to "quit pretending": how about instead you read carefully and critically (if it helps, just pretend you are going to have to answer SAT questions on what you are reading. Actually, that is the way EVERYONE should ALWAYS read EVERYTHING (hello Cyrus! and a few others;-))...but I do understand if occasional hasty errors are made--I've made some myself too, you know;-) In the thread you are referencing, I was very explicit in more than one post, so how you managed to miss/forget that before posting this is a bit baffling).

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Pit Bull vs Doberman. Both just different breeds of related dangerous dogs. Shoot them both.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will eventually learn to shoot them both." Or something like that. I admit I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty close.

There's nothing that annoys me more than people in a country trying to get people from another country out of their country. Which is why I have little doubt that BluffThis's strategy of killing all of the people trying to kill us for being in their country will eventually work. Just a matter of time . . .

If it werent for the liberal media, we could nuke the whole middle east.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And MMMMMM, Bush says we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and we must defeat these terrorists. Pehaps this or other rhetoric has convinced you of your quote above. However, foreign fighters constitute 5-10% of the insurgency by all accounts regardless of no matter how active that small percentage is, so stop suggesting otherwise. We are NOT fighting the war versus Al-Queda in Iraq in any direct way.


[/ QUOTE ]

How did you manage to so completely miss my point in the thread where I addressed this? I even SAID that foreign fighters comprised only a small percentage of the insurgency. The POINT was that most all of the very recent attacks had been the work of foreign terrorists. Moreover, the former Sunni insurgents even offered to stand guard to protect the voters in Sunni regions from attacks by foreign terrorists. I elaborated upon, and even reiterated most of this, in that thread as well.

So please don't tell me to "quit pretending": how about instead you read carefully and critically (if it helps, just pretend you are going to have to answer SAT questions on what you are reading. Actually, that is the way EVERYONE should ALWAYS read EVERYTHING (hello Cyrus! and a few others;-))...but I do understand if occasional hasty errors are made--I've made some myself too, you know;-) In the thread you are referencing, I was very explicit in more than one post, so how you managed to miss/forget that before posting this is a bit baffling).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, I can concede all that. My point was meant for the undoubtedly high percentage of Americans who proudly proclaim that we are "fighting the terrorists in Iraq," which is hardly the story. I'm quite glad you are not in this group M.

There is little doubt that the real "terrorists" (which refers to international Al-Queda-affiliated terrorists) would never be tolerated in Iraq if the US left, much less would it become a terrorist state or a breeding ground for terrorism. For that to happen the Iraqi government with hundreds of thousands of troops would have to fall apart along enthnic lines. If that will happen if we leave in 2006, then it would happen if we left 5 years later as well. The nationalism is there or its not, we cannot create it.

The most important point I was adressing was the uselessness of the term "War on Terror," as one poser noted the term "terrorist" is only useful for confusing people about who we are fighting and why. Clearly it has confused Bluff into viewing vastly different groups as the same, and extending the war.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
The most important point I was adressing was the uselessness of the term "War on Terror," as one poser noted the term "terrorist" is only useful for confusing people about who we are fighting and why. Clearly it has confused Bluff into viewing vastly different groups as the same, and extending the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

It's HARD WORK, telling things apart, treating things differently, you know -- HARD WORK!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The debate is not finished, because there really is nothing to debate. Looking upon terrorists and/or insurgents as one group is silly. There is like 100s of terrorist groups and many of them would kill eachother if they had the chance, as there is 100s of insurgent groups. Trying to simplify a complex matter leads to solutions with shortcomings.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to simplify a complex matter leads to re-election given that so much of the electorate is mildly retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp