Are the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters or terrorists

[genius]

During our revolution, our leaders fought by ambush and devious means because they knew they couldn't win by just marching down a road and getting shot. Now the Iraqis have their George Washingtons standing up and fighting for them in the only way that is practical against a superior military force. That's how I see it. How do others here see it?

[lvx35]

1. This is a tough call...

Basically, if they are attacking US military targets, they are not terrorists, they are soldiers. If they are attacking civilians they are terrorists. My understanding it that there are some of both going on.

[dutchdemocrat]

7. Hmmm...

Using that logic - would you say US soldiers attacking and killing civilians are 'terrorists'?

I would.

[lvx35]

77. Hell yes.

That's the definition of terrorist I accept, and if it applies to US troops that's their problem.

[radwriter0555]

20. They can be terrorists ONLY if Geo. Washington was a terrorist when he was

fighting for the independence of the USA.

So, if George Washington can be considered a terrorist, then so can the Iraqis.

[lvx35]

78. Did George Washinton attack civilians

who sided with the English? My understanding is that he was a general who fought against british soldiers

[genius]

84. Civilians are always casualties of war. Remember Bush bombed babies

in the hospitals in which their mothers were celebrating their birth. It's no wonder the Iraqis are so grief-stricken.

[Journeyman]

2. Whatever they're fighting for . . .

I wouldn't characterize it as "freedom."

[The Stranger]

23. They're fighting an occupying power.

Freedom from being occupied.

[noahmijo]

3. Iraqis pissed off about their homes being bombed or their children

getting blown up = freedom fighters.

People from Syria and Pakistan pouring in just to hunt US Troops = TERRORISTS

[genius]

82. If they blew up our children and homes, we'd probably be doing same.

[slackmaster]

94. Sure thing genius

If someone blew up my house the first thing I'd do is set off a bomb next to a school bus.

:eyes:

[ladylibertee]

4. Not for me.They are soldiers fighting for a TERRORIST

[The Magistrate]

5. The Question Is Meaningless, Ma'am

One phrase employed has no fixed meaning, and the other no independent meaning.

A definition of freedom must be agreed on before the usage "freedom fighter" can be anything but a propaganda coinage. Freedom certainly is generally taken to mean something more than mere absence of foreign dominion: this can be achieved by any number of totalitarian modes. No one resisting the U.S. occvupation of Iraq is doing so in the name of, or with the aim of achieving, anything most of us here would regard as freedom. Most are fighting to establish a theocracy of ruinously reactionary style, that would greatly circumscribe the liberties of the population there. Others are fighting for various styles of dictatorship to be exercised by themselves once the occupier is driven out.

"Terrorism" is a term that has no descriptive value: it simply indicates the person using it disapproves of the violent persons it is used to denote. All violence, whether state or private, employed oin conventional war or in irregular partisan wise, aims to inflict terror on witnesses and survivors, and this for a variety of ends. It is certainly true that a great proportion of the violence employed by forces in Iraq opposing the U.S, occupation is criminal, in that it aims directly at killing civilians. My inclinatuion is to stretch a point in the matter, and conceed that various collaborators, persons seeking to enlist in the puppet forces of the occupation, and the like, should be considered lawful targets in such a situation. But a great deal of the violence does not even have that degree of sanction: it is aimed directly at civilians of differing religiosity or ethnicity, in hopes of provoking a sectarian civil war that would suit the purposes of some of the groups involved. It is certainly true that the occupation and puppet forces engage in a variety of criminal acts of violence, but this does not alter the criminal nature of those acts commited by opponents of the occupation, any more than their criminal acts excuse those of the occupying and puppet forces.

[Frederik]

13. Freedom fighters

"Most are fighting to establish a theocracy of ruinously reactionary style, that would greatly circumscribe the liberties of the population there"

And you would know this how exactly? Such a theocracy appears to be what the US-backed SCIRI/Da'wa-dominated government is setting up. There won't be all that many liberties for the "insurgents" to circumscribe anyway. And those who fight this government are fighting for...

well, who knows. A Sunni version of the same? The Binladenite variety probably envisage something like that. A secular, autharitarian government similar to the old ba'athist regime is probably the goal of some of the others. A shi'ite theocracy which would be less subservient to Iran than the current government is may be the goal of the Sadrists. A Western-style democracy is rather alien to that region anyway. But do you have to fight for a Western-style democracy to be a freedom fighter? While "freedom" certainly is "generally taken to mean something more than mere absence of foreign dominion", the absence of foreign dominion is the kind of freedom a freedom fighter is fighting for. That was the case with Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, presently known as al-Qa'ida.

My impression is that most of the insurgency is motivated by a nationalistic anger at the occupation, and even by a desire to avenge killed relatives. It's a resistance against the occupiers more than it is fighting for a specific type of government.

[The Magistrate]

34. There Is Something To That, Sir

There are no good outcomes likely to the situation, and it was a bad situation to begin with. Meddling with it in the first place was an act of folly raised to the point of criminal fecklessness. But that does not alter the fact that the dichotomy posed above is a false one: it posits a choice between two terms of the propagandist's art, neither of which has any real meaning. The employment of either term says much more about the person employing it than it does about the thing that person is purporting to describe by its use.

[file83]

6. Watch the 80's movie "Red Dawn", then answer....

In the 80's movie called Red Dawn, which was considered at the time a "patriotic" movie about how American citizens, cutoff from the outide world by a Communist invasion of Russian/Cuban troops, try and survive.

In a creepy part of the movie (from today's perspective), an all American highschool girl named Erica (played by Lea Thompson) infiltrates a "green zone" type of occupied territory and bombs a business frequented by Communist soldiers. Being Americans, it is a scene back then that many considered a brave act, an act of patriotism.

Yet, when Iraqis do that today, it is considered a "terrorist" act. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It really depends on what frame of reference you want to answer the question.

It's both and it's neither, in my opinion. It's war. And you know what they say about Love and War.

[dutchdemocrat]

8. One word

Fallujah.

An act of terrorism.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi file83!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

70. Also see "The Battle For Algiers"

(which has a lush 3-disc release from Criterion)

[wmills551]

9. They are terrorists!

They target and murder civilians every day. Even Dennis (She's my wife not my daughter) Kucinich would agree. Thanks for asking.

[Disturbed]

10. Is al Sadr a terrorist?

I did not vote because the question is totally simplistic and the wrong frame. There are many factions in Iraq. One thing is clear to me: A large majority of Iraqis want the US/UK Occupation to end. I believe that Iraq would be better off when the US/UK Occupying Forces leave and allow the Iraqis to re-build their country. Instead of spending $Billions to occupy Iraq Amerika should stop spending money that way and use money to help Iraqis re-build their country.

[Frederik]

16. "They"

are not a homogenous group. The majority of the daily attacks are directed at US forces, which is legitimate resistance and not "terrorism".

[Frederik]

11. There are many different groups

Some are terrorists, some are freedom fighters. You can't put them all in the same category.

[NaturalHigh]

12. They are killing IRAQI civilians.

It's not like they are only trying to force out American troops, they are killing their own people to further their own political goals. That makes them terrorists.

[Frederik]

17. Again, "they"

are many different groups with many different aims and methods. The ones who target Iraqi civilians belong to an extremist minority.

[radwriter0555]

21. No they aren't. The brits captured last week prove that the iraqis are NOT

killing their own.

Why on earth would they kill each other? That makes no sense.

[MildyRules]

24. Wow

That's a huge leap of logic.

[radwriter0555]

69. I've been paying attention for a long time now... specifically,

since August, 2000 when I sat down to learn who george bush was so I could figure out who to vote for. That endeavor changed my life completely.

Since then I've spent every single day without exception, paying attention, reading everything in sight from hundreds if not thousands of news sources; not to mention historical biased and factual.

I've been studying every aspect of this administration and all of its players for the past 5 years non-stop, and I'm not wrong here.

Every conclusion I've drawn about this regime and its actions has been dead on accurate.

Iraqis are not killing each other with suicide car bombs.

US & british covert ops are.

[MildyRules]

75. Then you have some

empirical proof of this. Please share.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MildyRules]

91. From your post:

"Nick Berg, he wasn't killed by iraqis. Those were israeli mossad, a classic example of their work.

Daniel Pearl, knew too much. Found too much."

That tells me all I need to know. Thanks.

[radwriter0555]

99. Proof is about analysis of the situation based on the events. NOT based on

what the empirialist conquering and occupying bush and PNAC agencies are telling you.

This all then becomes "why do you insist on believing the organizations that have lied to you, day after day in each and every single statement they've issued..."

Every iota of information from the bush/PNAC regime about iraq is carefully crafted and delivered for specific effect. Considering the source and their history of lies, treason, murder, torture, wars, death, slaughter, looting, stealing, destruction and genocide, I don't have a reason to believe one word such organizations tell me.

Why do you?

Education is about critically analysing all the facts from various sources; this isn't about ONE reporter saying "they're lying about who the insurgents are!!!"

This is about ME saying the reporters are idiots who sit in their hotel rooms waiting for information to make their so-called news articles. They aren't on the front lines; hell, they aren't allowed out of the green zone. They're meted their information in carefully written reports. There are no first hand reports of anything.


So I say Bullshit. It's all a pack of lies. Foreign fighters have no reason or basis for going to iraq.

Who is paying them?

Why are they paying them?

What is their actual spoken motive for being there?

What is their actual intent and purpose?

Where are they living?

Who is feeding them?

Why can't US troops find them?

Why aren't any in custody?

[The Magistrate]

37. It Proves No Such Thing, Sir

It is an unfortunate fact of such situations that portions of the populace hostile to the aims of an armed faction are routinely killed by its fighters. The definition of collaborator stretches very wide, frequently far past anything that could be considered legitimate by a neutral observer. In a society riven by religious and ethnic divisions, things will be purued with even greater then usual blood-ymindedness. Whole population groups come to be viewed as collaborators, or insufficiently ardent, and thus objects of attack. This particular situation is complicated even further by the existance of a faction that views the place as a mere theater in which to conduct a long-standing war of religious purification. Compared to these large-scale trends, even a campaign of provocation by occupation forces is a lightening bug set up against the lightening: indeed, absent these great pre-existing tendencies alrady in operation, such a campaign of provocation could not hope to have the slightest effect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Have A Hard Time Calling Anybody Who Indiscriminately Blows Up Innocents

Freedom Fighters....


You should too....

[Frederik]

18. I have

so I call them terrorists. But the majority which only targets US troops I would rather call freedom fighters.

There are 50-100 attacks on US troops every day, but we only hear about the attacks on Iraqi police or civilians.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Was Referring To The OP

Peace

[radwriter0555]

59. No one is calling the US troops "freedom fighters"... the iraqis are not

blowing up their own people.

[Cocoa]

15. Iraq labor unions are the freedom fighters

about a zillion times more courageous than the bombers.

http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/en/

[tx_dem41]

22. So you are happy when the "freedom fighters" score a victory?

Interesting....no....disgusting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Washington wasn't intentionally blowing up civilians

That is a big difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Or Taking Civilian Hostages As Bargaining Chips...

I can't imagine how this thread looks to the rest of the world...


Ooooohhhhh..... We don't care..... We're revolutionaries launching brickbats from the anonymity of our computers...

[Bridget Burke]

31. Some of our "revolutionaries" are not even that.

They will return to FR & post links to those nuts at DU.

[Qibing Zero]

36. Collateral damage in the form of innocent lives should NOT be accepted. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. That's An Impossible Standard

Even in wars which most folks of all political colors consider justified such as World War 2 and the Civil War innocents were killed...

[Qibing Zero]

47. Does that make it a good thing?

Even if you say you can justify war 100%, should you not make every effort you can not to kill civilians?

In the situation in Iraq, you can't win. A lot of the people fighting you are trying to look as much like civilians as possible. Eventually soldiers end up shooting at civilians just because they're acting strangely. The whole war was a lie and a failure in the first place - we never had a chance of succeeding, and we never should have even been there. Bush has consistantly proved himself by far more of a threat to the world than anyone we've fought against, captured, or killed.

Remember the first innocents, including children, killed in the first few days of the Afghanistan bombings? We should have been just as pissed off then! A whole lot of the world was.

And yes, I will even say the same for Kosovo. We're not the world police, and it's about time we recognize that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Under The Just War Doctrine

Under The Just War Doctrine every effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties.

Oh, Kosovo was justified under the Just War Doctrine... We prevented genocide or further genocide...

[radwriter0555]

61. Neither are the iraqis. Those reports are false, filled with lies and

intended to mislead in order to underscore the package of lies that put the US into iraq to begin with.

[The Stranger]

64. Right, the 100,000 dead civilians resulting from the occupation is

the fault of the civilians being at the wrong place at the right time.

Sure. And "Shock and Awe" is the Marshall Plan.

Keep 'em coming.

[tx_dem41]

26. I assume you think Al Qaeda are "freedom fighters" as well...

since one of their main goals is to get the U.S. out of the Arabian Peninsula and many, many AQers are Saudis. They are just defending their homeland, no?

[Qibing Zero]

38. And if AQ had never attacked us outside of the middle east...

..your stance would be?

[tx_dem41]

41. That they're murderous terrorists...

that's an easy call. Isn't it?

[Qibing Zero]

48. Which makes us what, exactly?

Murderous terrorists with an imperialistic father knows best complex? =P

[tx_dem41]

51. If you feel like your support of murder is justified by your country's..

support of murder, then it sounds like Bushco has been quite successful with you. More and more people are losing any sense of morality. So you would murder innocent children and the elderly. I don't know what to say.

[Qibing Zero]

53. Wow, I guess you completely missed every bit of that point

Take it the other way: I support nothing but peace.

The US says 'Oh yeah, we hate these evil terrorist bastards!' and then turns around and starts up the old 'Shock and Awe' engine. All I'm saying is that we're judging people we know very little about, while our country does the same things and even worse.

[tx_dem41]

56. I think murdering innocent children and the elderly can and should..

be universally condemned. If you feel differently...oh well.

And, nice couching of your support for terrorism as: "I'm for peace, but not everyone is as advanced as I am!" Cute.

[Qibing Zero]

66. The fuck are you talking about?

How plainly must I state that I'm against every bit of it? 'Support for terrorism'? Try reading again, please...

I'm against terrorist organizations killing innocents. I'm against the US killing innocents. Those include 'accidental' killings as well.

I'm against all forms of killing and war except in complete and utter self-defense. The world does not have a Hitler today, and the closest person to him right now is the one leading our country. Open your eyes!

[rinsd]

55. Stop with the black and white thinking....

Because Bush is an asshole does not make Saddam, Osama etc good guys.

They can all be assholes and our country's actions does not and should not preclude us from saying so.

[Qibing Zero]

63. That doesn't matter because it's not the question I'm asking

I never said they were good guys. I'm asking if we are justified in killing them when we are currently doing things that are just as bad as things they would do.

Osama and Saddam are not, and should not be related.

As far as AQ is concerned, can you really say we know for sure that they have done every single thing we label them as doing? You don't trust your current government on just about everything, so why do you trust them in saying AQ and Osama are responsible for everything? We all know that hundreds of organizations take responsiblity whenever terrorist attacks happened.

Our government has lied countlessly in the past 5 years, and so, so many have died.

This is MUCH deeper than just being black and white.

[dutchdemocrat]

92. It is much deeper

When you consider the US government vis a vis the CIA essentially created Al Qaeda by its funding of the Mujahideen. Who were, ironically called, "Freedom Fighters" constantly by the US Media during the Russo-Afghani.

Ronald Reagan even referred to these precursors of Al Qaeda as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

According to Central Intelligence Agency Chief William Casey they "committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin."

America created its own monster. But then it needed one after the Cold War didn't it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. We'd Still Have The Madrid And Bali Bombings...

They are evildoers....


Bush* had it right...

Even a blind squirrel can find an occasional nut...

[Frederik]

45. What does Madrid and Bali

have to do with your average Iraqi "insurgent"? Precisely nothing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Au Contraire

"What does Madrid and Bali

have to do with your average Iraqi "insurgent"? Precisely nothing. "

I was responding to the poster who implied Al Qadea were freedom fighters...



If we were on another board I might say something like I hope Santa leaves "Reading Is Fundamental" under your Christmas tree this year but we're not...


Kisses

[Qibing Zero]

49. I guess your stance is that 'evildoers' should be killed then, right?

Then by all means, let's start rounding up the ones in our country, eh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Hmmm

I would asume once you and I came up with a working definition of "evildoer" we would agree they should be dealth with harshly...

Or should we give the David Westerfields and the John Coueys of the world Ice Cream Sundaes instead of incarceration...

[Qibing Zero]

54. Incarceration is much different than death.

Our military has been firing off bombs with intent to kill, knowing that innocents will be killed in the process. Are the people we are fighting that bad, that we'd be willing to suffer the consequences of that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I'm consistent

Intentionally killing innocent people is wrong regardless of who's pulling the trigger..

[Qibing Zero]

67. But you believe there's enough evidence to be killing 'the terrorists'?

If so I have a couple questions:

What do you think about the death penalty?

Do bush and co. deserve the same fate as the terrorists?


If you're consistant with those as well, then it's your opinion and I have no problem. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I oppose The Death Penalty Except For Child Rapist/Murderers

but even then if you locked em up and threw away the key I could live with that...


I think Bushco are fundamentally misguided but their actions don't rise to the level of terrorism....


Oh, and I don't think incendiary rhetoric is of much use in solving problems....

[Qibing Zero]

76. Yikes, that's scary

It seems like the propaganda machine has at least in part affected you.

Shock and Awe was terrorism in it's most pure definition. Bombing buildings because they 'suspected' bad-guys were in them was not much better. We've had to deal with consistant lies to this very day, used to not only further the killing being done, but to consistantly take away our freedoms. Dissent is all the sudden 'un-American' and aiding the enemy, being progressive is 'extreme' and 'radical', and the separation of church and state becomes lessened by the day. The level of criminal incompetence has risen so high that it's impossible to believe it's even just incompetence anymore. Just think of how many people have died because of this in the last 5 years, and tell me the vast majority of those people's deaths were unavoidable. Tell me that those people in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were so oppressed that they are now better off dead.

All of this annd bushco are just 'fundamentally misguided'? My goodness, man...

[The Stranger]

65. Nice Right Wing talking point/tactic -- tying Iraq to September 11,

when there is no such connection.

[tx_dem41]

86. Where did I try to connect the two....sheesh.

Please LOGICALLY read my post again. Where did I mention Iraq?

[The Stranger]

89. Exactly -- the thread asked you about Iraq and you RESPONDED with 911.

This is done nearly every day by the speechwriters for the present Administration. This sleight of hand practically defines the present Administration.

[tx_dem41]

90. A definition has been provided in this thread and similar ones

today for what a "freedom fighter" is. My post notes that this definition can be applied to AQ.

So, please, stop with the setting up the strawman, stop being defensive, and comment on how the definition does or does not apply to AQ.

[The Stranger]

96. Please stop posting Right Wing talking points.

Iraq and the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. As we have found out (and as some of us were saying at the time), the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were complete and utter lies. There is no reason for the U.S. to have invaded Iraq -- it constitutes a violation of international law.

The current Administration, however, has continued to this day trying to falsely tie the Iraq invasion to the attacks of September 11, 2001 upon the U.S. There is no such connection, yet they continue to juxtapose the two in order to convey the lie that there is a connection.

Then, and speaking of strawmen, along you come to try to tie the Iraqis fighting the occupation to September 11, 2001. Just as the current Administration, when asked about Iraq and the failed and illegal invasion there, always responds with commentary regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001.

[tx_dem41]

97. Whoosh....right over your head again.

Sad, kinda. But, actually, f'ing hilarious.

[genius]

73. Al Qaeda doesn't exist. That's why people are nicknaming it Al-CIAda.

[tx_dem41]

87. Whatever. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

83. No, that's baiting - your point is a complete non-sequitur.

I don't think this kind of baiting is necessary - the initial argument is complicated enough without the added inflammatory aspects of Al Qaeda added in. I think this post is flame-bait.

[tx_dem41]

88. The definition of a "freedom fighter" was given. I thought that the..

definition provided seemed to fit AQ to a TEE. How does it not fit AQ?

[slackmaster]

27. People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists

To quote my board nemesis who is a man of letters in spite of his deep personality flaws, that point is "thuddingly obvious".

[genius]

85. So Bush is the terrorist. How about those whose relatives were killed

by the U.S. terrorists and who are striking out in grief?

[slackmaster]

93. Yes, how about them?

That doesn't in any way dimish the terrorist qualities of the people this thread is about.

[K-W]

30. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

One can be a freedom fighter who employs the method of terrorism.

[RethugAssKicker]

32. When US soldiers kill Iraqi civilians... we call it

collateral damage.... When they kill civillians(or soldiers), they're terrorists.
Most of the civillians who are killed by the Iraqi "Insurgents" are deemed to be collaborators of the American occupation... and as such traitors.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Didn't Know You Can Have That Kind Of Surgical Precision By Planting Car

Bombs

[Beelzebud]

35. Stop comparing them to our founding fathers. They haven't done shit.

Washington fought for himself.

I'm so fucking sick of people comparing this mess to the American Revolution.

No these fuck-wads are not freedom fighters.

If the Iraq's banded together to take down Saddam by themselves you would have a valid point.

The people blowing up women, children, citizens, and our troops are just scum fucks.

[BiggJawn]

40. The Nazis called the Maquisards "Insurgents" and "Terrorists"

If we were invaded, somebody in THEIR media would call me an "insurgent"

[Armstead]

43. TERRORISTS -- You don't fight evil with evil

This is an old moral/political dilemma. It is much larger than the situation in Iraq. Same moral paradox as the liberation movements against colonial powers and domestic dictators.

Resistance against the armies and power of an occupier or domestic dictator is one thing.

But blowing up your fellow civilians is not "freedom fighting." Groups that engage in that usually end up being as bad as the powers they were fighting against if they get into power.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

68. Wars target civilians

When the US bombed German cities during World War II, firebombed Tokyo or erased Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the map it was specifically agaisnt civilians. When the US colonized the Philippines at the end of the 19th century and killed an estimated 1 million Philippinos (about 15% of the population) in the so-called 'Philippino insurrection' it was to destroy the will of the civilian population for self-determination. When the US carpet-bombed wide regions of the countryside in Vietnam and destroyed Vietnamese agriculture with agent orange it was directed at the civilian population from whose ranks the Viet Cong were drawn. The 'Shock And Awe' campaign of the US in Iraq was specifically directed at the civilian population, to frighten them into submission. It was terrorism.

Unfortunately, there are no clean wars directed only at official combatants. Wars are ugly and dirty business. All we can hope for is that we fight a just war, where the entire nation opposing us is wrong, because civilians will always be the ultimate target.

[dogday]

44. I can't answer this because my Son will

be going over there and fighting whatever they call themselves. One of them could kill my Son so I have a different point of view. They are killing our soldiers and we are killing their families. Neither are terrorist or freedom fighters. Just lost people killing each other....

[lateo]

58. They are both...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. Can I vote for "assholes" ? n/t

[newportdadde]

62. None of the above.

They fight for power and control of the spoils.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. "Freedom" is a cause; "Terroriism" is a tool. Both are misused.

"Freedom" is a very subjective term. I would be very surprised if most, if not all, of the members of the Iraqi resistance wouldn't say they were fighting for "freedom". At least to some of them, their idea of "freedom" would be substantially different than most of ours. The "freedom fighters", so admired by Reagan and Rumsfeld, in Afghanistan turned out to be the Al-queda of today.

"Terrorism" is a perjoritive term used by whatever powers that be to brand insurgents of whatever stripe as outlaws. The Resistance in WWII,
the FLN in Algeria, the Irgun in Israel, the NLF in Vietnam, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the American Revolutionaries, the ANC in South Africa, used "terrorist" tactics to achieve their ends - including killing innocent civilians. All of of them were fighting for "freedom".

[skipos]

74. this poll makes Freepers happy

Republicans love to paint anyone who is opposed to the war as "hating America" or "supporting terrorists" and the outcome of this poll would sure help their cause.

To most Americans... calling insurgents "freedom fighters" = you support the insurgents.

[spindoctor]

100. EXACTLY! You beat me to the punch

Who cares how they are labeled. They oppose an invading power any way they can.
They use methods that I can't agree with. So do we.

It's war, it's a mess. The American militias were terrorists. Arrgh...here we go again. Just let it be.

[Greyhound]

79. Voted Patriots, but there are many terrorists-in-training being sent in by

the real (mostly Saudi) terrorists. That was *'s 3rd biggest fuck-up. Not sealing the borders, and no after-invasion plan.

[Mr_Spock]

81. Well, technically they may be both - perspective is everything

I think they are both. Too much typing to explain, I'm sure others have fleshed out why above...

[maxsolomon]

95. i will not vote in a simplistic black or white poll

do you love george bush or do you hate america?

[Xithras]

98. You need a third option: Both

The guys attacking the military convoys qualify as freedom fighters. The guys lopping the heads off journalists, blowing up mosques and schoolyards, and sniping Iraqi's as they walk down the road are obviously terrorists.

It's important to remember that you have three different major groups operating in Iraq. You have the fighters who simply want the US out. You have fundamentalists who care more about sectarian violence than they do us. Finally, you have the criminal groups who don't particularly care about either, but are just looking to profit from the whole thing.

[eridani]

101. There isn't one single brand of insurgent

There are a few outsiders that I'd consider terrorists, but most are just anti-occupation. The one group that anyone should be able to support wholeheartedly is the oil workers's union, which is non-sectarian and working hard against the privatization of Iraq's assets.