Terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter or soldier?

[w4p2 0]

During the recent world events it has been very confusing to hear US officials to use words like
terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter and soldier so,
many of you being americans I would like to hear your opinions.

When a US fighter is bombing Bagdad presidential palace, is the pilot a soldier.... I assume so.

Would a Iraqi fighter have been bombing the white house while pilot in uniform... what would he have been?

Lets take the speculation a step further to the present day. Lets assume that a Saddam loyalist manages to bring a fighter into US airspace, pilot is dressed in uniform and he bombs the white house (today) what is he.

Now he misses the target and blows out a shopping center..... does it change his status? ( to best of my understanding America has declared a war and no peace has been signed with empowered Iraqi officials)

How about american pilot doing the same in Iraq.

If an al-qaida operative group blows up an US aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf, is it an act of terror or act of war ( to best of my understanding US has declared a war on terror / al qaida).

I guess the above examples are enough to define my confusion. I see US engaging in armed conflicts at various corners of the world and anything short of surrendered rag tag armies are defined as terrorists. Anybody giving you a true fight are is a terrorists when caught, they are denied Geneva convention rights as war prisoners and finally tried as soldiers.

Something is a wrong. Please explain. There are actually a few billion people that would like hear the explanation.

Finally, I am not pro terrorism or anti USA. Just the opposite. But even more, I am anti hippocratic and very confused with the public rhetoric of US officials, not to mention the one calling himself you president.

Sincerely: JL

[LouDiamond 1]

Not to get into drawn out discussion here but any recognized government has soldiers that represent it's military and they all wear a distinctive uniform and engage other military members only. Terrorists are a group that are not necessarly a recognized government(but can be in some instances) , do not have a military that wears a distinct uniform and generally attack anybody, women children and other non combatants. Terrorists main objectives are to inculcate fear in a populace and to cause doubt in the current government by attacking it's civilian populace, symbolic targets and members of the ruling government. There are over a 100 defintions of terrorism in US agencies alone and each one is slightly different. Do a search on the word terrorism if you want specific details.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[beowulf 1]

"terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter and soldier"

The truth the way I see it is that it all depends on which side you are on as to which description fits.

The reason you are confused is because you think that the US should be morally correct. The US isn't and neither is any other country. The US people would like to think so, but it just isn't true. The US is doing just what any other country would do if they were in the same situation. Its called looking out for number one. I am US citizen born and raised here. I want the US gov to look out for our intrests and F@#k every one that is looking to destroy our way of life.

[Trevor 0]

Quote

Not to get into drawn out discussion here but any recognized government has soldiers that represent it's military and they all wear a distinctive uniform and engage other military members only. Terrorists are a group that are not necessarly a recognized government(but can be in some instances) , do not have a military that wears a distinct uniform and generally attack anybody, women children and other non combatants. Terrorists main objectives are to inculcate fear in a populace and to cause doubt in the current government by attacking it's civilian populace, symbolic targets and members of the ruling government. There are over a 100 defintions of terrorism in US agencies alone and each one is slightly different. Do a search on the word terrorism if you want specific details.

the u.s. manual defined term is gorilla-hung freeedom fighter

[phatcat 0]

Quote

many of you being americans I would like to hear your opinions.

All righty then, here is the explaination you seek:

Many times the question "Can't we all just get along?" has been asked. The answer to that question is "NO." Such a simple concept - amazing so few get it

[Joellercoaster 6]

Quote

I want the US gov to look out for our intrests and F@#k every one that is looking to destroy our way of life.

If it helps you when you watch your government looking out for "your" interests to say that you're just F@#king the people "looking to destroy our way of life", then that's nice.

This turns out not to be the case, however.

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[happythoughts 0]

Mao Tse Tung once said, "It is a matter of perspective. If you live in an apartment building, one mans floor is another mans ceiling. Thus, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Would a Iraqi fighter have been bombing the white house while pilot in uniform... what would he have been?

Simple he is an enemy airman in a uniform and if we can blow his ass out of the sky then right on. If he misses and blows up the mall its still an act of war. Period. IT goes both ways... collateral damage is that.. it happens and always will.. we just have a HELL of a lot less of it than do others... especially unintentionally.


On the other hand the Al Queda minions of Bin Laden are terrorists.. they seek not to engage force to counter force.. they seek to get the easy kills of civilians like terrorists always have.. shock value.. and got lucky against a small naval vessel that will not happen again. If we decided to do that how many MILLIONS of Iraquis or Afgani's could we take out.

You are not confused in any way. you dont like the fact that the world is not a nice place. We know this and are doing something about it. instead of sitting oon our hands and making under the table deals for weapons in spite of sanctions agreed to by the UN..

Not all Americans support everything our officials do in total. But it sure beats the hell out of the hypocrisy exibited by our so called "allies" in Europe. At one tiem we supported Saddam... he turned out to be a tyrant.. who as a father raised two psychotic despots who murdered their athletes for fun or revenge because they lose a soccer match????

I am sure at one point there were WMD in Iraq... some may yet be found altho I think they were transported elsewhere or hidden or destroyed. Am I relieved that regime is gone.... ANY humanist should be happy they are no longer in power... what will the future hold... no idea.. but we have a very bad habit of rebuilding the countries we defeat in war....We do not bleed them dry as other do. Evidence Western Europe... or Japan after WW II as opposed to Germany after WW I or Eastern Europe after WW II... How about South Korea verses North Korea.... the best way to reach stability and prosperity seems to be lose a war against the USA... we build it back... better. North Korea did not win they lost big time in one of the most assinine displays of despotism on the planet. On the other side of the DMZ is a thriving democracy...I dont think ANY of the Al Queda supporters would want ANY form of government outside of a 7th century hyper patriarchal religious society where women are slaves and non believers are put to death in droves.....We are doing something about it ... will you in those other countries do something.... anything?

Talk about hypocrisy

Amazon

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Easy...

Uniformed Iraqi Officer, in an Iraqi marked plane , making a military strike in a declared/undeclared war is an Iraqi soldier... if he missed the whitehouse and hits a shopping mall... that is collateral damage.

An Al-Qeida operative, while hitting a legit military target, is still an ununiformed operative of a terrorist organization. Therefore he is a terrorist.

[jtval 0]

Quote

The truth the way I see it is that it all depends on which side you are on as to which description fits.

fundamentally wrong! the "Law of armed conflict"
would dictate(Im paraphrasing) that a soldier is one who is wearing a uniform and has openly delcared some "declaration."
he/she also represents a COUNTRY.
al quida are viliganties,terrorists, etc.
an Iraqi soldier is a soldier as long as they arent in civilian clothes.

did you know that during a war if ANYONE picks up a weapon they are considered a legal target?

man woman, child or NEWSREPORTER( also goes for medic and chaplains)

My photos

My Videos

[FallRate 0]

Ahem....

BOOBIES!!!

FallRate

[Amazon 7]

I got em ,,,, so whats your point

Amazon

[wmw999 2,122]

Just because some parts of the media call the Republican Guards, in their uniforms, in their own country, terrorists doesn't make them so. They're soldiers.

And people who are resisting in Iraq now would better be called resistance fighters than terrorists right now -- at least if they were Americans fighting against an invading country that's what they'd be. Well, in the media they'd be called "brave freedom fighters"

And calling American soldiers in uniform terrorists when they're in uniform, under command doesn't make them so.

The media doesn't use the same rules sometimes...

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[w4p2 0]

There seems to be a consensus of the situation.

I think much of the ill blood could have been avoided if politicians round the globe would have been honest and would have stated their goals clearly.

A country has a right to defend itself against outside threat and a duty to defend its citizens. No explanations required, not to mention make believe coalitions.

By associating with coalition consisting of countries like Poland, Camerun, Utzbetsisiskistatiki and you name what US has placed itself into position of controversy. Get the bad guys... hell yeas. Crying about need for international co-operation under the pretense of saving oppressed people..... what a blunder.

Having a president claiming to be on a God given mission.... please no.... can someone tell this lad to leave that crap to mullahs.

As for international relations I have respect for the countries that stayed out of the crises, however also they could have been honest and simply say that its not their war, let the yankees sort it out if they wish.

The situation with the coalition members is borderline hilarious. Participation of UK is understandable, but the rest of them are examples of brown nosers of the worst kind.

And finally to the terrorist, querrilla, freedom fighter, soldier question. In the end of it they are (almost) all human beings and should be treated as such rather than being branded representatives of evil on one pretex or an other.

The american public should have guts to point it out to the press and the government and reclaim international respect by doing so.

Kindly: JL

[Dbriggs 0]

Nuke em all. All the people or countries against the US must die. Plain and simple. They burn our Flags they DIE. That is my redneck veiw on terrorism and other countries. Why should we rebuild places or give them money when in 5-10 years they will be against us??????? Come on now, it is a waste of our tax dollars to help them hate us. It should be the same way on the homefront, anyone who talks bad about this country should be sent out of the Land of the Free.

[w4p2 0]

"anyone who talks bad about this country should be sent out"

" Land of Free "

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Apply for government job!

Wake up: JL

[crazy 0]

Quote

the "Law of armed conflict" would dictate(Im paraphrasing) that a soldier is one who is wearing a uniform and has openly delcared some "declaration."

That's really funny because Chapter 22 of the Operational Law Handbook 2002 describes Special Operations as military activities conducted in time of war or peace. Special Operation Forces are described as soldiers, but there are clear references to SF without any uniform or distinctive equipment during their operations (the first of the Pacific Underwater Demolitions Teams were known as "naked warriors" :-).
In addition to spying, guerrilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, support to escape and evasion networks, i particularly like the last two lines, the definition of Special Activities: These are activities that are planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly (sic.)
Either your paraphrase is very approximative, or there are some serious discrepancies in the different "laws" of war in America.

Quote

did you know that during a war if ANYONE picks up a weapon they are considered a legal target?

"Paratroopers - and others who jump out of a perfectly good airplane - are considered combatants and may be attacked as they fall to the ground". Wow, we are all legal targets! Anyway, strictly speaking, a kid planning to spit on a soldier becomes a legal target as well (yes, body fluids are legally life threatening is some states).
According to the Laws of Armed Combat, "Civilian buildings are lawful targets if they are being used to support the war effort". Hence, according to this definition, office buildings are lawful targets because they harbor companies contributing a lot to the war efforts (at least with the taxes, but also for their products). Information infrastructures are legal targets, even though they support essential emergency services and control critical parts of the infrastructure indispensable to civilians, especially in vulnerable urban areas.

With these selected laws, several terror acts can be defined as "Special Operations on Legal Targets, with Collateral Dammage". A bit longer than "terrorism", but that's the beauty of legal verbiage. Sounds as good as the Klingons' Warrior Virtues.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[kmcguffee 0]

Here is a link to the Geneva Convention so that you can determine why terrorists are terrorists and why Special Forces are not terrorists http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

a kid planning to spit on a soldier becomes a legal target as well (yes, body fluids are legally life threatening is some states)

Quote

You are mixing state law and international law in this comparison. I've never seen this considered a threat in any ROE when I was deployed. It is a nice theory but not practiced in the armed forces.

"Civilian buildings are lawful targets if they are being used to support the war effort".

Quote

Can you imagine the US bombing a building full of civilians and then using the excuse "they were supporting the war through the payment of their taxes"? I don't think you can. Support of the enemies war effort is usually defined as some type of material or combative support. It might be nice to argue this in the classroom but it is not practiced by the military.

Non-regulars ie militias and freedom fighters are recognized by the Geneva Convention as combatants so long as the following requirements are met:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Quote

I don't know of any terrorists that meet this criteria.

Special Forces personnel are lawful combatants ie not terrorists because they are:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. ***

Now, if some country would claim Al Quaida as being a member of their armed forces then they would become lawful combatants. We would also have the ability to declare war on that country and attack it.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Clownburner 0]

I would just like to clarify something here:

Under the current US Constitution, which (as far as I know) is still SUPPOSED to be in-force, only the Congress can declare war. That hasn't happened in this case. In fact, it hasn't happened since June 5, 1942. Whatever else is happening, we're not at 'war' and letting the administration use that as an excuse to traduce our civil rights always gets my blood boiling.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

only the Congress can declare war.

They didn't declare war but they did pass a resolution in support of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, they agree with our actions, as a body, but have not enacted the other actions that occur when a war is declared.

The reduction of civil rights has usually been justified by labeling members of terrorist groups as enemy combatants. We didn't give Nazi or Vietnamese POWs access to lawyers during WWII or Vietnam either. No other countries have ever given POWs access to lawyers.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[w4p2 0]

This is an interesting discussion and It would be nice to see it being debated by persons with good knowlege of international law.

My own feelings are, that as long as we are dealing with organized groups of foreign origin under clear command structure, such person / s should be treated according to same terms that we expect and accept our own undercover operators to be treated.

War is dirty, but it can be more acceptable, if parties involved threat the opposition on fair terms. In this respect letting the revenge to overshadow fairness
is an unfortunate mistake.

It is sad to see USA in a position where emotions take over from cool judgment, no matter how understandable those motions are.

USA should know better, than to resort to actions more fitting to trird world rag head dictatorships. I would hope that the attitude of revenge would give room for clear headed justice.

Why is a great nation willing to sacrifice international respect in order to take revenge on a bunch of losers. Give them hell, but treat and call them as combatants, even if they do not deserve it.

Sincerely: JL

[jraf 0]

During WWII all resistance fighters in Europe were called bandits and terrorists by Nazi officials.

During WWII it was not only the Axis memebers but also the alies who targeted and killed in mass women, children and other non combatants (Hamburg, Berlin, Koeln, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyoto.....etc, etc.)

Joseph Stalin who amongst other things murdered over 20,000,000 (yes over 20 million) Soviet citizens, that is citizens of his own country said: "No one will ask the victorious to answer for their deeds"

It makes me so proud that we are going in the footsteps of the great Joe Stalin. Hip hip hurraaaaaay!

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[racer42 0]

Yep,....only Congress can Declare War. Have heard em do that yet.

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

My own feelings are, that as long as we are dealing with organized groups of foreign origin under clear command structure, such person / s should be treated according to same terms that we expect and accept our own undercover operators to be treated.

Based on the Geneva Convention, we can treat organized groups of foreign origin (freedome fighters) as POWs as long as they carry arms openly, have some type of identifiable insignia that they wear, and have a clear command structure with one person ultimately responsible for their actions. Al Qaida does not meet this criteria. Here is a link to the Geneva Convention Text http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm.

They could also identify with a foreign power which would eliminate all of these requirements.

Their actions place them squarely in the "unlawful combatants" category.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Mindcake 0]

Quote

Lets take the speculation a step further to the present day. Lets assume that a Saddam loyalist manages to bring a fighter into US airspace, pilot is dressed in uniform and he bombs the white house (today) what is he.[reply/]
he would be a Iraqi (sp) resistance fighter in my opinion

Quote

Now he misses the target and blows out a shopping center..... does it change his status? ( to best of my understanding America has declared a war and no peace has been signed with empowered Iraqi officials)[reply/]

still Iraqi resistance fighter (with bad aim)

Quote

How about american pilot doing the same in Iraq.[reply/]
depends on what side of the war you are on
american side: coalition freedom fighter
opposition side: dunno better to ask one of the opposition how they see it.

Quote

If an al-qaida operative group blows up an US aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf, is it an act of terror or act of war ( to best of my understanding US has declared a war on terror / al qaida).[reply/]

Terrorist. because there is no negotiation....it is there way or they kill you....that is what makes them a terrorist group...

just my 2 cents

Don´t belive the hype

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites