BS: Terrorists or insurgents?

Subject: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:02 AM

I was having a hard time figuring out who the insurgents in Iraq might actually be so I googled for awhile. This is the best I could come up with but its from a source many of you might not like. Never-the-less, in the absence of more specific information here goes:

Both Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi are creations of the US intelligence apparatus. The recruitment of foreign fighters was under the auspices of the CIA.

The press usually present the terrorist warnings emanating from the CIA as genuine, without acknowledging the fact that US intelligence, has provided covert support to the Islamic militant network consistently for more than 20 years.

"Amply documented, the training camps in Afghanistan established during the Reagan Administration had been set up with the support of the CIA. In fact, several members of the current Bush administration including Richard Armitage and Colin Powell were directly involved in channeling support to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where bin Laden and Al Zarqawi received specialized training." (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html and http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Al Zarqawi's name keeps coming up but I can't seem to find what he stands for or who supports him. He also seems to be in many places at the same time. No wonder Iraq wants the U.S. out. It seems the CIA has created the monsters in the first place.

Did you ever hear of a Golom?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:23 AM

It's Golem, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Boab
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:26 AM

---or a Gomerel?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:32 AM

or Gomez...

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: heric
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:15 AM

Resistance activists

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Splott Man
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:31 AM

They're Terrorists if they are on the other side, Freedom Fighters if on ours. Insurgents is the PC word to avoid telling us who they really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:36 AM

Iraqi's possibly?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:55 AM

Isn't a Golom a mythical jewish being made from clay?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:07 PM

It's a Golem Ted, but yes, that's what it is.

A Gollum, on the other hand, is a mythical Tolkien troglodyte, with a liking for shiny gold rings................A bit like some girlfriends I remember from many years ago.

Precioussssss!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:46 PM

When unidentified men murder or abuse unarmed people around them and it's too dangerous to ask them, "What the hell?" then journalists call them insurgents. It creates the impression that the journalists know what's going on.

That's why we buy the paper isn't it, to learn what's going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:59 PM

My take on "terrorists" and "insurgents" is like this (oversimplification, I suppose, but so be it):

Terrorists engage in violent acts which do not basically go to a direct war aim. Thus, setting off a bomb in a supermarket is a terrorist act, intended (what else) to create terror in the populace. Terrorist acts are quite frequently against persons and organizations who are not even part of the opposing party. The actions of the Provisional IRA in Ireland (and in England too) would be characterized generally as terrorist acts by this standard.

Insurgents are fighters against putatively legitimate governments, or at least those who claim to be in power. By this standard, a violent action against the army or police of Iraq, and of course against the US Army in Iraq, such as a bomb near a police recruitment line, would be a typical insurgent act. Blowing up an oil pipeline or generating station would be strategic strikes, with actual military value, and so typical insurgent action as opposed to terrorist action. Robbing banks to raise money for "the cause" (a la the Communists in Russia in the early days of the 20th Century, or a la the Provisional IRA would tend to be insurgent rather than terrorist acts in themselves.

Now of course terrorist organizations may do strategic acts, and insurgents may engage in acts of terrorism along the way. 9/11, as I see it, was basically a terrorist act because (again, as I see it), its main purpose was psychological. Al Qaeda, however, may well see it mainly as a strategic action against the West's financial underpinnings (or at least claim that's what it is).

Assuming this kind of distinction, I suppose there's no pure animal in this arena, but generally speaking organizations may be separated into one or another camp by the overall trend of their actions, as well as by their propaganda.

I'm inclined to say that the opposition in Iraq would be insurgents by these measures, although they may (and do) commit terrorist acts, since most of their attacks seem to me to be directed to actual direct results in trying to overcome their opponents.

Now, "Freedom Fighters"--that's an expression that means "fighters against the authorities whose aims we approve", regardless of tactics.   If we don't approve of their aims we'll call them one of the words that refers to their line of attack, as discussed above.

Some here will think I'm full of S__t, but that's how I see it.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:15 PM

...the training camps in Afghanistan... had been set up with the support of the CIA.

I don't think that fact implicates any U.S. agencies in a conspiracy. It just highlights the "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality that has pervaded U.S. foreign policy for years. We supported the Mujahadeen because The Soviet Union (aka "The Evil Empire") had invaded Afghanistan. We supported Saddam's Iraq because Iran had kidnapped our diplomats and thus placed itself in position #1 on our shitlist. Then we turned around and sold arms to Iran because they gave the diplomats back and raising money to fund "freedom fighters" was more important that keeping Iran high on the shitlist.

It would seem to me that after 50+ years of adhering to a policy of backing the perceived lesser of two evils and then seeing that lesser evil turn around and bit us on the ass, somebody would figure out that sometimes the only smart thing to do is stay out of other people's business.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 10:03 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 11:37 PM

Thats exactly what I'm a thinkin, Bee-dubya-ell.

I don't think western, political tactics work very well in the middle east because when it comes right down to it, the opposing factions there are still alot closer in their way of thinking than the West will ever be.

I honestly think they will fight each other unless an outsider intervenes then they will join forces to fight the one who intervenes.

Why doesn't Bush know this? Why did he think he could ever 'win'?

Maybe he knew he couldn't win but that the war would generate a lot of income for his cronies who are involved with the war industry and keep all those unemployed youths off the streets. It was also a good way to divert attention away from the loss of civil liberties at home. Basically, I think it is his best attempt at creating a new world order as envisioned by neo-cons.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM

One of the people who is making a killing (no pun intended) off the war is a man named Bloom who owns a company smaller than, but similar to, Haliburton. He is the husband of Barbara Boxer, who would hardly qualify as a Bush crony. The name of the company escapes me.

Personally, I see little difference between the so-called Neocons and those who would have the UN be in charge. Either way our liberties go down the tubes.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:28 AM

Liberators or invaders and oppressors?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:30 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: heric
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

Are you sure about that one, Troll? I thought her husband was a guy named Boxer was a workers comp attorney. (But things can change.)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: heric
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM

Oh, it's Diane Feinstein.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:44 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:32 PM

Yeah, that's what the Indians said, too....

Now a days it's the Iraqis sayin' it...

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: heric
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:45 PM

There was a pre-war joke going around about that (maybe I saw it here). Punchline: "We ain't played cowboys and Arabs, yet."

Sorry, NO JOKES ABOUT THE WAR. (I think I got away with it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:24 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

Herdja the first time, Martin.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:20 PM

grand strategy

this might explain a bit of the US neocon strategy..

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 09:31 PM

I couldn't agree more with the "grand strategy" piece. petr...

If this is the *best* thinking then the US is indeed in the toilet...

I mean, lets look bacl at 9/11 and all these so called "best thinkers" and all they could come up with was starting what very well may become World War III????

Like what's that all about????

That ain't like "best thinking" but *stupid friggin' thinking*...

Yeah, in case anyone is skim readin' I'll repeat what I just said..

"stupid friggin' thinking"!!!

Now these "best thinkers" have squandered the best opportunity for the US to shine in my life time...

I am ashamed and embaressed that all they could come up with whuppin' up on a couple third rates militaries...

"Best thinking"???????????????????????????????????

Don't think so...

Bush and his light-weight thinkers need to go....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:05 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 02:11 AM

"Barbara Levy Boxer (born November 11, 1940) is an American politician and the current junior United States Senator from California. A member of the Democratic Party, Boxer was first elected in November 1992, and sworn in in January of 1993. Throughout her career Boxer has been a vocal advocate for environmental issues, women's rights and gun control. Because of her liberal stances, she is often a political target of conservative groups. Nevertheless, she convincingly won reelection in 2004, after a slightly narrower victory in 1998. She is Jewish.

"Born Barbara Levy in Brooklyn, New York, Boxer graduated from Brooklyn College in 1962 with a degree in economics, and then worked as a journalist and a stockbroker. Boxer and her husband, Stewart Boxer, have two children. Their daughter, Nicole Boxer, married Tony Rodham, brother of Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony at the White House in 1994. The couple had one son, Zachary, and they divorced in 2000. Boxer recently announced that she is working on a novel to be published by San Francisco-based publishing company Chronicle Books. [1] (http://www.writenews.com/2004/121004_chronicle_boxer.htm)

"Boxer previously served six years on the Marin County, California Board of Supervisors, where she served, for a part of the time, as the first woman president of the board. She was then elected to the United States House of Representatives, where she represented her Marin County district for 10 years. In 1992 she won an open Senate seat, and was reelected by a comfortable margin in 1998. In 2004, Boxer won by over 20%, garnering the most votes in the history of California and the third highest vote total in 2004 (behind only presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry)."

Not a 'Bloom'

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 02:50 AM

Troll - since when has the U.N. deprived you of your liberties?

Get your facts straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:19 AM

With the kind of deep thinking evidenced in this thread, we're not showing much more perception than the administration, and they have real problems to solve.

By this I mean: Dianavan's initial post, muddling the time line so that actions twenty years ago are made to appear equivalent to actions, never adequately specified, post 9/11. Troll's utterly incompetent character assassination attempt out of nowhere, and MG's yapping lapdog in attendance.
The attempt to analyze Neocon strategy on a basis of hypersuspicion does a lot toward explaining how Henry Kissinger got so far.

You guys have made me feel better about the government.

Thank you.

(DaveO your post looked like you put some horsepower into it and I think broke things down as well as they're going to be, but in this thread it was pearls before brine)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:07 PM

terrorists or insurgents, either way, they suck. fuck 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Terry K
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 06:01 AM

DaveO - really good encapsulation.

So Mandela's ANC (with its formal campaign of "civil disobedience and sabotage" which led to the deaths of people unassociated with the main opposition, for which, granted, the ANC have now formally apologised) would have fallen into your "terrorist" category, but somehow has got away with the freedom fighter tag.

Funny old world.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 05:32 PM

Either way, remember to thank George W. Bush for their existence and Donald Trump and the other Islamaphobic Republicruds for their recent antics.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 05:41 PM

Maybe this is entirely the wrong day to try to put this in perspective, but consider this. Anyone, any time, can walk into the public area of any airport or any railway station or any other open place and set off a bomb or set fire to a gallon of petrol thrown over everyone in a heartbeat. But it actually happens very rarely. It's wrong, it's horrible but it's rare. Unfortunately, it is not rare in the countries in which we westerners have stirred up trouble. And it often doesn't even make the front page when it happens there. And sometimes it's done by the regime. Strange world, eh?

---

Please don't feed the troll: when the usual guy posts with made up names but with the same nasty attitudes, he's easy to identify.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 06:27 PM

They are terrorists, plain and simple. blaming George Bush is just bollocks and excuses them. The best allies they have are apologists who see them as other than what they are: religious fanatics who thrive on hate, bigotry and an extreme view of the west, where they have lots of help. Can we not speak out against these horrors without being branded as narrow minded people. they murder people and have been doing so for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 07:03 PM

Sorry, didn't realise it was a troll. I'll try to keep up. :-( it's been one of those days. Feel free to delete my post, or whatever. I know you feel free anyway :-(0)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 07:22 PM

Several posts have disappeared already ! Why can we not have discussion about this ? I find it very frustrating when things just disappear. If this an offensive topic, let people know that and forbid !( censor) it. but let guests speak here as they do on other threads. guests are allowed, so why delete them here?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 07:25 PM

They are terrorists, plain and simple. blaming George Bush is just bollocks and excuses them

Of course it doesn't "Excuse Them". Of course these attacks are horrific.

However the existence of these so-called terrorists can be directly attributed in good part to the policies and actions of Geo. W. Bush's administration. AND to Trumps's & the other Republicruds bloviation.

And how many innocent civilians did Georgie Bush murder in Iraq, pray tell?

Speak out as much as you like - just remember that at least in part its the "chickens coming home to roost".

Lets keep things in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 07:47 PM

It is not "chickens coming home to roost". it is terrorism... Full stop. They are not "so called terrorists", they are terrorists. they have randomly slaughtered and maimed thousands if innocent people for no reason... NO reason! and what bloody perspective do you keep this in ? George bush made me do it... Spare us...
and oh yes, Trump made them do it'! Unbelievable !

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 09:34 PM

"Several posts have disappeared already ! Why can we not have discussion about this ? I find it very frustrating when things just disappear. If this an offensive topic, let people know that and forbid !( censor) it. but let guests speak here as they do on other threads. guests are allowed, so why delete them here?"

Well I suppose you missed what happened here this morning. A thread started by a bigot was rapidly swamped by anonymous trolls. The obvious solution is never resorted to. Suffice to say, I heartily disagree with you about people who post as unlogged-in Guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 09:56 PM

Perhaps "terrorist" isn't such a useful word. I don't suppose, HiLo, that you would necessarily accept that the random slaughter and maiming of thousands of innocent people is automatically terrorism, going from your past form. I seem to recall the random maiming and slaughtering of thousands of innocent people in just a few weeks in the Gaza Strip not long ago, not for the first time either, hundreds of them children. I seem to remember the scattering of hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets in Lebanese farmland, ideal for blowing the limbs off playing children. Who can forget those photographs of Vietnamese children running away from napalm. Terrorist is a good word for the scumbags who slaughter and maim innocent people in New York, Brussels, Paris, London, Bali, Madrid and elsewhere. I think I can accept a wider definition of the term, though. When you deny that it's chickens coming home to roost, ask yourself whether we'd be getting these attacks today had our foreign policies been different. If the answer is mostly no, then it is indeed chickens coming home to roost. The innocents don't deserve it, but that doesn't mean it isn't what it is. And this:

" However the existence of these so-called terrorists can be directly attributed in good part to the policies and actions of Geo. W. Bush's administration. "

...doesn't mean the same as "George Bush made me do it."

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 09:57 PM

they have randomly slaughtered and maimed thousands if innocent people for no reason

Un Hunh. I assume you mean like the 170,000+ innocent civilians killed & untold thousands wounded and maimedin Bush's unnecessary Iraq war?

Is that what you're referring to, HiHo?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 10:22 PM

An 11-year-old thread, and everything old is new again.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,Slowpoke
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 10:32 PM

Greg F sez: Either way, remember to thank George W. Bush for their existence and Donald Trump and the other Islamaphobic Republicruds for their recent antics.

________________

Another post 9/11 antic: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Security_theater
click 

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 16 - 10:34 PM

Should have been a new thread, but look what happened. It would have been odd, in our context, not to have been discussing it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Mar 16 - 02:35 AM

I do not believe that a religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to his chest is the fault of George bushes policies. I believe he or she is the result of a medieval world view that values nothing but an exact mirror image of themselves. .
as for "guests" posting , my point is not for or against them ! But if the rules allow guests then why censor them ?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,Slowpoke
Date: 23 Mar 16 - 03:38 AM

They're depressed and the Relious Fanatics put them up to it - says the Boston Globe.

click

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Mar 16 - 04:05 AM

Presumably in Lilo's protected sphere of existence, people get out of bed in a morning and look in the mirror, saying "Oh, look at the colour of my skin! I know what, I'll go and bomb some poor fuckers for no reason!"

The original thread looked at the idea of one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Whether that be Saudi Arabia funding extremists that bite the hand that feeds it or the allies using the French resistance to terrorise Nazi invaders and their sympathisers. Or even USA based "charities" such as NORAID spending the '70s and '80s successfully funding IRA terrorism in The UK.

No Lilo. People are radicalised by truth or fiction but in all cases, for a cause they see as just. Dismissing them as irrational or without purpose is the first step in never being able to prevent their wicked work. Although stupid comments by sanctimonious commentators are for them, a desired outcome of their awful deeds.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Mar 16 - 04:17 AM

It is Hilo . I fail to understand your mention of "skin colour". your second paragraph is stunning !

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorists or insurgents?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Mar 16 - 04:19 AM

I meant to say that your third paragraph is stunning .