Terorists or partisans?

I wonder if the persons who fight against Coallition forces in Irak(lead by americans)can be consider as terorists,or is a partisans force who fight in guerrila style against a much powerfull invaders force?Ofcourse,some of this methods used by this people is to cruel and shamefull,but their fight can be considered wright?

One man's Freedom Fighter is always a another man terrorist, however I'am 100% behind Romania, UK and US. Those Brave nations are working hard to create a free Iraq."Victory" for our troops.

Depends! In all history its the same situation. Winners have partisans (ex. Soviet Union, France, Yugoslavia, etc. in ww2 time), and defeated nation troops or paramilitary who try to resists, sabotage, etc. are terrorist.

For my point of view, iraqian resistence is partisans,because this mans fight against ocupation force - but not the mans who used to fight against civilians. Wars are for soldiers-to-soldiers, with soldiers in army uniforms or soldiers for liberty, no against civilians or ... decapitation on tv channels.

Like those things, i feel the same for IRA, or another progressive movement - against soldiers its ok. Morbid thing, but is faith of the soldiers prof. or conscripted, to die at orders, under the flag, but not the same for civilians.

Iama

u must be joking.......go and see fahrenheit 9/11

the coalition of the willing, my ass...

think about it this way: do u believe romania would even be there if our glorious leaders would not sense the need to kiss Bush's ass? the same goes for POODLE. Chandernagore will know who i am reffering to

u must be joking.......go and see fahrenheit 9/11

the coalition of the willing, my ass...

think about it this way: do u believe romania would even be there if our glorious leaders would not sense the need to kiss Bush's ass? the same goes for POODLE. Chandernagore will know who i am reffering to

Maybe so, but I'am on Romania's side no matter what! Bush, well he is amongst the most stupid leaders in modern history. Why would America elect such a idiot? Romania is however America's ally, plus standing by America should eventually lead to benefits for Romania.

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 04, 2004 09:21 am

u must be joking.......go and see fahrenheit 9/11

the coalition of the willing, my ass...

think about it this way: do u believe romania would even be there if our glorious leaders would not sense the need to kiss Bush's ass? the same goes for POODLE. Chandernagore will know who i am reffering to

Maybe so, but I'am on Romania's side no matter what! Bush, well he is amongst the most stupid leaders in modern history. Why would America elect such a idiot? Romania is however America's ally, plus standing by America should eventually lead to benefits for Romania.

Yes Sptephen, is so good to be slave, or US vasal... The benefit of Romania? Where is USA and NATO when Ukraine move the river border?

Im so in love about Sweden!!! Im verry impressed about this nation. Neutral, honorable. Whith good life style for his people. And who want to bother Sweden? With Leopard II, army and navy suuuuuuuuperbs? Why are not like Sweden? Who are afraid to bother Romania? Guineea Bissau? Guyana? Andora? Certainly not Andora...


Iama

Fahrenheit 9/11 presents only one side's point of view.

On the other hand IMO all partisans should be considered terrorists (including WW2 partisans).

For what point of view?

And why do not make a generalisation in all history? Not from Bakunin catheism to our days...

All partisans=terorists... And romanian "haiduci" are to be considered like in their time, by "boieri" and "grofi", thiefs - no? Dani you judge this thing too much fom some "definition". Off course, is hard to believe are 2 part of thieffs - one of good thiefs and one of bad/cruel tieffs...
If you, tomorrow, make a personal revolt against of a bad system, you are a terrorist because you disturb the leaders of this kind of regime! For others - majority, you are a hero - a freedom fighter, a "haiduc", a partizan.
When i want to have more money and i put a knife against a plane pilot in flight and treathen the life of pasagers for money demand, now i am a real terrorist, in front of all rich and poor people.

Iama, thinking about Robin Hood...

Except the atacks and kills against civilians,i agree to this people must be considered as partisans and freedom fighters.For peoples who considered this is terorists,what do you do if,in to absurd and ipotetically speaking,if to say russian and shes allies,hungarians and bulgarians try to invade our country,in 1989,for reason Ceausescu regim is bad and is not accepted by a part of foreign countries,and hungarians invade Transilvania,bulgarians Dobrogea,and russians Moldova and all the country?Do you fight against him in all the way,or you accept the ocupation?I think all the normal person fight against the invaders.

It is a difference in fighting. To fight in an organized form (army units mainly but also as special forces) to fight like French Resistance fought and to fight like "partisans". Tito have a good ideea to gather together Yugoslavian "partisans" and entitle as army. It is an organized form. As I know from oral stories few "partisans" doesn't want to join Tito's army and decided to "fight" as before, like "partisans" (terrorists). They were killed either by Germans or by Tito's "partisans".
On the other hand you couldn't speak about Russians "partisans" in the same way. What organisations did they had?? They only "received" (but not directly) instructions by NKVD. They fought like terrorists (in Odessa region I learned that they also killed each other to gain supremacy in their "gang").

For sure they should be considered robbers . As you, I know many stories about "haiduci" but unfortunatelly are only stories.
Do you know a "good" thief? (Please don't tell me about Robin Hood or Toma Alimos or Iancu Jianu... - stories, stories) A documented life of a good thief??

This post has been edited by Dani on November 04, 2004 01:28 pm

Acording with international agreements,its recognized that civilians who have an uniform or other signs to be distinguished from other civil peoples,will be considered as legal fighters,not terrorists.If your army is destroyed,or shes organisation is down,you dont fight anymore?If your leader is death,or captured,you leave the fight and surrender?I think is moral and normal to fight for you country,even if you ar not into a organized form lead by a central comand.I believe the invaders is most in illegality than you.

Maqis were special forces? Or organised? Maybe were more organised then rusian partizans, or Tito's... And not all russian partizans were like gangs. Weapons and provisions were trowed by planes, leaders come with parachutes, equipments of radiocomunication. Ok, not all were organised because of large number of teams/units, or because of lack of comunications.


I read in a book of Vintila Corbul - Uragan asupra Europei, about partisans from Yugoslavian teritory. They were not all like gangs, but some leaders hate anothers because all wants to be the supreme leader, or for old angry moments.

Iama

Udar, let me rephrase: when I mean "partisans" I'm not thinking about people who fight after death of their army leader. In Germany, and not only, were fighting even after 9th of May 1945. (Do not mention also that Japanese soldier found in 50-60s in a lost island in Pacific )
I speak about civilians starting to shoot invading army after "the enemy" enter the area, but never before!!!
On the other hand "or other signs to be distinguished " means a gun, a grenade or something like that?

This post has been edited by Dani on November 04, 2004 02:46 pm

Civilians who fight against enemy,even after this enter the area,and wear just a military"veston"(i dont now if is corect in english),or even "banderolls"(same problem with my english)who distingushed by civil population mass,is recognized by international laws as legal fighters.And,ofcourse,not just this civilians can be considered as terorists,but even invader power.Ofcourse,when is about a great power,this things dont hapend.And,ofcourse,the winner make the law,or have wright,even if shes action is illegal or wrong.