Guerilla Actions in Irak

Well done Iamandi. Now all US soldiers are the equal of terrorists. What's next?

For me,even if not all US soldiers action like terorists(still,they killed too civilians,including childrens,in air bombardments,in Irak and Yugoslavia),they are,in a way,the bad guys,because is an ocupation army.Much peoples say about irakians who fight against US army in their own country that is terrorists(or insurgents for others),but how to fight in other way,against a superior number and military technology?And i dont think we can pass over the fact that they kidnap kids,to forced their parents to betrayed their own peoples,just because this childrens not die.What is the diference betwen a terrorist who take hostages and pretend to his demandings be resolved,and this action of US soldiers?And i dont think this psychological war style will scare after all,the insurgents,and will stop the population suport for they(who is very large,despite to others opinion).I think,contrary, more peoples will join resistance,or will help in others ways.

First of all attack the soldiers perceived as occupants, without killing more civilians in the process. But as the events had showed us, most of the insurgents do not put much value on their countrymen's lives (including children), especially when they are Shia and not Sunni. The line between "freedom fighters" and "terrorist" is crossed when they start killing innocent civilians.

First of all attack the soldiers perceived as occupants, without killing more civilians in the process. But as the events had showed us, most of the insurgents do not put much value on their countrymen's lives (including children), especially when they are Shia and not Sunni. The line between "freedom fighters" and "terrorist" is crossed when they start killing innocent civilians.

Thats easy to say.

That means the US soldiers are terrorists too. The line between "liberator" and "terrorist" is crossed when innocents are killed.

p.s. to differentiate between a terrorist and a mere fighter/soldier who killed collaterally, one has to look at reasons and context. If a fighter/soldier attacks an enemy target but also kills innocents in the process that does not make him a terrorists. The latter is he who attacks civilian targets exclusively (markets, buses, mosques etc.) in order to spread terror to achieve a political goal.
Thus the insurgents are not terrorists, Zarqawi's men are. (btw, what ever happened to him? is he gone like UBL?)

Soldiers were uniforms. The insurgents don't.

Right Victor,

Under international law, a person that fights without a uniform are considered terrorists or spys and can be legally executed.

This post has been edited by PanzerKing on August 21, 2005 06:19 pm

Soldiers were uniforms. The insurgents don't.

Terrorism is not a question of uniforms. A man in a uniform can be a terrorist too, if he deliberately targets civilians in order to spread terror.
IMO, neither the US soldiers, neither the insurgents are terrorists. And I explained that in the rest of the message following the part you quoted.

take care

This depends on the legality of the situation/war too.

Well done Iamandi. Now all US soldiers are the equal of terrorists. What's next?

Iamandi

Dragos

Nice concluzion, Dragos!!!

So, like you sayed:

You maybe try to convince us about that, or au contraire, you will subscribe to the theory with "with or without uniform"?

Apropos...
Shall we re-name all partisans from Russia to Yugoslavia, and even the maquis... terrorists???


And, back to Dragos - i don't think they (US soldiers) are the ~ to terrorists. Believe me. But, theyr action... was unortodox, was one ugly method, etc. I don't like it! If you agree with them, it's your option...

Iama

To my best knowledge they were treated as such by the Axis troops confronting them. The same happened during WW1 in occupied Belgium and France. But the maquis and Yugoslav partisans rarely blew themselves up and killed children.

The issue here is that I, for one, find it extremely strange that some will go a great length to bash the US soldiers in Irak and in the same time pay little attention to what the insurgents are doing.

Iamandi, unless you fought in counter-guerilla actions that you haven't mentioned yet to the forum, aren't IMO in a good place to judge. I can't think of a single such confrontation that was free of abuses and crimes. Hostages were used ever since Roman times. It isn't a US Army invetion. The same tactic was applied by German counter-partisan units in Russia during WWII or by the Foreign Legion in Indochina. You are sitting in a comfortable chair behind a computer screen and the biggest danger you are exposed to is probably being involved in a car accident. Those soldiers are fighting an unseen enemy (yes, it doesn't wear a uniform according to the usual rules of war) far away from home and are doing what they can to survive, including applying un-orthodox methods. But unlike the insurgents they are easily identifiable by their uniform and could be subjected to a trial. The insurgents that kill innocent people (again, strangely how they choose Shia neighbourhoods for killing children) are doing so from the cloak of anonimity. If Imperialist cannot see a difference in this, it's his own problem.

Thats easy to say.

That sniper seems to be managing it.

The attack the likes that killed so many children in that Shia neighbourhood and only caused minimal casualties to the US soldiers, could have been avoided, a better place and moment could have been chosen. It was clearly that the suicide bomber knew he will kill those children also. That is simply criminal IMO.

So are you talking of all of them or some of them (US soldiers) ? Because it is a big difference, if the entire US army in Iraq is employing systematically such kind of actions, or there are individual acts, liable for prosecution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_...chief_interview

I will resume the problem to a basis ideea: you guys are Ok with that action??? (US Soldiers and childs...)

.............................

Well, i do not want to be a "cool" guy, that is the reason for my silence about my past.
But, if you want... Yes, i was fighting in my past. But at that time we don't used this words (guerilla, counter - guerilla) to define our adversay and the missions against them. My memmories was formatated when i re-entered in every other lifes, but a girl who posses some kind of abbilitys to "see" in the past of persons... she give me some info's about my past. She was unsure about my "citizenship", or maybe i had a "viza"... anyway, she was unsure - i was a japanese samurai, or a tatar leader, in both variants i was brave, i fight with sword, i was from cavalry, and i was a leader over some houndreds of fighters. Unfortunatelly, she have the power only to see scenes, like in movies, and no precis time and data... Suplementary informations were only two details, when i meet her again and we tryed to find more: 1. i was named with apropriate versions of my family and short names; 2. i was a cruel fighter against my enemys.
Unfortunatelly, she don't say to me about childrens in her "movies" with me, so i give some chances to auto-consider myself away from this subject.

...............................................................................................

You see, the chair is the problem! Because he is a mobile one!!! I was so close to break my neck because of that, for a lot of events... And sometimes, when i try to stand up fast i kick a stack with my head...

Iama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_...chief_interview

http://www.gandul.info/2005-08-22/militarii_romani

Iama