34 replies to this topic

[stealth816]

Although I know a lot of people consider now insurgents as terrorists,and alot of americans view the ideas of an insurgency anywhere as bad. I came across an interesting quote.

"One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter."

Or something along the lines of that.

I came to the thought of one of the most successful insurgencies in history, that made itself a brand new country and severed ties with the OpFor, was the United States during the American Revolutionary War.


Now, the thing is, many people refute this as an insurgency because England was not an invader of a country. Yet it stands in Iraq where the insurgency is trying to free itself from America but as well as the new established Iraqi government. Isn't this the same as England putting its laws in the colonies, as they try to fight for freedom?

Belligerents are usually used to describe a group that wages war but has the same rights. Such as how the American civil war between the United States and the Confederate states was not considered an insurgency because they had their own set laws and somewhat functional government and could not possibly be classified as a rebellion,insurgency.

What are your thoughts?

Was the American Revolutionary War an act of insurgency?

[WNxMastrefubu]

it was, and actually it was EXTREMELY lucky. and unpopular only about 20-30% wanted to revolt actually

[Dr. Strangelove]

There is nothing wrong with being an insurgent. The problem is what they fight for.

[stealth816]

It's not so much if it is a bad thing to be an insurgent, but whether if the American Revolutionary War is considered as an example of a successful insurgency.

In my opinion, I think it was an act of insurgency based on the principles of what is defined to be an insurgent. Namely, that a force uprising against an authority that is not considered a belligerent.

For those who say it was not an insurgency, what else could it have been? A rebellion,coup de etat, or what.

The problem is, people refute the American Revolutionary War was an insurgency because they keep comparing them to the Iraqi insurgents, saying they are too different. In that way, Strangelove is right, its what they fight for, but they seem to be complicating the methods used by each faction when dealing with their enemies. Torture for instance. One then could say there is an insurgency in Mexico with the druglords then since they target police as well as political figures who oppose them.

Edited by stealth816, 18 May 2009 - 02:33.

[Golan]

No matter what they call themselfs, they still are murderers.

[CommanderJB]

Of course they are both insurgencies. Both are made of terrorists and murderers. Both are made of freedom fighters and heroes. It's as simple a matter of relative perspective as you will ever find. But fundamentally, they are no different. The specifics, of course, are different; secondary motives, tactics, technology, ideology. But they are both attempting the objectives of insurgency and both fighting for freedom.
As a certain Jedi Knight once said:
"You're going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our own point of view."

Edited by CommanderJB, 18 May 2009 - 06:54.

[TehKiller]

to me insurgency is both good and bad. Good because they are trying to drive out the oppresors/occupators from their land but the bad side is their methods. The perfect way would be following Ghandi's style but thats hardly going to happen

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 18 May 2009, 6:53, said:

Of course they are both insurgencies. Both are made of terrorists and murderers. Both are made of freedom fighters and heroes. It's as simple a matter of relative perspective as you will ever find. But fundamentally, they are no different. The specifics, of course, are different; secondary motives, tactics, technology, ideology. But they are both attempting the objectives of insurgency and both fighting for freedom.
As a certain Jedi Knight once said:
"You're going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our own point of view."

Are you really saying that there is no difference between America and the religious dictatorship the Muslim partisans in the ME are trying to set up?

[WNxMastrefubu]

Dr. Strangelove, on 19 May 2009, 20:54, said:

CommanderJB, on 18 May 2009, 6:53, said:

Of course they are both insurgencies. Both are made of terrorists and murderers. Both are made of freedom fighters and heroes. It's as simple a matter of relative perspective as you will ever find. But fundamentally, they are no different. The specifics, of course, are different; secondary motives, tactics, technology, ideology. But they are both attempting the objectives of insurgency and both fighting for freedom.
As a certain Jedi Knight once said:
"You're going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our own point of view."

Are you really saying that there is no difference between America and the religious dictatorship the Muslim partisans in the ME are trying to set up?

back in the day, they were. let us not forget that We invaded iraq and afganistan. as i understand it this thread is not about terrorism overall but just the rebels/insurgents in occupied contries. and IMO there really is no difference.

[CommanderJB]

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 May 2009, 10:54, said:

CommanderJB, on 18 May 2009, 6:53, said:

Of course they are both insurgencies. Both are made of terrorists and murderers. Both are made of freedom fighters and heroes. It's as simple a matter of relative perspective as you will ever find. But fundamentally, they are no different. The specifics, of course, are different; secondary motives, tactics, technology, ideology. But they are both attempting the objectives of insurgency and both fighting for freedom.
As a certain Jedi Knight once said:
"You're going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our own point of view."

Are you really saying that there is no difference between America and the religious dictatorship the Muslim partisans in the ME are trying to set up?

CommanderJB, on 18 May 2009, 6:53, said:

The specifics, of course, are different; secondary motives, tactics, technology, ideology.

Do I care what they're fighting for? It's not what they're fighting for that determines whether they're insurgents or not. It's a simple term for an armed rebellion/guerrilla warfare against an established 'legal' power.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 20 May 2009, 1:04, said:

Do I care what they're fighting for? It's not what they're fighting for that determines whether they're insurgents or not. It's a simple term for an armed rebellion/guerrilla warfare against an established 'legal' power.

I'd say it's pretty damn important, but you are right.

[TehKiller]

Well you can pretty much compare the 2 "causes".

America: Liberation from "occupators" (England)
Iraq: Liberation from occupators (America)

So yes they are both insurgencies and both have the same goal which is/was to drive the occupators from their land

[amazin]

well at the time america was not specifically their land, they wanted to free themselves from the harsh british rule and taxation, so they drove the british out and started a government based off their own principles.

Iraqi insurgents are trying to drive out the american soldiers who are supposed to be there to set up a stable government in iraq, probably so they can set up another dictator who may or may not unify the country.... through brute force



so yes they both are insurgencies, but i would not call their motives and principles the same...

your comparison is like comparing Hitler to Churchill in world war 2... well they both had the same motives cause they both wanted to win the war

Edited by umm not dachamp, 20 May 2009 - 15:18.

[Golan]

I'd dare say the british would very well have claimed that they were supposed to be in the colonies too. Seeing that, yes, they were in fact as the colony was theirs.
Now, America forcefully invading a sovereign country - some people would argue that, no, they are NOT supposed to be there.

Edited by Golan, 20 May 2009 - 18:13.

[Dauth]

Right, this thread is getting very political, keep it that way and I'll lock it.

[stealth816]

I guess I was wondering, under technicality, if the American Revolution was an insurgency or not because of the whole colony thing.

So for instance one the oldest and present colonies basically today is Puerto Rico, a Commonwealth thats basically under colonial rule because it does not have a real independent entity like powers to resolve its own issues without needing US permission. If they had an independence movement that became armed, that would be considered an insurgency then, right?

I think its only natural any insurgency around the world that kills civilians, intentional or not, will always be considered a terrorist group.

I suppose I just don't like what the word terrorist has evolved into when taking context of liberating movements.

Anyway, I just wanted an idea of opinions regarding that issue since I had put something like that in an essay of mine and if the teacher objected, that i would have a more clear view from you guys. Not saying you guys are gods of right answers, but i wanted to hear other opinions to help formulate an argument based on any useful information or perspectives yous had.

The whole colonial issue was the problem i had regarding insurgencies.

[amazin]

im just wondering... (hoping this isnt too political) do you think that the Iraqi insurgents are terrorists?

[BeefJeRKy]

Let's not discuss that here dachamp.

[Zero]

Well, regardless of WHAT they fight for, EVERY soldier is a murderer to be honest, it depends what KIND of murderer they are though.

BUT, to get to the point, this is the difference:
-Insurgents- They usually fight for religion, and not only for religion but to force EVERYONE else to accept their religion and that alone (Taliban wants a Muslim only world) not for indivual freedoms (quite the opposite, actually). Also, insurgents are not bound by almost any moral code, they believe they fight for their god, or their freedoms, and that allows them to kill EVERYTHING, women, children, innocents included. They also kill prisoners mercilessly and refuse to take them unless they can gain something from it. They also tend to fight pretty "dirty-handed" and use things such as self-sacrifice and whatnot to fight while Freedom Fighters are more humane and try to keep their fighters alive and everything.

-Freedom-Fighters- They are professional fighters, like soldiers. In most cases, they refuse to attack women and children and innocent people (such as American Revolutionaries) and focus on attacking enemy soldiers and enemy soldiers ALONE, although sometimes diplomats and politicians are involved, but not as often as in insurgencies. Also, freedom fighters usually fight for FREEDOM, or their Civil Rights. For example, America wanted to be represented in Parliament, Britain said no, and so in reality we were just their slaves and their abusives acts proved it, so we rebelled for freedom. Also, they are usually bound by some kind of moral code such as only attacking the enemy and have some to large amounts of honor and respect in battle (Washington and almost every other American Rev. War general is an example). On top of that, they tend to take better care of their prisoners and not carry out a mass-execution for any reasons unless it helps them tactically/strategically, and also, even then, they tend to do it less.

Well, that's my opinion....

Now, POLITICALLY-speaking, ANY country will see ANY threat to their domestic power (enemies on their own land) as criminals and terrorists, because the role of EVERY governement is to survive, and to ignore them would be the equivalent of suicide. And THAT is all I will say on the political matter.

Edited by Zero, 23 May 2009 - 01:57.

[BeefJeRKy]

Actually Zero, an insurgency is not strictly a fight for a religious cause. An insurgent is the exact same thing as a freedom fighter, a soldier who fights to overcome the powers that are in control. Whether they use religion as a motivator for their cause or not doesn't change their objective. Whether they are justified is a very relative view. An example is the Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the eyes of the United States and its allies, they are viewed as a terrorist insurgency especially due to their acts in the 80s. However in many of the countries with significant Muslim populations (regardless of Sunnis and Shiites) view them as justified in their right to oppose an Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Palestine. Which view is correct? It depends on where you're from. I won't carry this example forward some more as it would get quite political. The American colonists performed insurgent attacks against the British colonists but that doesn't mean it was a bad thing.

[CommanderJB]

Zero, on 23 May 2009, 11:55, said:

Well, regardless of WHAT they fight for, EVERY soldier is a murderer to be honest, it depends what KIND of murderer they are though.

BUT, to get to the point, this is the difference:
-Insurgents- They usually fight for religion, and not only for religion but to force EVERYONE else to accept their religion and that alone (Taliban wants a Muslim only world) not for indivual freedoms (quite the opposite, actually). Also, insurgents are not bound by almost any moral code, they believe they fight for their god, or their freedoms, and that allows them to kill EVERYTHING, women, children, innocents included. They also kill prisoners mercilessly and refuse to take them unless they can gain something from it. They also tend to fight pretty "dirty-handed" and use things such as self-sacrifice and whatnot to fight while Freedom Fighters are more humane and try to keep their fighters alive and everything.

These are not the characteristics of an insurgent, these are the characteristics you associate with an insurgent. Let me define what an insurgent is:

Quote

in⋅sur⋅gent
  /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənt/ [in-sur-juhnt]
–noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adjective
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
Origin:
1755–65; < L insurgent- (s. of insurgēns) prp. of insurgere to get up, ascend, rebel. See in- 2 , surge, -ent

Synonyms:
3. rebellious, revolutionary, mutinous.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

See the difference? What you have said is what your media shows insurgents as. It has become, if you will, a 'dirty word' in the Western world. But the actual meaning of the word is simply that of one acting against a lawful government. This applies just as much to those in the American war of independence as it does to people acting against the American or American-supported authorities in Iraq or Afghanistan today.

Zero, on 23 May 2009, 11:55, said:

-Freedom-Fighters- They are professional fighters, like soldiers. In most cases, they refuse to attack women and children and innocent people (such as American Revolutionaries) and focus on attacking enemy soldiers and enemy soldiers ALONE, although sometimes diplomats and politicians are involved, but not as often as in insurgencies. Also, freedom fighters usually fight for FREEDOM, or their Civil Rights. For example, America wanted to be represented in Parliament, Britain said no, and so in reality we were just their slaves and their abusives acts proved it, so we rebelled for freedom. Also, they are usually bound by some kind of moral code such as only attacking the enemy and have some to large amounts of honor and respect in battle (Washington and almost every other American Rev. War general is an example). On top of that, they tend to take better care of their prisoners and not carry out a mass-execution for any reasons unless it helps them tactically/strategically, and also, even then, they tend to do it less.

Quote

freedom fighter
n. One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

'Freedom fighter' is realistically a word that was invented to make 'insurgent' a little more palatable. But, from their view, the 'insurgents' in Iraq are freedom fighters - they want freedom from American interference in their affairs. You think they are acting to take away freedom because your views of freedom do not align with theirs. Who is right? From your point of view, you are. From their point of view, they are. As I said, it's purely and totally a matter of relative perspective.
Please note that this is not me being political, this is simple fact.

[General]

I do not understand meaningless insurgency, like the one in my country, our goverment does not act different to the kurdish people yet some people come ( obviously they are provocated and supported by foreign countries for their own agenda ) and say they are spared by the goverment, no, there is not such a thing, everyone is free to use what language they want to talk and what traditions they want to follow, yet there is insurgency, thats not insurgency, it is following the chaos, making disorder, it is terrorism. ( note that they have a party present themselves in the parliment, they are still in parliment even though they support those terrorists and call them as ' brothers ')

Insurgency done when a country killing your people or torturing them without any reason or take their rights, if none of these happens; what you do is wanting to create your ' own territory ' like animals do, and if you got destroyed because of your violent and injustice acts by a higher force, its the justice.

Edited by General, 23 May 2009 - 07:23.

[Zero]

Well, again, I will explain I was stating my OWN point of view. And I know insurgency is not always related to religion, but now more than ever it usually is, religion has always been a really good scapegoat, either that or the promise of a "Freedom" that never exists.

And again, I was comparing the two given cases (Iraq vs. Rev. War). Politically they =same thing. However, I define the difference between the two PERSONALLY based on how far they will go. In other words, children, women, and innocents are untouchables, and you do NOT mass execute a group of people simply because their ideology differs from yours (politicially/religiously/WHATEVER).

@JB, not everything can be defined with definition alone. He asked what was the difference, I stated my OWN viewpoint. Actually, there are MANY cases such as this where one thing=another but in terms of definition they are same, yet they are interpreted differently, so in cases such as this you must use your own viewpoint.

Edited by Zero, 23 May 2009 - 20:16.

[TehKiller]

If I understood well...American Revolutionary War is different from others because there were no innocents being killed by the "insurgents"? If that is the case then you my man are ignorant

[Zero]

I'm not saying that, I am very well aware of those attrocities. It is, however, true that the Revolutionaries did not mass execute a town of innocent civilians just because they were Pro-Brit. And not to forget that although there were MANY acts of violence towards the Loyals (can't remember what they were called, the Pro-Brit people), not as many were made by the Patriot Army themselves, instead it was carried out by more radical Patriot people who functioned more-or-less outside of the conventional Patriot Army.

Last but not least, the Revolutionary Army did not make the slaughter of people differing in Ideology a main ideal, nor did they the destruction of those cities. They recognized that the Brits were their forefathers, and to kill them was almost the same as killing themselves, moreover, it was unbeneficial since it would decrease the support from MANY revolutionaries (such as George who fought for the Brits before and was fighting for ability to self-govern if even just to a certain degree). If there were any acts of attrocity against the Brits carried out by orders from a General, then I would say that they are so few and far in between that they are rarely heard of for the most part. On the other hand, the Brits DID carry out a few attrocities, or at least I considered them so, but under their circumstances (and here I'm talking about the larger in influx of soldiers into the Colonies and their forced Quartering ONLY) due to that they were trying to scare the Colonists to preserve their Empire.