why do people become insurgents

Remove all ads!

Maybe stories like this can explain things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4150429.stm

Also not forgetting Abu Ghribe and Guantanemo, shells being fired at fleeing Iraqi Christians etc.

 

That's pretty sad and all, but one could just as well wonder why normal soldiers turn to these kind of atrocities. It's a game played by two sides, and neither one can hardly be called innocent.

 

So you think that a pair of plumbers somehow provoked two soldiers to throw them into a river at gunpoint?

I'd say the civilian plumbers could be called innocent.

 

I wasn't talking about those plumbers, they are victims of the circomstances. Why do you think these soldiers are that triggerhappy ? I'd like to see how you would cope under the pressure these guys have to work all day long, being a target for invisible crosswires or lunatics who blow themselves up. If you had to go through what these guys are going through every single day, you might chew on some plumbers too unwillingly.

 

Unwillingly?

 

I don't believe in victims of circumstances so long as there is a free choice on the part of the actor. The soldier who tortures a prisoner or uses physical violence on a helpless foe is not a circumstance. He's a real and tangible criminal. And let me repeat this once again: a criminal. Trigger-happy is not a morally neutral personality streak, it's a criminal tendency.

Insurgents, however, aren't always "freedom fighters". Let's be clear: lots of them are terrorists. Fighting an unjust, oppressive regime - from fundamentalist to racist - doesn't make you any less of a terrorist when you target civilians, civilian buildings, torture or execute your captives. People who do that are criminals first and foremost.

 

Well, terrorism is a tool, not an entity. So terrorists are merely fighters/warriors utilizing said tool. In my opinion a person whose occupation is to kill people is the same whether you call him terrorist, soldier, fanatic, monsters, warrior, protector, guardian or mercenary. To kill is to kill is to kill which I have argued before.

Iraqis killing Iraqis, or Iraqis killing Americans or Americans killing Iraqis, I find them all equally repulsive, ignorant and idiotic.

Make love, not war

 

Sadly joacqin handing out flowers and chanting happy sloagans won't get your local warlord to stop raping your houses and burning your women...

 

Chev, I do not see why a person fighting an oppressive regime by killing this enemy and everyone who sides with that enemy, cannot be a freedom fighter.

 

And who's the oppressive regime in your eyes ? The US ?

 

In my eyes, yes.
Remember that a regime based on doing good is more oppressive than a regime that is based on doing evil.

 

The crucial words are "killing" and "enemy". Not everyone is a warrior and killing in combat is different from torture and murder. E.g. Mugabe's boys (ZIPRA, ZANU etc) were no freedom fighters. They were terrorists, most of the lot. Same to many of Mandela's folks. Notably, Mandela has recently become friends with Ghadaffi. Not like any and all anti-colonial leader has been a terrorist himself, but pretty much no one comes out of such a conflict with clean hands on either side.

 

Abomination, then that warlord is an ******* and needs to be fought, but dont delude yourself into thinking you have any moral highground.

 

And here comes the funny part, by your moral chev, you are totally correct, it is a crime.
But since there is (as I see it, but you do not) no fundamental set of morals and people make and adjust morals along the way, so everybody has now a different set of morals.
Killing 'innocents'(in his eyes 'foul pigs') is totally in agreement with the morals of a terrorist, and morally he is justified to do so.

I am not that far lost to let everybody do as they are justified by their own sets of morals, the majority of society needs to use it's right(right by power) to force their own morals upon those under them.

In the end they are criminals, but still freedom fighters.

 

Well, in this particular case, the insurgents WERE the oppressors before the US invaded their land and toppled their regime. Now they are desperately trying to get back in the sadddle, so they can once more oppress the normal law obiding people of Iraq.

Not exactly a good example of freedomfighters.

 

I find it very difficult to describe the insurgents as freedom fighters. Whose freedom are they fighting for? If the insurgents were only after the freedom of the Iraqi people, their best solution would actually be to stop fighting and allow the election to take place - it being a democratic election and all. (OK there may be concerns over how fair an election it would be, but those should be levelled out within a couple of years.)
This would also have the added bonus of letting the American and UK soldiers withdraw.
As I see it there are two reasons for the insurgents:

1.) It's a chance to actually attack the Americans. This probably accounts for the foreign insurgents.
2.) To prevent any chance of the Iraqi people actually being able to vote because given a taste of freedom they won't want opressive regimes (religious or otherwise) back in power. This probably accounts for the old-regime and Iraqi religious groups.

In this case they are certainly not freedom fighters.

 

Well spoken.

 

Cesard, you live in Northern Ireland - I think that gives you some first-hand experience to answer your own question.

 

@Pacman, all terrorists want to drive the infidels out, some want a state like Iran and some want Hussein back.
Hussein wasn't best friends with the muslims you know.

@Carcaroth, what about freedom like:
- Forming an own shi'ite state much like Iran?
- Forming a nation called Kurdistan?
- Placing a "beloved" leader like Hussein back.
Yes, that sounds strange doesn't it? Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Mao were beloved too.
- To drive the other muslim groups out, ever since Hussein is gone the tensions between the Sunnite and Shi'ite came to a new level.

Terrorists now feel oppressed by a foreign infidel army that is trying to drive the people away from Allah by setting up a puppet democratic system, as they've done countless time before.
And while they're at it, they are pumping million and mllion tons of oil to fuel a nihilistic world that is drenched of materialism.

That in the eyes of a terrorist is enough to fight the foreign army with all the power they have, never mind the innocent, they lost their innocence to begin with, if you are not with us, then you are against.

And Allah will reward you with 7 virgins if you take more than 30 souls with you, funny thing, the whole virgin idea is a mistranslation from grapevines, I thought they weren't allowed to drink alcohol.


There was a very good series on the BBC called the "Politics of Fear", the first episode explained much about the drives of Bin Laden et co.

 

Err, was that ment to do?