If America was taken over by Another Country....?

Question

....would the people who fight back be terrorists?

Billy D you are right there are Iranian Agents in Iraq some of Insurgent are Sunni and some are Shiar and some are even Al-Quaeda but a lot of them are just fighting back as what they see as injustices and have no Reliogus or political affialations

Malcolm i dont agree with Billy Ds point or his reading of the situation but i dont think there is any need to get offensive

Answer 1

Yes they would be terrorists or freedom fighters as they are also called before FOX bought the rights to the word "terrorist". Patriot, freedom fighter, terrorist it all depends which side you are looking from.

Answer 2

I'm sorry who ever you are, but this is a very knowledge void comparison to the situation in Iraq.

If America was "unjustifiably" invaded, then those who resist the invasion are not terrorists. This cannot be said for the insurgency. There are Iranian agents supporting Tehrans proxy groups in northern Iraq, and Syrians doing the same thing. Saudi Arabia is perhaps also in this game to keep Iraq from stabilizing itself so that Saudi Arabia doesn't lose its oil monopoly in the region. Saddam Hussein has been in material breach of more than seventeen UN Security Council resolutions, as well as the last one 1441, which contained the terms of its own enforcement. Iraq had lost its sovereignty as far as international law can dictate that a country's sovereignty is lost. There are not Iraqi citizens resisting the new government, but shia gangs versus sunni gangs. Its a country liberated with a new government that is not strong enough yet to stop a civil war between factions that want power. The ones who are fighting America are not doing so on the grounds of defending their homeland, but on the grounds of a religious implication to do so.

Your question doesn't do the complexity of this situation any justice, but I don't really think you want to anyway.

Answer 3

Well, as much as I'd like to agree with your political rhetoric, I think the answer is no.
Generally, "terrorists" are people who engage in violent acts _against civilian targets_ with (a) the intent to cause terror in the hearts of citizens of a particular nation (b) to profit (either personally or politically).

The 911 terrorists were terrorists because they targeted a wholly civilian target (although there were other political targets, too) in an attempt to make the American people afraid for their own gain (for some, I believe it was just personal -- get to heaven with hundreds of virgins -- for some, it was political extremism).

The insurgents in Iraq may be a mix of both -- because they target civilians in markets etc., those are generally acts of terrorism but to the extent they're done for larger political gain (i.e. get Baathists or Sunnis into power) domestically, there's a fine line. To the extent they're attacking military and governmental targets, that's an insurgency, wholly separate from a terrorist.

But, of course, history is written by the winners, and as many have said, the side you're on is the "good guys," and the side "they're" on is the "bad guys," whether they're "insurgents" "terrorists" or just "the enemy" (a term Bush likes to use a lot).

Answer 4

Depending on the tactics they used, they might be called terrorists by some, or even many.

Of course, you're implicitly referring to the Iraq war, which I have always opposed. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Bush administration lied to get us into that conflict.

You do understand though, don't you, that the violence in Iraq is largely being perpetrated by religious extremists who, as far as I can tell, don't give one damn about the Iraqi people in general. They are not fighting out of a deep love for Iraq. The long-persecuted Shia, backed by Iran, are fighting to take advantage of the power vacuum left by Hussein's ouster, while the minority Sunni (many of them, ex-Baathists) are fighting to maintain their dominance over the Shia. Both groups are blowing up innocent people, and both satisfy almost any reasonable definition of "terrorists".

And the U.S. is creating them faster than it can kill them.

Answer 5

People have an inalienable right and duty to defend their home and country from an invading or occupying country.

To target people of your own nationality that are allied with the invaders is nothing more than targeting a traitor to your own nation.

To turn down assistance from a neighboring nation to help fight these invaders would be suicide.

It is only the aggressor that labels these defenders of a nation a terrorist.

This is not limited to the American people.

Answer 6

And the Leader of that Other Country would first claim (righteously) that the US has WMD's, and that their leader is a power-and-oil thristy warmonger (which is true).

EDIT: See this Billy D fella here below?

He's the living proof of a retarded mind that fell prey to Bushies' crap.

I pity his kind, really.

Answer 7

I see where you are trying to go with this, but if a few people form here went and killed thousands of people for no reason we would be terrorists if they came over here and invaded, they would be helping protect the US citizens from the crazy terrorists in our own country.

Answer 8

No...terrorists target women, children, and other innocents for the purpose of fear and demoralization. They have a warped sense of reality. They are no better than a mass murderer such as Manson, etc.

Nice try, but the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness neither is extreme nor warped.

Answer 9

I think the appropriate term would be "insurgents". But hey, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, right?.

What side of the gun barrel are you staring at?(LOL) That is going to determine your term.

Answer 10

Great question the answer would be freedom fighters , but there was never any freedom in Iraq.