Insurgents, what are they
0
Subjectivity indeed comes into play. Agenda setting, especially made by profit-oriented corporate media outlets paint most of the picture.
As long as it would benefit the play of the state in which such outlets are based (or whoever these fools serve at the end of the day, might it be a cocaine-snorting Wallstreet Fraduster or some Perverted Oil Sheikh somewhere in the gulf,l they will tag them accordingly. Ideologies and economic interests (heh, rational action) do a large part on determining whether these outlets would tag them freedom fighters or not (in the case of Bin Laden)
Osama in the 80's according to the Reagan administration was a freedom fighter, since he played for the interests of good 'ol Uncle Sammy. While after the collapse of the Soviets (and after sending Hajis to blow up certain US installations, or others might say, when he no longer seems useful in the American conquest for power), he was tagged as a terrorist.
A Taliban gunman might be a freedom fighter for some snot-nosed Pasthun kid somewhere in the outskirts of Kandahar, but he might as well be a terrorist for some Football-loving Infantryman based in some dusty FOB in J-Bad.
0
I called for Undecided mainly because there was no other answer that said Either. An insurgency's agenda is probably the most crucial factor for defining them as whether they're with or against us determines our label for them. Most modern day insurgencies that are bothered to be brought to light are labelled with terrorism as their agenda is to our disadvantage, or worse is a threat to us.
On the other side of the spectrum, insurgent groups that have assisted or benefited us in some way get the thumbs up in our books.
The French Resistance of WWII could be considered insurgents, they used similar tactics to what modern day insurgents would yet they are the good guys because they helped us take down the Nazis. I'd also consider the riots in Ukraine an insurgency, though relatively smaller. The Americans portrayed them as fighters against a corrupt government despite the brunt of the (insurgency's) leadership consisting of extremists and Neo-Nazis.
Read up on Svoboda(and no, I don't mean the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. faction)
Personally, I view this much like I view war and that is history is determined by the victor. Doesn't matter how much either side argues they're in the right, only matters which side will stand the winner. As our current events fall into the pages of history, only then will we truly see whether our modern day insurgencies were either fights for freedom or acts of terror.
P.S. Nowadays, the only insurgencies I usually see that are given green light by the US of A usually have a bone to pick with Russia or his friends in one way or another. Talk about reliving the Cold War days.
TL;DR:
On the other side of the spectrum, insurgent groups that have assisted or benefited us in some way get the thumbs up in our books.
The French Resistance of WWII could be considered insurgents, they used similar tactics to what modern day insurgents would yet they are the good guys because they helped us take down the Nazis. I'd also consider the riots in Ukraine an insurgency, though relatively smaller. The Americans portrayed them as fighters against a corrupt government despite the brunt of the (insurgency's) leadership consisting of extremists and Neo-Nazis.
Read up on Svoboda(and no, I don't mean the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. faction)
Personally, I view this much like I view war and that is history is determined by the victor. Doesn't matter how much either side argues they're in the right, only matters which side will stand the winner. As our current events fall into the pages of history, only then will we truly see whether our modern day insurgencies were either fights for freedom or acts of terror.
P.S. Nowadays, the only insurgencies I usually see that are given green light by the US of A usually have a bone to pick with Russia or his friends in one way or another. Talk about reliving the Cold War days.
TL;DR:
Spoiler:
2
An insurgent role, as a...., is relative to the position of the observer. Neither one is truer or falser than the others, due to the fact that they are decided by the political/social position of the person judging.
I agree with Valentine, that the US (government to educational system) has greatly obscured the perception of "good and evil", for American citizens, from subjective view points, to that of a definitive concept, "That anything un-American is lesser and/or evil", "That America's will is the best course of action for the world to follow, and that only evil or stupid denies America's will", there's even "...America is the land chosen by god" statements, found so commonly among politicians, often used to justify later actions.
Any conflict involving more than one person has more than one view point, and for the different views, certain actions can be justifiable or not.
I kinda forgot midway why I was writing this story out, but I leave it in here.
I agree with Valentine, that the US (government to educational system) has greatly obscured the perception of "good and evil", for American citizens, from subjective view points, to that of a definitive concept, "That anything un-American is lesser and/or evil", "That America's will is the best course of action for the world to follow, and that only evil or stupid denies America's will", there's even "...America is the land chosen by god" statements, found so commonly among politicians, often used to justify later actions.
Any conflict involving more than one person has more than one view point, and for the different views, certain actions can be justifiable or not.
Spoiler:
I kinda forgot midway why I was writing this story out, but I leave it in here.
0
One the one hand, Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan have made some big mistakes that do justify some level of complaint.....
On the other hand, The intent appears to generally be for the betterment of the population, and has no ill will behind it. sometimes shit just got out of hand and people made really shitty decisions on the ground.
those things taken into account, I lean mostly towards terrorists. if they want to change the system, they should try doing it peacefully first. not by carbombing the shit out of all the civvies they can find until they rule the streets. That's not freedom fighting, that's using fear and intimidation to get your view across, regardless of whether everyone agrees with you. I don't think they are terrorists in the strictest sense, in that they are fighting for a set of beliefs that can be interpreted pretty reasonably. My problem is that most have interpreted those beliefs very violently and not in the way the people they claim to be fighting to save/protect actually agree with.
On the other hand, The intent appears to generally be for the betterment of the population, and has no ill will behind it. sometimes shit just got out of hand and people made really shitty decisions on the ground.
those things taken into account, I lean mostly towards terrorists. if they want to change the system, they should try doing it peacefully first. not by carbombing the shit out of all the civvies they can find until they rule the streets. That's not freedom fighting, that's using fear and intimidation to get your view across, regardless of whether everyone agrees with you. I don't think they are terrorists in the strictest sense, in that they are fighting for a set of beliefs that can be interpreted pretty reasonably. My problem is that most have interpreted those beliefs very violently and not in the way the people they claim to be fighting to save/protect actually agree with.
0
It's always been a matter of both sides.
In the American Revolution, the British were imposing really heavy taxes. Along with mistreatment of Americans.
But when it comes to "freedom fighters" who want to take down a stable government like saying Russia with insurgents? No, even though Russia is not an "amazing place" to live, it is a stable government and society, no need to overthrow it by being assholes because they dislike the Russian government.
In the American Revolution, the British were imposing really heavy taxes. Along with mistreatment of Americans.
But when it comes to "freedom fighters" who want to take down a stable government like saying Russia with insurgents? No, even though Russia is not an "amazing place" to live, it is a stable government and society, no need to overthrow it by being assholes because they dislike the Russian government.
