[rickmichaels]

So really, if it's IEDs designed to hit our troops, to me, those are insurgents, not terrorists. If they blow up a Mosque or a coffee shop, that's terrorism.

So are insurgents/terrorists merely innocent civilians when they're between attacks and have some free time on their hands?

[Huck]

So are insurgents/terrorists merely innocent civilians when they're between attacks and have some free time on their hands?

No, they're big bad doody head. Feel better? Gotta make sure the news appeals to your emotions, right? Who are the insurgents? That guy Zarquawi, it seems to me, is a terrorist. The tactics he employs, such as beheading civilians and putting the video on the net, are terroristic.

But what about that guy Sadr? He seems to be an insurgent to me. He's an Iraqi religious nutbag who was trying to gain political control and resist the US/Coalition presence. To me, that's an insurgent.

Personally, I think terrorists are worse than insurgents, because they intend to kill civilians and generally use a baser form of mayhem than insurgents. And I don't need the media to label the Iraqi insurgents as poopy heads for me. I already know which side I'm on. Just tell me what's happening. I'll decide how to feel about it.

[RHINO369]

"So are insurgents/terrorists merely innocent civilians when they're between attacks and have some free time on their hands?"

No they are soldiers. Those who blow up civilian targets are terrorists, and deserve to be shot when found (after they were tortured to get intel), but those who just use IED's and attacks on legit military targets are insurgents. If Iraq was occupying America, I'd sure as hell set bombs on the road and blow them up when their convoys go by. Plus whats the difference between a roadside bomb and a cruise missile?

This doesn't mean we shouldn't find and kill them, but if we label EVERYONE a terrorist, it defeats the purpose of having the word terrorist.