Today, any who fight against or resist the invasion of the United States armed forces, whether in occupied territory or not, and even when they are defending their own homes and families, are called insurgents. But given the proper definition above, do these "insurgents" really exist?

In order to accept this, one would have to assume that the U.S. has constituted or legally established a government in another country; in this case Afghanistan and Iraq? Is the U.S. government the legal government in these countries, or one established or controlled by force? The latter is the obvious truth, so the opposition fighters in the Middle East protecting their homeland against U.S. forced occupation are not insurgents at all.

In fact, if the same scenario was taking place on U.S. soil; in other words, if another country was attacked by a few American "terrorists" and that country decided to occupy and prosecute war here due to those attacks, would all those Americans who resisted be insurgents? Of course not; they would be freedom fighters.

So why are those citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq who are simply fighting against aggressive and occupying U.S. forces not freedom fighters as well? When the roles are reversed, the truth rears its ugly head. Anyone protecting his family, friends, and country from aggressive occupation is most certainly not an insurgent, but is simply and properly defending his own life and freedom.

Is the killing of innocent civilians or those protecting their own lives and property by the use of drones, bombings and ground attacks terrorism? Is destroying the infrastructure of an entire country, a country that never even attacked anyone, an act of terrorism? Is the displacement of over 5 million people terrorism? Are brutal and forced sanctions that cause the death and starvation of innocents' terrorism? Is the forced and armed occupation of a country an act of terrorism? In my mind, brutal sanctions and armed occupation are not only terroristic in nature but are acts of war as well. Does committing acts of terrorism if one is on the "right" side mean that there is no real terrorism being committed? This is the position that many Americans today seem to cling to in order to pacify their myopic sense of "patriotism," but is that a moral position to take?

Terrorism entails the use of violence and threats of violence to coerce or intimidate. Terrorism is based on instilling fear through submission, property destruction or killing. In the most heinous cases, these acts are carried out against innocent civilians in order to gain a political edge. All terrorism is wrong, immoral, and evil. It is irrelevant whether it is executed by one individual, a group of individuals, or a government. Whether or not the perpetrator of such acts has been wronged or feels that he or they have been victimized is also irrelevant, because any act of violence against innocents or civilians is criminal and wicked. No one should get a pass here; either individual or powerful state. It is always abominable!

The point I'm attempting to make is that terrorism is terrorism regardless of the players involved. I think this fact is overlooked by the masses who simply bury their heads in the sand in order to escape the hard truth. When the general populations, in this case much of the population in America, accept barbarous torture, rendition, suspension or elimination of common rights, military tribunals, rape and murder, then they have become part of the problem, not the solution. Support of any government that participates in this kind of behavior is indicative of a blind society, and one that has lost its soul. This kind of hypocrisy is the epitome of immorality, and if continued can only lead straight to hell!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnett/barnett16.1.html