Terrorist vs. Guerilla Warfare

Political correctness according to the world of OOPS.

The difference between a terrorist and a guerilla is in the methods used, whom is considered legitimate targets, and lastly, there goals.

Perhaps this topic thread would help explain things?
Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

Big difference between attacking innocent civilians versus attacking military targets, personel, etc., huh, OOPS?





seekerof

attacking people I think it's the 16th time in this posting I have to say this: I never said attack people. But I will attack the bad people

Never said attack people? Isn't saying that a terrorist attack would be a good thing, saying attack people?

Attack the bad people? In your "world", who is the bad people? because in mine they are the TERRORISTS. They would be the ones i attack to keep innocent people safe.
After all, don't the terrorists go for innocents?

Seekerof and Bikereddie, why are you antagonizing me Nah, actually I like it.

Explanation time again. I said over and over that the term Terrorist is the newest label to be given to anyone who is a Freedom Figher, Revolutionary Warrior, or Guerilla.

I said more terrorist attacks of the nature I'm talking about would help redefine the word for the public. That Terrorism is Terrorism and legitimate Guerilla Warfare is a great tactic to achieve goals

The Zapatistas of Mexico fall under the Terrorist list now, but they are a true Revolutionary Force in Mexico. Way To Go. Long Live the Zapatistas!!

EDIT: Terrorist attacks of the nature I'm talking about are real Guerilla tactics and warfare against legitimate military and political targets. From machines to people. The guilty, the conspirators, the damned. With effective communication to the public on the acts of Guerilla warfare we can change the view of the public to accept Guerilla Warfare as a legitimate action again and not the brand of terrism as it has been blindfully accepted by the masses, imposed by the propaganda machine.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by 00PS]

Originally posted by 00PS
First let me state this post is not for attention or points

First, I believe terrorism is an effectivev weapon against goverments and believe it to be a new label for what I call Guerilla Warfare.

EDIT: Title Change (too confusing)

[edit on 28-2-2005 by 00PS]

ok, i just have one thing to say, and sorry if it has been mentioned, i don't have the time to search through all the bickering to get to the point.

Guerrilla Warfare is not the same as Terrorism. they are 2 wholly different forms of warfare. they will never be the same. the difference is obvious to anyone with half a brain. terrorism targets civilians while guerrilla warfare targets military installations. guerrilla war has battles, terrorism has either bombings or massacres. guerrilla warfare is a semi-organized force of people who disagree with the government, fighting the government on level ground. terrorism is a semi-organized force of people killing civilians in order to affect the government. they are nothing more than murderers, plain and simple and should see the electric chair. guerrilla combatants should be punished by being banned from the country, fined, serving time or hanging for treason, but not dying as murderers because they fought military, not killed civilians. of course, there is collateral damage in any warfare, such as some military dying in a terrorist attack and some civilians dying in a guerilla action, but, for the most part, they are totally incompatible, completely incomparable and utterly different forms of warfare. in fact, i would venture to say that terrorism isn't even a form of warfare, that it is simple, premeditated murder.

Great, you're so off topic, but thanks for the definitions you state. It's always good to have a clear understanding of what we define things as.

If you were to read the posts you would find that everyone agrees with you.

What is this topic about.

Can you answer this question and do you have any reasons why you support the answer?

Question: If I Were To Use Guerilla Warfare Tactics Against The U.S. Government Today, Would I Be Labled A Terrorist?

Thanks,

00ps

Originally posted by 00PS
Great, you're so off topic, but thanks for the definitions you state. It's always good to have a clear understanding of what we define things as.

If you were to read the posts you would find that everyone agrees with you.

What is this topic about.

Can you answer this question and do you have any reasons why you support the answer?

Question: If I Were To Use Guerilla Warfare Tactics Against The U.S. Government Today, Would I Be Labled A Terrorist?

Thanks,

00ps

i was responding to your first post, where, if you asked that question, it wasn't very clear.

if you were to use guerrilla tactics today to fight the US government, you would indeed most likely be labeled "terrorist." whether that is correct has been discussed plenty of times before this thread, but for clarity on my opinion, no, it is not. if you definitely stuck to guerrilla tactics, you, instead, would be labeled an idiot.

Can you expand on that. Why would sticking to guerilla tactics be considered an idiot.

Was Che an idiot?

Geurilla warfares the way to go thats how the irish kept their country because the british werent used to people jumping out of bushes and attacking one by one rather than the whole army marching into battle.

Originally posted by fishbrain
Geurilla warfares the way to go thats how the irish kept their country because the british werent used to people jumping out of bushes and attacking one by one rather than the whole army marching into battle.

Right, if it werene't for Guerilla Warfare many oppressed peoples couldn't fight back.

Terrorism is guerilla warfare. The only question people are worried about is who are the targets.

Well let's just say Innocents shouldn't be target. But this opens a whole new debate on who are innocents.

Are all civilians of a country innocents? NO

Originally posted by fishbrain
Geurilla warfares the way to go thats how the irish kept their country because the british werent used to people jumping out of bushes and attacking one by one rather than the whole army marching into battle.

I think you will find that Northern Ireland is still part of Britain.

People jumping out of bushes may have happened, but it was more like the roadside bombs that were used in attacks.

Research the problems in Ireland. Think you might be surprised at what you find.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]
edit for typos

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

Bikereddie you are right, lemme ask you this: If Ireland wanted N.I. back how could they get it ?

1iplomacy
2:Invasion
3:Guerilla Warfare

Originally posted by 00PS

Originally posted by fishbrain
Geurilla warfares the way to go thats how the irish kept their country because the british werent used to people jumping out of bushes and attacking one by one rather than the whole army marching into battle.

Right, if it werene't for Guerilla Warfare many oppressed peoples couldn't fight back.

Terrorism is guerilla warfare. The only question people are worried about is who are the targets.

Well let's just say Innocents shouldn't be target. But this opens a whole new debate on who are innocents.

Are all civilians of a country innocents? NO

terrorism is not guerrilla warfare. when will you get it? they are very different. and yes, the different target choices between the two have significance. guerrilla warfare still follows honorable warfare morality, where terrorism does not. if you have a problem with a government, you attack that government, not the people living under that government. and yes, in warfare, civilians are innocents. how can you say "no?" what set of rules or circumstances can you use to say that civilians are not innocent in warfare? i would like that defined, please.

one other thing- how can one ever attempt to get their message across to a government by attacking it's people? yes, i understand, it happens occasionally, but how do you start out thinking that that is the way to go? how do you start a fight with your neighbor by beating up his kids?

ps- i made a typo at the end of the above post, i meant if you were to fight the US with TERRORIST methods, you'd be labeled an idiot, well, then again, i guess it goes for guerrilla methods too. it just wouldn't work and would be a waste of time and energy, when you could instead, contact your congressmen, get some people together, influence change in a peaceful way, etc.

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Originally posted by fishbrain
Geurilla warfares the way to go thats how the irish kept their country because the british werent used to people jumping out of bushes and attacking one by one rather than the whole army marching into battle.

I think you will find that Northern Ireland is still part of Britain.

People jumping out of bushes may have happened, but it was more like the roadside bombs that were used in attacks.

Research the problems in Ireland. Think you might be surprised at what you find.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]
edit for typos

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

actually, i think they just forgot how, because they had experienced it before. (American Revolution)

Originally posted by fledgling666
terrorism is not guerrilla warfare. when will you get it? they are very different. and yes, the different target choices between the two have significance. guerrilla warfare still follows honorable warfare morality, where terrorism does not. if you have a problem with a government, you attack that government, not the people living under that government. and yes, in warfare, civilians are innocents. how can you say "no?" what set of rules or circumstances can you use to say that civilians are not innocent in warfare? i would like that defined, please.

one other thing- how can one ever attempt to get their message across to a government by attacking it's people? yes, i understand, it happens occasionally, but how do you start out thinking that that is the way to go? how do you start a fight with your neighbor by beating up his kids?

ps- i made a typo at the end of the above post, i meant if you were to fight the US with TERRORIST methods, you'd be labeled an idiot, well, then again, i guess it goes for guerrilla methods too. it just wouldn't work and would be a waste of time and energy, when you could instead, contact your congressmen, get some people together, influence change in a peaceful way, etc.

That last thing about peaceful change - HAH - Never going to happen...

The Second to last thing about being labled an idiot - Who would be labeling a Guerilla an idiot : You? - HAH - Like I give a F

The Third to last thing you said about civilians not being moral targets - HAH - you tell me that the head of the Monsanto Corporation and all of their shareholders that support and turn a blind eye to unethical and immoral business practices that result in the death of true innocent civilians are not worthy and moral targets of warfare - Double HAH

The first thing you said about Terrorism not being Guerilla Warfare and when will I get it - HAH - I already got it but I'm saying that Guerilla Warfare is Terrorism in today's society and Guerilla Warfare should be practiced more so that the ignorant population who doesn't know will see that.

HAH

how about the part where i asked you to define your methods for proving civilians "not innocent?"

Originally posted by fledgling666
how about the part where i asked you to define your methods for proving civilians "not innocent?"

ah so you agree with me. Some civilians are guilty of crimes against soverieng states and humanity. These civilians are heads and officials of corporations and deserve the death penalty of guerilla bombs...preferably bananna bombs. The method to prove them guilty? And the truth shall set you free, free to guerilla warfare their arses..

Guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

Terrorism : the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.
So can one tell the diffrence?
One wears a uniform (sometimes) the other doesnt (sometimes).

Originally posted by devilwasp
Guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment

Terrorism : the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.
So can one tell the diffrence?
One wears a uniform (sometimes) the other doesnt (sometimes).

You took the words right out of my mouth, devilwasp. Also Guerilla warfare is usually against a corrupt, dictatorial government, whose dogma reflects the thoughts of the population under duress. The ones who have gotten beyond the fear and death squads(Che Guevera: the consummate guerilla), and have taken social unrest to the streets.
Terrorists may spew what they want changed in the world, but when it comes down to it, they just want to kill the ones they hate.

Don't Guerillas kill the ones they hate, detest and despise? So what's the difference now?

Originally posted by nightbreid
You took the words right out of my mouth, devilwasp. Also Guerilla warfare is usually against a corrupt, dictatorial government, whose dogma reflects the thoughts of the population under duress. The ones who have gotten beyond the fear and death squads(Che Guevera: the consummate guerilla), and have taken social unrest to the streets.

Hmm that depends, there is always 2 sides to a conflict.

Terrorists may spew what they want changed in the world, but when it comes down to it, they just want to kill the ones they hate.

Not really, most terrorist groups want change.
Take the PIRA they have stopped large scale attacks once they got an independant NI parlement.