It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terrorist vs. Guerilla Warfare

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Ah the wonderful shades of grey.

Ok lets take a look at some of the sides of this object. This may turn out a little pulpy but ill try to stay coherant


Attacking of Civilians- For a force incapable of directly launching large strategic attacks against military targets, civilians are a valid target.
Why? Well lets look at this.
-People themselves are strategic military commodities
-Attacking people forces the military to provide assistance and defence thus spreadng out their forces and/or making them more available to target
-It forces the Government to restrict the rights of its population thus increasing dissent
-Often it forces the population to ask 'why' and in so doing often re-examine their views for better or worse
-And ultimatly the friend of my enemy is my enemy. The people keep the nation going, they support the nation, they are the nation therefore they are the most important strategic target a nation has
To further the last point we bombed civilians specifically during the 2nd world war. This was for many reasons, to cut the work force, to impact the economy, to reduce morale, to coax the population into removing their leaders. Were all Germans Nazi's? No, but they were equally as guilty for allowing what happened to happen. Compare this to present day and you find the exact same reasoning and it is even more valid considering the U.S. is a democracy, for the people by the people. The people are therefore guilty of everything theyre elected government has done.

Now there is lots of talk about how they kill civilians blah blah blah. Well the U.S. then are equally terrorists as they have killed and wounded thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afganistan with weapons that could hit a needle in a haystack from 5000 miles away. No matter how well organized a force is there is always collateral damage. Were the civilians specifically targeted? No, but it is a little questionable.

Lets look at a couple of other details however. The U.S. bombed civilians specifically in Nam, Cambodia and Laos. A U.S. Destroyer shot down an Iranian passenger jet as it was leaving the runway which ended the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians fleeing the nation during the 1st gulf war on the 'Highway of Death'. Terrorism?

Ok so now the terrorists. Have they specifically attacked only civilians? No.
They attacked a U.S. destroyer and embassy's. An embassy is a military target as it represents the nation it serves and manages its military forces and covert operations in the area.

The difference between terrorism and guerrila warfare which I didnt notice stated is that guerilla's are generally internal, often due to some form of civil war. They dont typically lash out at other nations. They often aim to gain the support of the population although do frequently target aspects of it.

Terrorists generally only aim at external targets and usually offer some form of ultimatum whether it be money, transport or the release of 'political prisoners'. They can be typified more with random acts of violence for personal gain.

Basically, however, it all boils down to what end of the stick your on. If you are the nation being attacked, be it a civil or guerilla war, those in power will consider the attackers as terrorists. Again go back to the WW2, the Nazi's considered the Maquis to be terrorist's we considered them as freedom fighters. Who gets what label however depends on who wins.

Thats it for now




posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
It sounds to me you are stating tha terrorism is a valid method of warfare? Is this correct?

I happen to think that Guerilla Warfare is honorable. I don't know about terrorism. If I go and murder 200 civilians that's not really helping me get my job done. However if I assassinate the heads of multinational corporations that are involved in illicit arms and drugs trade then I would be killing 'innocent civilians' albiet criminals in the eyes of many but there would be a purpose hence the plan.

I don't know if targeting the masses can be justified as you have said. That's a very dangerous path to walk down. One that leads to civil war and or revolution sometimes. Do you think you could explain your thoughts more?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
PIRA? weren't their tactics more guerrilla oriented? Terrorists have no conscience when it comes to collateral damage...



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbreid
PIRA? weren't their tactics more guerrilla oriented?

They set off multiple bombs in highstreets to take down targets be they civilian or military.


Terrorists have no conscience when it comes to collateral damage...

The same can be said about some military people, it is a sad world we live in....



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Im all for guerilla warfare but not for bombing people who have no involvement in the war and especially not for blowing yourself up.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CmptrN3rd5
Im all for guerilla warfare but not for bombing people who have no involvement in the war and especially not for blowing yourself up.


Yeah, I think blowing yourself up is kinda stupid...I mean what a way to go out. Guerilla warfare...now that's what this thread is all about - is it terrorism. No so of course you should be down for Guerilla Warfare but not for bombing people who have no involvement.

Question: Are halliburton top executives or prive contractors in Iraq valid military targets? If so, why are attackson them labled terrorist?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
What "OOPS" proposes is murder. Indefensable, hateful, illigical taking of life without any pretense of judicial consideration. He should be banned, like any NAZI killer would be.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Terrorism is guerilla warfare and visa-versa...

[edit on 6-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Everyone goes on about 9/11 being an attack on inocent civilians, IT was an attack on a vital peice of economical infrastructure... The killing of civillians was what the U.S. would call "collatoral damage" if they were the ones bombing another country... Alot of you seem to be forgetting the un-forgivable amount of inocent civillians that die as the bi-product of U.S aggression in just about every war "the almighty superpower" has fought in...

Im not supporting Al-Quaida (if they were responsible) ... But remember that this didn't all come out of no where... and in their eyes they are fighting a war... and they ARE using guerilla warfare...

ter·ror·ism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

gue·rill·a war·fare:
Sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are fighting for a cause usually against the government by assaults on the armed forces or other important government institutions.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
What "OOPS" proposes is murder. Indefensable, hateful, illigical taking of life without any pretense of judicial consideration. He should be banned, like any NAZI killer would be.


If you read the whole post you would understand we are having a discussion here. You probably didn't read any of the pages and are butting in during the middle of a discussoin. That is rude.

We are openly questioning the tactics of guerilla warfare being labled terrorism and why. The differences between them and are they the same.

Thanks

00ps



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
What "OOPS" proposes is murder. Indefensable, hateful, illigical taking of life without any pretense of judicial consideration. He should be banned, like any NAZI killer would be.

How is he a nazi killer?
Our military have plans to nuke enemy cities in the case of nuclear war. Should we charge them?
Our military attacked bagdad with bombs while we knew there were civies there, should we charge them?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
They did so unders orders from an internationally recognized and duly constituted government. There is a big difference between that and a small group of people taking the law into there own hands.

And yes, the people who give such orders in a government should be called to answer for thier actions.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Your right it is a very dangerous line to walk. I dont like the idea of terrorism much but it is still effective means to an end. Civilians cannot be seen as innocent period. They are the military, the economy and the government and as such just as much a military target as a tank or base.

In the free and democratic world we enjoy in the west this is even more so the case. We are directly responsible for the leaders we elect to represent us on the world scene. We are responsible for holding our governments accountable for their actions (which we fail at miserably) which reflects directly back on the people of the nation. If our government is acting in secret, selling drugs, WMD's to 3rd world countries, sponsoring wars and coups and interfering with other nations then it is WE who are responsible no matter who we voted for or how long ago it happened.

As far as the main question- is guerilla warfare terrorism? It all comes down to which end of the stick your holding. If your on the recieving end of course it will be labelled terrorism, as any action taken against military or civilian targets, will cause fear, terror and paranoia. I.E. the bombing of the U.S. Destroyer was considered terrorism although it was a military target. It ultimatly depends who writes history.

The real question however is this. If you are 'at war' and have no means of launching any form of organized military strike, is terrorism a valid form of attack? The answer you will find is yes. Also you could ask, is it justifiable to attack civilian targets out of desperation? Again it is a resounding yes. In both instances you will also find it to be no but this is because it is a completely subjective issue.

I believe in International Law and the issues it deals with but when it comes to sheer survival law no longer applies.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
To me thios post just boils down to a poll between whether you think it is better to kill someone with a carbomb or a laser giuded bunker buster. Look out for soldies of both sides missing legs and stuff and ask them which type of explosion provides the most satisfying expericence of mutilation. My advice to you would be to pick a group of people who are trying to end these actions and join them.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
terrorist [terɜ:ɪst]
A noun
1 terrorist

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
...........................................


Terrorism

Definition: the use of terror or violence to intimidate and/or subjugate // the attack on an individual to frighten and coerce a large number of others.

Types:

Criminal: i.e.: Mafia
State Terrorism: use of terror by a Gov. to maintain power.
As an instrument of Guerrilla warfare
Terrorism by groups attempting to bring about the collapse of a Gov. or trigger revolution.

.....................................


guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la (gə-rĭl'ə)
n.
A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and terrorize the enemy.


To me, they are both the same thing. google terrorist and guerrilla. See what you get.



the USA has added to the definition

terrorist [terɜ:ɪst]
A noun
1 terrorist

a school child that depicts stick figures stabing each other in drawings.


2) a teenage boys journal with a fictional story depicting zombies attacking the public.

3) a father and son playing with a laser and teliscope on the back porch that happens to hit an airline.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
If you believe in international law the rest of your post does not make sense.
If survival is the object, say, if you were a Jew in Germany in 1944, or a Hutu in Rwanda in 1998, then I don't think anyone would argue with using any means at your disposal. How many groups can assert that they are under that kind of pressure?
Murdering people who are at the most remotely related to the government and or corporations you oppose can not possibly be justified.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Dont lose your objectivity Realist. I can believe in international law but I know full well there are exceptions to it. International law is subjective afterall.

Re-read my 2 posts and I hope youll see where im coming from. I would also state that Al'Queda is fighting for its survival and (as they say) the survival of Islam.

If my country was invaded international law would go out the window and I would use any means possible to kill and/or maim as many of those responsible as i could, civilian or otherwise.

Side note- Terrorists, guerilla's, rebels and the like all share the same stance Bush has taken; Your either with us or against us, if your not helping to fix the problem your part of it.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Alexian]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
They did so unders orders from an internationally recognized and duly constituted government. There is a big difference between that and a small group of people taking the law into there own hands.

Really?
So a small group of highly trained people being ordered by a group of people duly ellected as you said but still a small group of people takeing the law into thier own hands.


And yes, the people who give such orders in a government should be called to answer for thier actions.

Then there is no justification for war and no justification for the services.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Isn't the CIA just the worlds most well funded "Terrorist" organisation in the world? Think about the definition of terrorism, and then think about the jobs the CIA has performed in the past, and is continuing to do today?

As Alexian has stated, "It depends which side of the stick you're on"... Which I beleive is entirely true... There is no "right" or "wrong" people... Perception is reality...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Isn't the CIA just the worlds most well funded "Terrorist" organisation in the world? Think about the definition of terrorism, and then think about the jobs the CIA has performed in the past, and is continuing to do today?

As Alexian has stated, "It depends which side of the stick you're on"... Which I beleive is entirely true... There is no "right" or "wrong" people... Perception is reality...


Couldn't you say that the CIA works as guerill warfare operatives or is it totally terrorism? The forum is not to debate terrorism as opposed to guerilla warfare which is better but to find the distinction between the two terms.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join