Terrorist vs. Guerilla Warfare

Couldn't you say that the CIA works as guerilla 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.

Thats just it though, there is no distiction between the two, its all on which way you choose to see it... Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare are one in the same... The reason one word is used over the other is determined purely by who is reporting, witnessing or committing the act... Thats the way I see it anyway, and if you look at the tactics and techniques of the two - you'll soon see my point...

[edit on 7-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]

I'm just pushing the envolope Ghost Soldier...

If you read my first post, the original post of this thread, you would see I said the same thing, but had many people arguing with me until I made myself understood, then other people came without reading the whole thread so we are going around in circles again.

hahaha oh my bad then ...
ummm *scratches head*

I think ultimately terrorism of any kind is damndable....however sometimes history has called guerrilla's terrorists because they choose to bomb areas where innocents can be harmed.

All be it they do it in the attempt to take out military and goverment officials , their tactics are so close why shouldnt we be confused and history also for that matter.

And what about those good old boys in the virginia mountains who are a militia, are they also acting in terrorist ways at times to?

all three ways leave alot to be desired in their usefulness , they all are usually disorganized with a common agenda yes but conflicting methods of execution maybe that is why the three are all confused as being of the same group ie terrorists.

Originally posted by 00PS

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..

granted, it's been a while since i posted and a bunch more crap has been infused into this thread, but just so you understand, i DO NOT, at any point in this, AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT CIVILIANS ARE NOT INNOCENT. even if they are members of corporations that have done things in foreign lands that are criminal in nature. those crimes need to be brought before a judge and jury. that INDIVIDUAL should be punished for whatever it is that he has done IF AND WHEN HE IS FOUND GUILTY OF THAT CRIME, and not before, as, in America, we are protected by the belief that one remains INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. i have yet to see any single individual proven guilty in any action against the civilian public of the United States of America. if this is in fact your case, you lost it. the verdict is NOT GUILTY. the defendant goes free. he is exonnerated and no amount of proof after the fact can do any good to prove otherwise. he had his day in court, now that is behind him. this is the law. this is what is right. if this means that, of the 3000 people that died on 9-11-01 from the TERRORIST ATTACKS, maybe one or 2 of them could have been proven guilty of something, then this does not make the attack legitimate and CAN NOT BE CALLED COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

guerrilla warfare is legitimate. it is an honorable type of warfare as long as it does not spill over into terrorism. terrorism is not legitimate warfare for all the reasons posted prior to this post and all the reasons discussed prior to this thread. whether or not you'd be labeled a terrorist if you used guerrilla tactics today, against the United States Government, the answer is YES, at first, you would, but while the story filters through the media and gets finalized, eventually, you would be called what you are, a guerrilla, or simply, an enemy combatant, a man in dire need of medication or something less extravagant, such as attacker, bomber, or whatever. my question is, why does it matter what they call you as long as you know you've kept your end of the bargain up by using guerrilla tactics instead of terrorist tactics?

the legal stuff- i know that's gonna bring out crap about GITMO, but it just doesn't apply. those at GITMO were rounded up during operations where it is, basically, the same as "probable cause" to assume they had something to do with whatever action was opposing US forces at the time, due to their proximity to the action, the perpetrators of the action or information, equipment or supplies involved in the action.

First off, I just want to say kudos to OOPS for taking what is actually a really difficult topic and managing to run a thread that didn't turn into name calling (which seems pretty common around here).

I'm just going to throw in my two cents. I think most of the posters have been right here by saying that terrorism is just a label that gets applied to guerilla warfare, and that the two terms have somehow become equated today. Of course there are differences, and as far as I gather, these differences are mainly centered on the targets each form takes. (Terrorism targets civilians, Guerilla Warfare targets military/political/economic sites, 'legitimate' warfare targets military/political/economic sites but on a larger scale).

The label terrorism is the operative thing here. One of my favorite quotes about it comes from an article I read awhile ago that I can't remember but the women argued that:

'The label terrorism is a type of violence that forces us to pathologize one form of violence while normalizing another'

That is, 'terrorism' as a label, operates to tell us right and wrong. We can recognize good violence when we see it, and bad violence when we see it, because one is terrorism and the other isn't. It also legitimizes our violence and makes abhorent the others. 'Their violence is bad because it is terrorism, our violence is good because it isn't terrorism'. It's a pretty (if I can borrow a word from this thread) sophomoric way to set up an ethics to violence.

Of course, once you recognize that the word is simply a malleable one that gets slapped on to help quench the uncomfortable feeling you get when you witness violence, you realize that, ethically, you're basically back with Aquinas trying to figure out an Ethics to violence. I'm refering here to the old 'Just War Theory' that Aquinas put forth centuries ago (and that people still refer to) which has two principles:

1) Jus in Bellum - which is argues that “…a just war be waged for a just cause; that it be undertaken as a last resort; that it have a reasonable chance of success; that it be declared by a proper authority; and that it be proportionate to the ends sought.” (This quote isn't from Aquinas, but is rather from another source who is paraphrasing the original work)

2) Jus ad Bellum - which has to do specifically with the legitimacy of targets in war. Aquinas basically held that you can ethically target military people because they posed a veritable threat to you, but you couldn't attack civilians because they didn't.

Pretty simple, hey? I think Aquinas theory makes perfect sense when war was still waged on battlefields and away from civilian populations. Things are messier nowadays. Partly because of how we fight war, but also because the modern military complex entends well into the civilian population. I'm quoting again...

“Noncombatants may include civilians who make munitions or contribute to war propaganda. They may be respectable older citizens who wear good suits and sit in tidy offices where they plan the war or profit from weapon sales…”

Now, can we place these people as legitimate targets in warfare? My hunch is that yes, we can. If someone contributes to (or worse, profits from) the weapons that are used to kill people, I can't help but think that killing these people might be ethically justifiable if it can stop further people from dying. That is, if a terrorist could save 100 lives by murdering a civilian weapons maker, then I think his act would be morally justifiable.

Quick question, is dropping a cluster bomb, which can wound and kill future generations of children more or less right than targeting an arms manufacturer?

I think that says something about the violence we normalize, and the violence we pathologize.

So that's sort of my line. Someone else on here said that all citizens can be considered legitmate targets but I can't go that far. I think that you end up blanketing to large of the population then, and you might end up hurting someone who is actively opposing the military actions undertaken by their government...in this case, I don't think they are anything but innocent.

I also agree with the poster above me who said that the best possible alternative would be to relegate these issues to courts. I would love to live in a world without retaliatory violence, a planet governed by a sovereign international court that punished all wrong doers (regardless of state affiliation), and lets hope that one day we have such a place. Hell, if the US ever catches Bin Laden, there is nothing I'd rather see then him being tried by the Hague for crimes against humanity...of course, I'd like to see Kissinger in there too. But, for now, I think it's important to consider these questions and really try to flesh out the meat of these terms, because there's alot of violence being perpetrated across the world right now, under all of these guises (be it terrorism or counter-terrorism) so I think we should understand what were actually talking about.

Sorry this is so long. I've enjoyed reading this thread, and I hope it can continue. Oh, and most of my quotes I stuck in here come from a book by Trudy Govier called 'A Delicate Balance: What Philosophy Can Tell Us About Terrorism' (Westview Press, 2002). It's a great book that I would recommend to any and all.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by robotbot]

Whats happening with that Professor Churchill, who called all the victims in 9/11 little "ikemans"... does anyone have any links, because I know very little about it...

Now, can we place these people as legitimate targets in warfare? My hunch is that yes, we can. If someone contributes to (or worse, profits from) the weapons that are used to kill people, I can't help but think that killing these people might be ethically justifiable if it can stop further people from dying. That is, if a terrorist could save 100 lives by murdering a civilian weapons maker, then I think his act would be morally justifiable.

ok, but that would be murder, not terrorism, not warfare, not guerrilla warfare, but murder.

if these are legitimate targets, then the action against ought to be prosecution, not war. how does anyone in their right mind, terrorist or not, walk into a building and shoot a man with no way of defending himself? if you do this, it is criminal, you are a criminal, a murderer.

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.

Im talking about a long long time ago, way before ireland ever signed over northern ireland, at one point the british owned the whole of ireland and the irish had to fight to take it back. Irish had useless guns compared to the english so the only way they had a chance was by jumping out of bushes with rifles and molotovs and like you said roadside bombs and ambushes.

If Ireland wanted N.I. back how could they get it ?

I dont think the I.R.A want the north back anymore seeing as theyre making so much money from it being ran by the british.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by fishbrain]

Originally posted by fledgling666

ok, but that would be murder, not terrorism, not warfare, not guerrilla warfare, but murder.

if these are legitimate targets, then the action against ought to be prosecution, not war. how does anyone in their right mind, terrorist or not, walk into a building and shoot a man with no way of defending himself? if you do this, it is criminal, you are a criminal, a murderer.

How so?

I'm a little confused by your logic here, so help me out.

Is all killing murder?

Is all killing during war murder?

(My answer to those two are yes. But that murder is not always morally wrong)

Does it depend on whether or not the person is a direct, and perceivable threat (ie. they have a gun and are running at you)?

Or can someone high in the legal chain of the opposition be a legitimate target? Whether these people be civilians or not.

(My answer here is yes and yes. I think that in both of these cases muder is morally right)

Are targeted assassinations murder?

(yup, but not necessarily morally wrong)

When the US dropped bombs on the Hussein kids, was that murder?

(yup)

Or a justifiable action of war?

(yes to that one too)

Those two brothers clearly didn't pose a threat to the pilot who dropped the bomb, they were defenseless, they should have been prosecuted for their crimes, but they weren't.

So how can I say that it was morally right?

Because I believe that killing those two saved the lives of many other people. Or at least I hope so, if it was purely retaliatory than I think it was just murder...

Now, all of that being said, I will restate that I agree with you that the legal option is the best of all possible worlds. Hell, I don't support the death penalty even for people like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, I think they should be locked up forever, but that killing them for revenge is not morally justifiable. I've always believed in and supported non-violence (but I do support symbolic violence, that's another story) as the best means to change.

I think that you might be trying to make things too black and white here, when really there's alot of grey. Murder is a tough thing to wrap your head around, by I feel more or less ok about my position. I think it is morally consistent and marks a standard that I can hold any and all sides of a conflict up too (whether they be terrorists, guerilla warriors, state-soldiers, presidents, or civilians) and one that I'd like to think I can apply without bias.

I'm trying my most to apply a set of principals to any people involved with a conflict, and I'm trying my most to work through whether or not violence can ever be morally right. To avoid hypocrisy then, I have to admit that if I think it can be right for 'my side' to use violence, then I have to acknowledge the rights of the otherside to use violence as well. Basically, I'm trying my most to not normalize or pathologize any violence...

but your distinction between "normalizing" and "pathologizing" violence is not necessary when you look at the reasons for each individual action.

if an un-provoked attack takes out 3000 civilian lives and is being called retaliation, is it not just mass murder?

when a soldier in an airplane drops a bomb on the house of the 2 sons, heirs to their father's dictatorship, and military second or third in command, is that not war?

there is a difference here. maybe to some, it is murder, but to me, war is more like manslaughter, being that it was not your personal intent to kill the person or persons, but an order given to deploy weaponry. you are no longer an individual in a soldier's uniform, but an extension of the military aparatus.

civilians, whether they work for corporations that have committed crimes in foreign lands or not, are not extensions of the military aparatus. they are civilians. all the way up to the CEO.

if a CEO is to be brought to justice for said crimes, it should be within the borders of the country he is a citizen of and should be directly relative to the laws of that country, NOT A GLOBAL COURT OF ANY SORT. a global court would be biased toward a political outcome for the trial. it would favor countries that might retaliate, or countries that support them. it would condemn those from countries it disagrees with. where would the checks and balances be?

not only do i advocate the individual be tried in his home country, but also, in the state in which the company is rooted, as i believe, somehow, that the states retain these right above and beyond the federal government and need to begin enforcing that retention.

people high in the legal chain of the opposition can be very legitimate targets, such as the President of a country, the top aids, the top secretaries, defense ministers, kings, queens, military dictators, generals, etc. these people are not civilians, they are both public servants and an extension of the military command.

I think that you might be trying to make things too black and white here, when really there's alot of grey. Murder is a tough thing to wrap your head around, by I feel more or less ok about my position. I think it is morally consistent and marks a standard that I can hold any and all sides of a conflict up too (whether they be terrorists, guerilla warriors, state-soldiers, presidents, or civilians) and one that I'd like to think I can apply without bias.

yes, but whose sense morallity will you have these seperations of the degrees of murder judged by?

it seems to me, that it IS black and white and that you are trying to create a grey area.

murder is as defined by state and federal law in the Untied States, for all i care about. 1st degree murder is premeditated, which is what a terrorist action would be tried as. an act of war, a kill during battle, during a bomb blast, etc. is not premeditated, it is not necessarily focussed on one individual and cannot be premeditated murder due to that, but also, again, it is not the intention of the soldier to kill a particular individual, it is his duty to his country to deploy weaponry when told to do so, and therefore, the act is not his, it is the act of the entire military aparatus. he is the finger that pulls the trigger, but the finger needs the hand to hold the gun, needs the arm to raise and aim, needs the shoulder for support, needs the head for instruction, the heart for life support, the lungs, etc. it does not, however, need the company that built the gun for support in the act, and therefore, the company is not at fault. it commited no crime in creating a product for a market niche, the military. and it cannot be held accountable for that, and therefore, it's employees are innocent civilians.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by fledgling666]

[edit on 9-3-2005 by fledgling666]

[edit on 9-3-2005 by fledgling666]

This is an opinion,nothing more out of the billons of perspectives out there.But,this is an interesting topic none the least.Yes these guys we call terrorists belong to a radical free society,but then again did't Hitler think he was doing wonders too!The promblem we arrive at is the perspective of the person.

Originally posted by fledgling666
maybe to some, it is murder, but to me, war is more like manslaughter, being that it was not your personal intent to kill the person or persons, but an order given to deploy weaponry. you are no longer an individual in a soldier's uniform, but an extension of the military aparatus.

I tend to agree with this statement as its not a personal vandetta against two or more parties... Its soldier to soldier... they understand that they are professionals, its their job and thats what they are doing. Indeed it is killing someone, but murder is the wrong word.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

Originally posted by fledgling666
maybe to some, it is murder, but to me, war is more like manslaughter, being that it was not your personal intent to kill the person or persons, but an order given to deploy weaponry. you are no longer an individual in a soldier's uniform, but an extension of the military aparatus.

I tend to agree with this statement as its not a personal vandetta against two or more parties... Its soldier to soldier... they understand that they are professionals, its their job and thats what they are doing. Indeed it is killing someone, but murder is the wrong word.

Extension of military aparatus? That sounds awfully grotesque haha. People make choices so they can choose to desert an army, this shows they are not just an extension of mililtary aparatus...

globalguerrillas.typepad.com...
4GW -- FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE

4GW (fourth generation wafare) is the term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the start of the 21st century. In general, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). I have outlined the basics of 4GW warfare below to enhance your understanding of the term.

4th Generation Warfare

This is "terrorism", "terrorism" is this...

[edit on 11-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]