Guerilla warfare vs Terrorist warfare

A double standard exists today, as the title says..........

So is it ok for the U.S. to do it to others but turn the tables and have them do it to the U.S. Then its called the T word.

The definition of Guerilla is........
quote, A member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment.

Terrorist means.....
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.

Sabotage is....
1. Destroy property or hinder normal operations.
2. A deliberate act of destruction or disruption in which equipment is damaged.

Harassment is....
1. The act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism.

The point is their one and the same, just depends on whos the receiver.

No matter who this is or may be, if a wrong is done against the liberty of
any one person or society as a whole, then it comes a time when the wrong must be put right.
The super ego of one man and his elite cohorts will eventually bring a country to destruction, because if the plan is to gratify the lust for power it will self-destruct. No take over has in history or will in the future succeed without great cost to liberty.
All it takes is one of the said cohorts to have a bigger ego than the boss, and the internal rot will be its undoing.
Freedom is a core belief in all humans and will NEVER die, and the driving force behind freedom is FREE WILL.

I think you put for well presented ideas...... I don't agree with some of them, and that's okay -- it's part of what we're here for, to bat ideas back and forth, maybe find a new way of doing things.

My view of a terrorist is someone who considers collateral damage of non-military personell to be favorable. Someone who is part of a group who frequently, but not always, uses twists of religious dogma to shoar up their beliefs. Someone who intentionally inflicts injury upon civilians as a way of frightening, demoralizing and terrorizing the masses....... not as a retaliatory action against their own numbers, but for the sole purpose of keeping the identified enemy in a state of unrest, fear and terror.

One might argue that any country that laid aerial bombs on any city were terrorists. I think that if it is within the context of declared war on one country from another, then that definition does not hold. Those that specifically target civilians, and particularly childen, are terrorists in my view.

Geurilla warfare is part of how the infant United States defeated the British on U.S. soil. They didn't fight "fair", but they won. They didn't target anyone but the British military. Of course, the patriots had help from other countries.

only just realised?

french resistance were to us freedom fighters to the germans terrorists

they attacked and disrupted german occuptation, its ability to control the local populous and conduct its business freely inside another country using kidnap, assasination, explosives/sabotage and small arms attacks

hama's do the same in palestine but they get called terrorists, for 2 reasons 1) they mount counter attacks across the border(im sure the french would have too if the could) 2)we dont like them

the founding fathers of America were a bunch of terrorists, systematically assasinating figure in the local goverment and casuing destruction of property to de-stablaise Englands control


its just less imaginative we call them all terrorist insted of imaginative titles for each group like we used to in warfare






[edit on 22/9/08 by noobfun]

The difference between a "terrorist" and a "guerilla" is whether you win or lose. If you lose, you are a "terrorist", if you win, you were a "guerilla".

Take the existing definition of "terrorist", and see if you can apply it to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. You might be surprised at the answer.

Sorry to disagree with your idea.

To me, you become a terrorist when you are no longer targeting a military force but you target civilians as well.

Your primary goal is to create terror, not to inflict damage to your enemy.

but what if you target both civillain and military?

does that make you a gorilla/resitance fighter or a terrorist?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Sorry to disagree with your idea.

To me, you become a terrorist when you are no longer targeting a military force but you target civilians as well.

Your primary goal is to create terror, not to inflict damage to your enemy.

Disagree is part of this forum....that's cool. Civilians will get hurt no matter what, they become an unwilling part of the conflict, not a target.
In Ireland, IRA was called what?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Sorry to disagree with your idea.

To me, you become a terrorist when you are no longer targeting a military force but you target civilians as well.

Your primary goal is to create terror, not to inflict damage to your enemy.

You realize by your own definition, the United States was guilty of "terrorism" in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and in the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as those were civilian targets?

i think us brits have to claim a share of Dresden too

Al-queda hit the U.S. cole as well as civilain targets

hizbollah hits both civillian and militray targets

the current Israeli goiverement and defence force are both descended from terrorist groups Irgun and Haganah they hit both militray and civillians both palestinian and british