26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Redmikeit becomes a pedantic very quickly, same as when the IRA were fighting the british army. british media said terrorists, IRA said freedom fighters. british prime minister insisted "we dont talk to terrorists" while having secret talks with them. the US seems to be taking a desperate "whatever works" approach: if you dont like someone, help their enemies.
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist....
26 Feb 07
2 edits
Just in case we haven't figured out the difference between a guerilla and a terrorist attack, we can contrast the story posted at the top of the thread (guerilla) with these stories. (terrorist)
Here's an attempted terror attack:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/02/26/story_26-2-2007_pg1_9
At least 40 killed and 30 injured in attack on business school in Baghdad:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/02/26/story_26-2-2007_pg7_25
Settler found stabbed to death north of Hebron:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3369657,00.html
These stories are from today. Business must be slow or terrorists are on vacation, because it took me better than 5 minutes to find these three stories. Usually I'm good for one a minute during my morning "blitz".
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by eamon oNo. If they're deliberately booming civilians, they're terrorists. If they're deliberately booming military targets, they're guerillas.
it becomes a pedantic very quickly, same as when the IRA were fighting the british army. british media said terrorists, IRA said freedom fighters. british prime minister insisted "we dont talk to terrorists" while having secret talks with them. the US seems to be taking a desperate "whatever works" approach: if you dont like someone, help their enemies.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by aging blitzerCivilians often get killed during military operations.
Yes, did you notice that they killed prisoners?
Thus reveals a problem with relatively poorly trained guerillas. They tend to have less concern for civilians. That still doesn't change the tactical difference between terrorists and guerillas. Once again, terrorists target civilians, guerillas target military.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeOr the bombing of Tokyo or Hamburg....
How would you classify the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings or the fire-bombing of Dresen in WW2?
These were targetted at civilians.
Do you people ever stop with the "America is a terrorist" schtick?
You're comparing two completely different generations of warfare and two completely different conflicts. The ROEs in that kind of war and at that time are different, then they are for current conflicts. The world has learned a little about ROEs since WWII.
It would be no more accurate for me to call the Boston Massacre a terrorist attack.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkThings are never as clear cut as that though. It's not the case that a person can only be either a terrorist or a guerrilla.
That still doesn't change the tactical difference between terrorists and guerillas. Once again, terrorists target civilians, guerillas target military.
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are just a means to an end. They can be employed together or seperately
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare#Use_of_terror
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkThis isn't about the US - I just gave those cases as examples where your definition doesn't work.
Or the bombing of Tokyo or Hamburg....
Do you people ever stop with the "America is a terrorist" schtick?
You're comparing two completely different generations of warfare and two completely different conflicts. The ROEs in that kind of war and at that time are different, then they are for current conflicts. The world has learned a little about ROEs since WWII.
It would be no more accurate for me to call the Boston Massacre a terrorist attack.
I could have given Russian or Chinese or any other cases, but these might have meant less to you.
I just think that your distinction between guerillas, who're a bit careless with civilians, and terrorists, who deliberately target civilians, is really about who's side they're on.
Do you accept that, at some points in the last couple of decades, the US has funded groups which meet your definition of terrorists?
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Redmike"Do you accept that, at some points in the last couple of decades, the US has funded groups which meet your definition of terrorists?"
This isn't about the US - I just gave those cases as examples where your definition doesn't work.
I could have given Russian or Chinese or any other cases, but these might have meant less to you.
I just think that your distinction between guerillas, who're a bit careless with civilians, and terrorists, who deliberately target civilians, is really about ...[text shortened]... last couple of decades, the US has funded groups which meet your definition of terrorists?
Which ones would those be? The last couple of decades have been largely under the current Bush and Clinton administration. I'm not saying no, I just can't think of who they've funded.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkOff the top of my head, I'd suggest the Nicaraguan Contras as a 'starter for ten'. Maybe a bit beyond a couple of decades though.
"Do you accept that, at some points in the last couple of decades, the US has funded groups which meet your definition of terrorists?"
Which ones would those be? The last couple of decades have been largely under the current Bush and Clinton administration. I'm not saying no, I just can't think of who they've funded.
Would you accept that this lot were terrorists in any case?
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkHow about the Taleban and IRA?
"Do you accept that, at some points in the last couple of decades, the US has funded groups which meet your definition of terrorists?"
Which ones would those be? The last couple of decades have been largely under the current Bush and Clinton administration. I'm not saying no, I just can't think of who they've funded.
I found this and thought it funny
http://taxtime.about.com/od/budgetingplanning/a/tax_refund_ira.htm
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeI thought about them just after I posted. The end of Reagans term was within the last couple of decades, so they certainly count.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest the Nicaraguan Contras as a 'starter for ten'. Maybe a bit beyond a couple of decades though.
Would you accept that this lot were terrorists in any case?
I think of the contras as the Nicaraguan Palestinians. Just kidding. They quickly went from a guerilla tactics to terror tactics. They started out as a rag tag collective of groups and it looks like most of the groups started as guerillas, but they certainly didn't all remain guerillas. They committed a lot of terrorist acts.
I admit, I'm not up on which groups got how much money from the U.S. or which groups did what or which groups consolidated into which other groups blah blah blah, but I thinks its perfectly reasonable to assume that the U.S. gave money to groups that one could certainly label terrorists.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkI think, in your last post, you've also illustrated how blurred the line between guerilla and terrorist is.
I thought about them just after I posted. The end of Reagans term was within the last couple of decades, so they certainly count.
I think of the contras as the Nicaraguan Palestinians. Just kidding. They quickly went from a guerilla tactics to terror tactics. They started out as a rag tag collective of groups and it looks like most of the groups started as ...[text shortened]... onable to assume that the U.S. gave money to groups that one could certainly label terrorists.
The point I'm trying to make in the original post is simply that we (the west) shouldn't be arming groups just because they'reopposed to our supposed enemies (certainly not without being a whole lot more careful). Even if we think they're guerillas now, doesn't mean they'll never cross that line (whatever definition we have) and become terrorists. It also doesn't mean they won't turn on us, as it suits them.
How many times have we seen people who used to fight against the bad guys given weapons and political support etc etc, for us to find these weapons used against us.
Saddam and the Taleban being the obvious examples.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeWasn't it the other way round, we turned on Saddam?
How many times have we seen people who used to fight against the bad guys given weapons and political support etc etc, for us to find these weapons used against us.
Saddam and the Taleban being the obvious examples.