Are Insurgency/Guerilla/terrorist tactics cowardly/unfair?

Pandcoa

iceage wrote: »

I should have used the term murdering fatherless scum of the earth. Whoops... is the venom showing?

I have no objection to that:D

Manic Moran

Pandcoa wrote: »

Rethinking the definition, “cowardly” acts to me mean insurgents could have employed more direct “fair” actions without sacrificing any effectiveness and success – thus they were unjustified in using them attacks when they could have done it just as successful in a more “honourable” way.

What would have been more honourable, but still result in the same chance of tactical success? An advance telephone call? Asking them "Do me a favour, hop back inside and get your guns please, so we can shoot you honourably"

Well superior government forces can’t afford to be as ruthless as insurgents because they are directly accountable to the people (like in the UK), and they would never accept such tactics openly, whereas insurgents answer only to themselves and their leadership, they aren’t concerned in achieving the level of legitimacy elected governments have.

Not necessarily true. Take, for example, the fight for Fallujah. The government/coalition actions actually attained the predominant support of Iraqis, who thought it was about time for a crackdown after the months of 'sniping'. Most of the negative viewpoint actually came from the West. However, part of it is also the entire different attitude to life between the two cultures.

On the other hand, an insurgent group most likely does aspire to a level of legitimacy. If they fail to achieve at least tolerance amongst the people, the won't survive, they'll be reported and turned in. Particularly if the end goal is a complete shift of power, a revolution.

I am quite confused on the effectiveness of suicide bombings, I don’t understand them compared to conventional bombings.

Much higher accuracy rate, usually. Also tends to have a higher success rate at killing targets. It's really the epitomy of the 'smart bomb,' it can pull back if it feels it is going to be intercepted, it can adjust on the fly to changes in the opposition's tactics or position, and they are usually well hidden or disguised. It's all a numbers game, cost vs benefit. Ultimately, untrained personnel are cheap. Effective bombs are a little more difficult to come by.

further more I think there is no advantage of using children or other impressionable persons to carry these bombs

Western soldiers are going to be less predisposed to suspect a child of carrying a suicide bomb, and even if they did suspect, they would probably be far more reluctant to shoot him/her. A 15-year-old is a perfect delivery system. Young enough to have some 'immunity', and old enough to be smart about how to do its job effectively.

NTM

Duffers

iceage wrote: »

Thanks for that MM, you've described the perfect ambush. But I'm starting to get the feeling of a grandparent and the art of sucking eggs.:p

Cracking ambush by the way.

Haha yeah me too!! Was playing cards tonight, got my ass handed to me by a much much more experienced player......funny old thing
Manic, at a guess you are a........Company Commander?
Or is it Bn Commander?:eek:

Duffers

Holy fvck. Never thought of it that way, the SBIED as a smart bomb....woah:eek::eek::eek:
Thats cold eh!!
I wonder if the guys pulling the strings would ever do it? Surely they would like the 70 virgins too?
I read in a Martin Amis column that there is a bit of ambiguity in the passages translated from Arameic(sp?), there is apparently a similarity between the Arameic for 'date' as in the fruit, and 'virgin'!! Imagine the let down when you get to paradise
'Wheres the fvckin virgins'
'Virgins? No, it's 70 dates fella...here you go'
*sobs with rage*

wasper

Pandcoa wrote: »

Not necessarily true. Take, for example, the fight for Fallujah. The government/coalition actions actually attained the predominant support of Iraqis, who thought it was about time for a crackdown after the months of 'sniping'. Most of the negative viewpoint actually came from the West. However, part of it is also the entire different attitude to life between the two cultures.
NTM

Rubbish. Most Iraqis were outraged about the slaughter of the Fallujians by the US. It was a mass punishment for the citiy. If that was done by Saddam Hussain there would have been a call for a war crime & rightly so.
There is no difference between West & East in attitude to life. Stop quoting Fox & similar media that demonises the opposition.

Manic Moran

There very much are differences in attitude to life between the two cultures. They vary from the "Insh'allah" school of caution through deference to leadership (Not necessarily to authority). To say that there is not is ridiculous. Indeed, it can be argued that an unrealistic view that the two cultures were similar is what got the US into the long-term mess in the first place.

Further, there is a difference between being disappointed that an action had to be taken, and being disapproving of the act itself. Granted the Sunnis weren't overly pleased with either, given that they were on the receiving end.

For the record, it should be added that at the time I didn't have much access to Fox News. I was a little busy at the time, spending most of my time talking to Iraqis.

NTM

Zambia

iceage wrote: »

Hmm, nobody here is arguing about the tools used, war is a dirty business and all means are utilised but it is the reasoning behind the use of these tools that really should be the question.

we've all come to notice the recruitment of say, dare I say it the lesser minded in the todays terrorist world, the use of individuals to carry out the task or mission, the child pushing a wheelbarrow in Iraq, the fervent believer, the suicide bomber who really hasn't a clue what they are about, I remember some time ago in the news pictures of a young teenage girl who was strapped with explosives trying to make her way to a check point in the middle east....I might add that she was apprehended and not shot dead by the soldiers on said check point. (get it, ROE) These are the underhand tactics that is now being used by todays terrorists.

Would you call these cowardly? unfair? Answers on a postcard to......

Opps, sorry Duffers you bet me to the punch..my post is in answer to Zambia232.

Hmm interesting but my original little observation was simply to piont out that there is no law against shooting your enemy if they are unarmed , unless surrendering. Suddenly I am defending terrorists using teenage bombs.

As a modern country we deplore such acts but these acts take place in places not as forward thinking as we are. Today's terrorist is simply a by product of today's society.

iceage

Fair point Zambia232, got a bit carried away with myself. Grumpy ole bast*rd syndrome, apologies for that.

Pandcoa

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would have been more honourable, but still result in the same chance of tactical success? An advance telephone call? Asking them "Do me a favour, hop back inside and get your guns please, so we can shoot you honourably"

I was just making an observation that there isn't really any boundry an insurgent can stupe to that where their actions were truely "cowardly", because I can't think of any situation where an insurgent could have absolutly garunteed tactical success when employing more direct “fair” actions without sacrificing any effectiveness and success, there will always be a higher failure rate if they targeted them head on. So you can't really blame them if they are being clever about it

Not necessarily true. Take, for example, the fight for Fallujah. The government/coalition actions actually attained the predominant support of Iraqis, who thought it was about time for a crackdown after the months of 'sniping'. Most of the negative viewpoint actually came from the West. However, part of it is also the entire different attitude to life between the two cultures.

On the other hand, an insurgent group most likely does aspire to a level of legitimacy. If they fail to achieve at least tolerance amongst the people, the won't survive, they'll be reported and turned in. Particularly if the end goal is a complete shift of power, a revolution.

Okay I accept that, thats a good example of insurgents getting forces to overreact and get internal critism from within government/media or people of foreign nations for their own forces but a failure to create popular resentment from their own community to "legit" forces.

Your right about nearing the end and success of an insurgency they will have to make their actions more legitimate to the people they want the support of if they want to create a legit government with proper legal authority of their own. But during the especially hard times they can afford to do things the people might absolutly deplore which the other side cannot do, like the IRA civilian reprisal killings - they knew it was quite counter productive but they were under no immediate threat from their community to turn them in and thus could build up their legitimacy and authority over time again.

Much higher accuracy rate, usually. Also tends to have a higher success rate at killing targets. It's really the epitomy of the 'smart bomb,' it can pull back if it feels it is going to be intercepted, it can adjust on the fly to changes in the opposition's tactics or position, and they are usually well hidden or disguised. It's all a numbers game, cost vs benefit. Ultimately, untrained personnel are cheap. Effective bombs are a little more difficult to come by.

Western soldiers are going to be less predisposed to suspect a child of carrying a suicide bomb, and even if they did suspect, they would probably be far more reluctant to shoot him/her. A 15-year-old is a perfect delivery system. Young enough to have some 'immunity', and old enough to be smart about how to do its job effectively.

Good point I'll have to rethink, Isee suicide bombers have a much higher success rate at detonating and killing intended targets than normal bombers so maybe in terms of strategy it mightn't be so even if I hate to admit it, they're not being cowardly in the terms I put it, just being sinisterly clever. I suppose you can never really let your personal feelings go when you think about these tactics, suicide bomb tactics in particular seem very amoral to me but I can't deny now they do garuntee the most success to an insurgency's aims

DublinDes

Pandcoa wrote: »

Well superior government forces can’t afford to be as ruthless as insurgents because they are directly accountable to the people (like in the UK), and they would never accept such tactics openly, whereas insurgents answer only to themselves and their leadership, they aren’t concerned in achieving the level of legitimacy elected governments have. It truly is unfair when you can’t be as strategically effective as the enemy in playing their own game but hey, that is war so I don’t think there’s any point complaining about it.

Well you got some neck coming on stating that when hundreds of nationalists were murdered by the Brits during the troubles and only a handful going to prison for it ( mainly due to pressure on the British govt from Amensty, British Irish Watch etc ).
Still the scumbags known as the British army had justice given to them by Mr Semtex and AK47

Manic Moran

Hundreds? Name seventy-five.

Manic, at a guess you are a........Company Commander?

Troop; in Irish terms, Squadron. (Company-sized element)

NTM

mountainview86

By its very nature it is unfair. It is usually applied by relatively small paramilitary groups who have no hope of facing an enemy in the field. One has to look at the intended outcome though. Guerillas know that they will never defeat a standing army in the field and usually engage in a campaign designed to harass and surprise the enemy. The usual outcome is a political settlement.

Of course its unfair, but it (most of the time) forces a political settlement.

marco murphy

getz wrote: »

cowards is the correct name for terrorists - they think killing police,citizens or soldiers in cold bood is ok -yet if the security forces came after them and shot them down in the street and homes they would be be the first to be shouting unfair-remember there is not one irish terrorist that isent known to both northern and southern irish security forces

Terrorists/animals/scumbag/cowards - You can have any amount of labels to be
honest, but the age old saying still exists; "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". The same can be said for a conventional warfare situation really. Guerrilla fighters are usually fighting a far more superior enemy. Michael Collins for example, against all odds. And I think you should stop tarring all incidents with the one brush, assuming you're referring to the conflict in this country.

Security forces were brutal, absolutely brutal with the fashion in which they murdered IRA volunteers, Sinn Féin activists and innocent civilians. Yes, there was a war on, the IRA being the first to admit it, and the British having never admitted it. Had you have done your research, or perhaps you're simply ignoring it.. Many IRA men who were killed by the SAS or other British forces knew it was coming and accepted it, it being a war. A prime example of this was Volunteer Seamus McElwaine. He was captured once and told he was going to get a bullet. The next time he was captured by the SAS he was interrogated and then shot in cold blood. He knew it was coming and bravely faced it. Yet again, he was against all odds. That isn't cowardly.

Duffers wrote: »

I think attacking unarmed men and civvies is cowardly.

Anyone who targets civilians are scumbags. As for unarmed men.. assuming you're talking military targets.
If in a guerrilla warfare situation, where the guerrilla is outnumbered and outweighed you're not going to wait for your enemy to pick up a gun before you eliminate him.

The tactics used by insurgents can also use the civ pop as defence

An insurgent or guerrilla is usually in existence as a result of popular support. Again, when the guerrilla is outnumber and outweighed, they will naturally conceal themselves in their native communities. So I don't think it is a valid argument. Infact, I think it's an attempt justification for America, Israel and Britain to inflict casualties at whatever cost, including civilian.

...deliberately ambushing heavily armed convoys in heavily populated areas...the Taleban are known to drop weapons and walk away takeing advantage of the RoE ISAF work under, we've all heard about that.

What point are you trying to make?

But ultimately suicide bombing, IED's, attacking soft targets, and using aid workers & captured troops as barter chips/a message is cowardly imo

Why are you lumping this all into the one message?
IED's are not cowardly, they are effective and a perfect tool or guerrilla warfare. If you're going to say they are cowardly then so is every weapon.

The IRA have shown they are capable of some pretty low, cowardly acts, particularly with captives

Such as?

bombing civvies

The IRA have never targeted civilians. Every conflict results in civilian casulties.

killing unarmed squaddies....

The enemy is the enemy. Again, it was a small number of guerrilla fighters against the might of the British empire. An unarmed squaddie is as legitimate a target as he is armed. There have been dozens and dozens of acts by British security forces shooting unarmed civilians and IRA volunteers in cold blood, so don't except a guerrilla army with support from the communities to stand back and do nothing. Or indeed stand back and wait for an unarmed squaddie to pick up his weapon.

I know it is not posted in a context intended to inflame, but reading about the thoughts of IRA family members.....does not sit well with me.

What about family members who campaigned for over twenty years to have the murder of their sons investigated for shoot to kill by SAS operatives?
Those responsible are being interviewed again, from yesterdays news. Also, 3 of the men at Loughgall were unarmed when they were cut down, and one of them was shot at close range in the head while on lying on the ground.

Or what about the 12 man SAS team in Drumnakilly, Tyrone, who butchered three young IRA men while they were driving down a road, in a hail of 236 bullets, who then jumped on the bonnet of the car and gave one shot for each of the three men? Does the families views of this savage attack not sit well with you?

The IRA are cowards, paint it however you like Pand.

Each IRA man faced certain death or at least 20 years in jail.

iceage wrote: »

Agreed, as to the recent attacks especially on PSNI Constable Stephen Carroll, Hit from behind in a parked car from a hidden gunman.
He hadn't a chance to defend himself at all, probably didn't know what hit him. Would you class that as a cowardly attack? It is in my book.

I totally and utterly condemn this attack, but in any war situation I wouldn't. The police are not going to wait for the enemy to make himself ready to defend himself, why should those fighting the police/state? I'm disagreeing with you because this would have happened many times during the conflict here, not because of this particular action, which was wrong.

getz

just who and what are the terrorists murdering people for ?certainly not for a united ireland, and it isent for the citizens of the republic,or they would not be shooting the police and robbing banks both in the north and south, everything is now in place for a united ireland if or when the citizens of the island are ready for it,terrorism creates divides,it dosent bring irish people together. it must be the robinhood syndrome they like to believe they are heros in there local communities.

Dublin_Gunner

Anyone who targets civilians are scumbags

So, pretty much every Government & army until relatively recently?


But to think that any tactic is cowardly / unfair just because they do not conform to the norm, or accepted strategy is naive to say the least.

Tactics are developed to engage what strengths you have in the best way possible. Remember, most large military's have wings / units that behave & use tactics in a very similar fashion to guerilla's / terrorists / insurgents.

marco murphy

getz wrote: »

just who and what are the terrorists murdering people for ?certainly not for a united ireland, and it isent for the citizens of the republic,or they would not be shooting the police and robbing banks both in the north and south, everything is now in place for a united ireland if or when the citizens of the island are ready for it,terrorism creates divides,it dosent bring irish people together. it must be the robinhood syndrome they like to believe they are heros in there local communities.

I don't know who you are referring to, the PIRA campaign or the work of small groups opposed to the peace process?

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So, pretty much every Government & army until relatively recently?

Again, anyone who willingly targets innocent civilians are scum.

But to think that any tactic is cowardly / unfair just because they do not conform to the norm, or accepted strategy is naive to say the least.

I agree.

Tactics are developed to engage what strengths you have in the best way possible. Remember, most large military's have wings / units that behave & use tactics in a very similar fashion to guerilla's / terrorists / insurgents.

Funny how you use the "/" in your post. Do you think men and women who fought to free America from British rule would appreciate being called insurgents/terrorists? What is a terrorist?

Dublin_Gunner

Perestroika wrote: »

Funny how you use the "/" in your post. Do you think men and women who fought to free America from British rule would appreciate being called insurgents/terrorists? What is a terrorist?

Well I wouldn't single Americans out, Irish too for one - but to try and state they / we didn't use those types of tactics would again, be naive.

Terrorism is still terrorism, no matter which side of the fence you sit. We (and western countries in general) just tend to call it 'special warfare' when those tactics suit us.

Terrorism, by my own definition would be the use of tactics to defeat the moral of your enemy, and your enemies population in general, by means of instilling fear & terror in your enemy, and showing weakness, in the hope that eventually, by any means possible, you achieve your goals.

Carpet bombing of cities in WW2 was terrorism, 'shock & awe' is a form of terrorism.

I don't mean to single out US military actions here, but merely using those of examples of 'western' terrorism.

Don't dare call it by the 'T' word to an American though

Terrorism, by any other name, is still terrorism.

marco murphy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Well I wouldn't single Americans out, Irish too for one - but to try and state they / we didn't use those types of tactics would again, be naive.

Terrorism is still terrorism, no matter which side of the fence you sit. We (and western countries in general) just tend to call it 'special warfare' when those tactics suit us.

Terrorism, by my own definition would be the use of tactics to defeat the moral of your enemy, and your enemies population in general, by means of instilling fear & terror in your enemy, and showing weakness, in the hope that eventually, by any means possible, you achieve your goals.

Carpet bombing of cities in WW2 was terrorism, 'shock & awe' is a form of terrorism.

I don't mean to single out US military actions here, but merely using those of examples of 'western' terrorism.

Don't dare call it by the 'T' word to an American though

Terrorism, by any other name, is still terrorism.

Degrading the moral of the enemy is an integral part of war as far as I'm concerned. Terrorism has become a definition of Americas enemies. If it doesn't work to well, they will the enemy is a friend of terrorism, without looking in their own backyard.

Manic Moran

Perestroika wrote: »

Degrading the moral of the enemy is an integral part of war as far as I'm concerned. Terrorism has become a definition of Americas enemies.

I agree with your first point, I disagree with your second. Choice of target is, I think, an integral difference between a terrorist and an insurgent.

NTM

hk

terrorists are different to insurgents and gurilla warefare is completely different again. Asymetric warfare is not limited to terrorists/insurgents etc, and can be used to describe conflicts involving military units of different sizes. There are many definitions of a terrorist, most of them have changed in recent years due to the evolving nature of international security threats, however a terrorist is generally accepted to be in the simplest of definitions, a person who uses violence or the threat of violance to further a political aim, of course this is no longer wholely accurate as religious extremeism evolves. Gurella tactics used by small special operations units are not akin to terrorism. SOF units can be engaged in a variety of operations including sabotage, long range recce etc and tend to rely on a variety of skill sets, advanced training and multiple weapon types with high rates of fire. Mostly SOF units try to remain undetected or when they do plan to engage targets they generally employ regular troops or air support as their back up.
Gurella tactics are not cowardly, and not just when used by SOF units. Terrorism is cowardly as targets are usually 'soft' in nature or involve the targeting of civilians for the purpose of advancing their political aims regardless of the cost, it is cowardly.
PIRA rarely operated when there was any danger to the ASU concerned and tended to abort an extremely high percentage of its attacks. Leaving a bomb in the center of a civilian population and leaving an hour before detonation is not brave and poses very little risk to the ASU. The South Armagh brigade was probably the only unit within PIRA which consistantly employed new tactics, and often did employ gurilla tactics often effectively, however their campaign of fear and intimidation on all sides of the civilian population, like the rest of PIRA and their continued level of organised crime also like the rest of PIRA to this day leads me to the opinion that they most definetly are cowards and worse overgrown bullies.

marco murphy

PIRA rarely operated when there was any danger to the ASU concerned and tended to abort an extremely high percentage of its attacks.

I would call that strategic thinking. But to suggest that it was somehow cowardly is off the mark. Again, an IRA man faced a certain long jail term if not death. The IRA took on the SAS countless times, and without getting into a big debate, we know the SAS are professional. But the angle of coming from is that they are brutal and take no prisoners.

Leaving a bomb in the center of a civilian population and leaving an hour before detonation is not brave and poses very little risk to the ASU.

It's definitely not ideal. The assembling of the device is very dangerous and many volunteers were killed in premature explosions, sometimes up to five at a time.

targeting of civilians for the purpose of advancing their political aims regardless of the cost, it is cowardly.

Targetting civilians doesn't and cannot advance political aims.

The South Armagh brigade was probably the only unit within PIRA which consistantly employed new tactics, and often did employ guerrilla tactics often effectively

No doubt, but the Fermanagh/Monaghan brigade was very effective in this regard too, moreso in the early days, early seventies. The assault on the Derryard installation involving twelve volunteers against a heavily armed British troops was a section attack. All around Roslea and Lisnaskea was face to face guerrilla fighting, sometimes only yards from British bases.

however their campaign of fear and intimidation on all sides of the civilian population

What are you alluding to here exactly? Conor Murphy, Sinn Fein, who represents the area topped the poll with a whopping 20,000 votes. Infact, the support of the local community is blindingly obvious. They don't call it provoland for nothing.

like the rest of PIRA and their continued level of organised crime also like the rest of PIRA to this day leads me to the opinion that they most definetly are cowards and worse overgrown bullies.

What organised crime?

hk

listen, I am not getting sucked any further into a debate on the issue, except:
Targeting innocent victims to further political aims is very much the definition of terrorism, the clue is in the word, you cause terror within the population, this inturn puts pressure on ruling governments to asseed the demands of the terrorist organisation.
I am not going to explain what I mean when I refer to intimidation and organised criminality. Anybody who looks objectively at current PIRA activity in this regard would not be asking these questiions. PIRA have always been involved in organised crime on both sides of the boarder, and never more so than the present. Fuel smuggeling, drugs, counterfeit goods, tobacco and alcohol, robbery and money laundering to name but a few of their current past times. They work on fear and bully boy tactics to ensure that people do not speak out against their activities.
oh assembeling a bomb that may go off isnt brave, it just means they are hard up for a skilled bomb maker. Im not suggesting they didnt have a few talented bomb makers, just saying they werent always available.

marco murphy

hk wrote: »

listen, I am not getting sucked any further into a debate on the issue, except:
Targeting innocent victims to further political aims is very much the definition of terrorism, the clue is in the word, you cause terror within the population, this inturn puts pressure on ruling governments to asseed the demands of the terrorist organisation.

But, using that definition every army could be considered terrorist.

Anybody who looks objectively at current PIRA activity in this regard would not be asking these questiions. PIRA have always been involved in organised crime on both sides of the boarder, and never more so than the present. Fuel smuggeling, drugs, counterfeit goods, tobacco and alcohol, robbery and money laundering to name but a few of their current past times.

Name one member of the Republican movement who has been convicted of drug related crimes.

And tell me, what does current past mean?

oh assembeling a bomb that may go off isnt brave, it just means they are hard up for a skilled bomb maker. Im not suggesting they didnt have a few talented bomb makers, just saying they werent always available.

Considering that it happened more than once, I would regard it as brave, as well as the constant threat of SAS ambush.

citizen_p

well freedom for ireland was won by these means so we cant talk

McArmalite

Mousey- wrote: »

well freedom for ireland was won by these means so we cant talk

Their still occupying the six counties in the north east :mad:

Black Swan

Pand wrote: »

(Obviously terrorist tactics will always be cowardly since they involve the direct target of civilians though)

By this definition, America was "cowardly" when they used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"City of Hiroshima, located on the deltas of southwestern Honshu Island facing the Inland Sea. Hiroshima had a civilian population of almost 300,000... Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects... The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold."
Source: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

Nagasaki... "The best estimate is 40,000 people died initially, with 60,000 more injured. By January 1946, the number of deaths probably approached 70,000, with perhaps ultimately twice that number dead total within five years. For those areas of Nagasaki affected by the explosion, the death rate was comparable to that at Hiroshima."
Source: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm

Kama

Terms like 'unfair' or 'cowardly' are what you complain about when someone else beats you; the job of anyone planning a military action is to ensure the situation is as unbalanced as possible, in their favour. Preferably, you want your metaphorical opponent blind, with his back to you, and unarmed.

Or we could think of such language as weapons of a psyops-sort in the politics-of-language-of-war, perhaps. The irony with the War on Terror was Westerners calling others 'cowards', in an Age of Nietzschean 'Last Men': few are the liberal Westerners who would die for any belief, our premier military hegemon is obsessed with bloodless battle and substitution of economic inputs for boots-on-ground, videogame wars where we don't leave the couch. And we call others cowards, yet no one laughs?

Perestroika wrote:

Terrorism has become a definition of Americas enemies.

Not entirely untrue, but overstated imho. The terrorist label tends to be bestowed on non-state actors by statist bodies with which they are in opposition. The problematique of a world ostensibly at peace between states is the movement of war to a sub-state theater: 'small wars', counterinsurgency, guerrillas, proxy wars and destabilizations etc.

Unfortunately for analysis, much of this gets bundled within the rubric of 'terrorism', a word I'd kinda like a moratorium on, since it seems to prevent more thought than it allows.

Manic Moran wrote:

Choice of target is, I think, an integral difference between a terrorist and an insurgent.

Could you expand on this please? What is the determining choice of target? And does the difference apply equally to state and non-state actors?

Manic Moran

Kama wrote: »

Could you expand on this please? What is the determining choice of target? And does the difference apply equally to state and non-state actors?

Not sure I follow. I did not say that the choice of target was the exclusive difference, but it can certainly be one of the defining factors: Once an insurgent group starts targetting civilians, it has become a terrorist group. Note that the US Army manual on counter-insurgency accepts that terrorists are often insurgents as well (If their goal is the reallocation of social authority, as opposed to some daft goal like anti-cruelty to animals), but that not all insurgents are terrorists. To that extent, perhaps my previous post could have been more accurate.

I think offhand that this should apply equally to the State, but one must also bear in mind the State's authority to do violence against the people for the common good: A baton charge against people protesting something political may well be viewed by those on the receiving end as violence carried out against civilians to forward a political goal, when it is simply viewed from the State side as the enforcement of law and order.

NTM

delta-boy

As they say, one mans terrorist, is another freedom fighter. Let me ask a question, and I am hereby not being biaist to any side. Let us put it like this, its at the height of the Cold War, lets say nuclear weapons wherent used, America/Soviet Union was invaded, the occupiers won, and the defeated side raised an insurgent force.

Would history look back on it as 'freedom fighters', or would the occupiers write and say they where 'terrorists dismantling the new found peace'. They say history is written by the victors. I am not so sure...

Son Of A Vidic

Sticking to the original question posed, I think guerrilla tactics are not cowardly in warfare as long as civilian casualties are avoided of course. There is no such thing as a 'clean war' and innocents will die in conflict unfortunately. But who is the U.S. to determine who is cowardly or terrorist in their military operations. When a pilot in an F-16 Strike Eagle drops his bomb from 35,000 feet on to a wedding party in Iraq or Afghanistan, is he not a coward? German Stuka pilots would swoop down to within 150-200 feet of a target and virtual place their bomb on the roof of a tank etc. They certainly had more courage and honor than the USAF and USMC pilots who have killed thousands of innocents from their safe heights. Guerrilla tactics are usually determined according to the military capability of an Insurgent group. Take the 'Tet' offensive in South Vietnam, on a military scale it was a disaster for the Viet Cong and NVA. But is was a massive psychological and propaganda victory for them. Conventional tactics were doomed to fail against the U.S., but the effect of the 'Tet' offensive on the American public was overwhelming.