Are Insurgency/Guerilla/terrorist tactics cowardly/unfair?

Pand · 10-03-2009 10:43pm #1

With the recent tragic incidents in the North I have noticed the bombardment of the words "cowards" and "unfair" being used by the media to describe the perpetrators of these unjustified acts. Below is an extract from a recent American military handbook on Counter Insurgency (COIN FM3-24)

Insurgents are by nature an asymmetric threat. They do not use terrorist and guerrilla tactics because they are cowards afraid of a “fair fight”; insurgents use these tactics because they are the best means
available to achieve the insurgency’s goals. Terrorist and guerrilla attacks are usually planned to achieve the greatest political and informational impact with the lowest amount of risk to insurgents.

So naturally I tend to cringe a bit when I hear words like these are thrown about liberally purely on the basis they are disgusted. My question is, what is your perspective on Guerilla/insurgency/terrorist tactics, do you believe they are cowards or fighting unfairly? (Obviously terrorist tactics will always be cowardly since they involve the direct target of civilians though)

My view is these current attacks and the people who did it are many bad things I could not say here, but to label them simply cowards from a military perspective does not hold ground.

Manic Moran · 11-03-2009 4:58am

No, you're quite right. (Also glad to see someone looking up a manual!)

As they say, if you're fighting fair, you're not trying. The point of fighting is to win, and to do that, you most certainly don't play to the opposition's strengths. If you're militarily the weaker, you don't engage in a stand-up fight to get pulverised. Similarly, if you're militarily the stronger, you use every hammer in your toolkit to blow the ever-living crap out of the enemy that you can find.

The one caveat I can see on that is that 'coward' could actually be appropriate. Not in the tactical sense of being afraid of getting shot, but in the larger sense of being afraid of the future in a community or government which does not meet with your perfect ideals, instead choosing to go with the gun instead of partaking in the less militant processes.

NTM

Zambia · 11-03-2009 7:06am

I have to agree with Manic if you are faced with odds you cannot defeat head on you fight and run, choosing targets carefully.

However in light of the northern aspect there is no win situation the unionist population cannot be driven out , the Irish are not Hutu Rwandan we cannot even in our darkest moments butcher a whole class/race of people. we cannot re-locate them we are not Nazis. We also cannot subject them to Irish rule

We either win by winning over the hearts and minds of the unionist population or we stay divided. Its a brave man who can see the solution and accept it even though he will be long dead when it comes to pass.

Would anyone here be willing to re-join the UK live under british rule all their lives and die under it so in the future our kids could step out from the UK as a United nation. is that not a greater sacrifice than three defiant minutes in front of a SA-80.

So in answer no they are not unfair or cowardly in my opinion just the same as a rifle is not evil the manner in which it is used makes all the difference.

getz · 11-03-2009 8:55am

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, you're quite right. (Also glad to see someone looking up a manual!)

As they say, if you're fighting fair, you're not trying. The point of fighting is to win, and to do that, you most certainly don't play to the opposition's strengths. If you're militarily the weaker, you don't engage in a stand-up fight to get pulverised. Similarly, if you're militarily the stronger, you use every hammer in your toolkit to blow the ever-living crap out of the enemy that you can find.

The one caveat I can see on that is that 'coward' could actually be appropriate. Not in the tactical sense of being afraid of getting shot, but in the larger sense of being afraid of the future in a community or government which does not meet with your perfect ideals, instead choosing to go with the gun instead of partaking in the less militant processes.

NTM

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

Hookey · 11-03-2009 1:26pm

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

Can't believe I'm saying this, as I have no love for the scum who carried out the weekend's attacks, but no, cowardly isn't the right description. Unfortunately, bravery is not the prerogative of the righteous, and asymmetric warfare is often the only sensible military response (compare the damage Iraqi insurgents have managed versus their regular army's efforts in a standup fight), and sometimes it does work (e.g. Vietnam).

The problem with these idiots up North is that their campaign really, really, can't work; neither the majority of the populations or either government is onside, and nor is any other outside force (even the well of dumb Americans wistful for the old country has dried up). So while they're not necessarily cowards, they are extremely stupid.

Pand · 11-03-2009 8:33pm

I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on the media, they don't care about the methods of warfare or the politics of it. They are only trying to do their part in socialising the public against these individuals, something any person no matter their ideals would do to discredit someone else.

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-

Thats part of the propaganda tactics to turn sympathy towards their movement, not all families and friends of killed paramilitaries think their fallen were killed any more ruthlessly than what their movement did but it is a good tool to create popular resentment. For example I know a family who lost their son while on active service in the IRA, his mother personally told me she didn't think he was "murdered" by that defination of being unfair, none the less the movement used his name and pictures to try and highlight the security forces "shoot to kill" policy.

Any use of force produces many effects, not all of which can be foreseen. The more force applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. Using substantial force also increases the opportunity
for insurgent propaganda to portray lethal military activities as brutal. In contrast, using force precisely and discriminately strengthens the rule of law that needs to be established. As noted above, the key for counterinsurgents is knowing when more force is needed—and when it might be counterproductive.

Another piece from the handbook

remember there is not one irish terrorist that isent known to both northern and southern irish security forces

I would very highly disagree with you on that and the Chief Constable would probably agree with me, with the dismantaling of Special Branch, intelligence has become very sloppy since MI5 have not got the expertise or ability in getting information in small local republican circles. Not that I'm suggesting we get the Special Branch back of anything lol

Guerrilla tactics, in contrast, feature hit-and-run attacks by lightly armed groups. The primarily targets are HN government activities, security forces, and other COIN elements. Insurgents using guerrilla tactics usually avoid decisive confrontations unless they know they can win. Instead, they focus on harassing counterinsurgents. As with terrorist tactics, guerrilla tactics are neither mindless nor random. Insurgents choose targets that produce maximum informational and political effects. The goal is not to militarily defeat COIN forces but to outlast them while building popular support for the insurgency. Terrorist and guerrilla tactics are not mutually exclusive. An insurgent group may employ both forms of violent action simultaneously.

Another qoute I found very suitable to saturdays incident, only thing is they're not building any support for them but unifying everyone against them. I think their attacks only cemented their demise and further isolation from the coummunity.

Local-womanizer · 11-03-2009 8:39pm

As I see it,it would be like Man utd playing Inter tonight and United not playing Ronaldo just because he can hurt the opposition.Play your own game and dont be drawn in to play the enemys' one.

(BTW,I hate united:pac:)

Manic Moran · 11-03-2009 9:03pm

That was, to me, the least helpful analogy I've seen since a colleague at the Captain's Course attempted to use an American Football reference.

NTM

iceage · 11-03-2009 9:49pm

Pand wrote: »

Another qoute I found very suitable to saturdays incident, only thing is they're not building any support for them but unifying everyone against them. I think their attacks only cemented their demise and further isolation from the coummunity.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0311/craigavon.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7936332.stm

You can sing that, Thousands of people many of them from that community making their voices heard by they're presence at these rallys. Papal condemnation to boot! Wouldn't like to be in their shoes right now.

I was wracking my brain trying to justify a terrorists actions..in their mind I'm sure they feel right in what they do, in some cases the actual terrorist attacks are tactical works of absolute genius, I will not list any of them here as I don't feel that it is appropriate. But in most cases the Guerilla/terrorist/freedom fighter call them what you will has the support of at least some part of the community thats he/she claims to fight for, this time I believe it might be the complete opposite. They are alienated and unsupported and as "effective" as their deeds were they are not fighting on the behalf of their community or nation.

They are Cold blooded murderers. Clinical and single minded in their actions. They deserve no quarter or defence and should be given none, to receive a swift end from a bullet is too humane for these guys.

Local-womanizer · 12-03-2009 12:02am

It was nice to see the community out in force.

I was listening to RTE 1 this morning.They had a kinda liasion/adviser to the UDA on.He was saying that Sinn fein was receiving great respect from the loyalist side in the north for their instant condemnation of the attacks,a good sign.

They also had their reporter in that Craigavon estate.He was talking to locals and ask one what kind of area it was to which the man replied "republican".The reporter then said "ah I see,Sinn fein" to which the man replied again "no,republican".

As the reporter said,obviously their is some support for these groups and their actions.

A bit off topic I know.

And Manic,that analogy sounded better in my head,that coupled with the football on tonight its all I could come up with.And ronaldo scored tonight,so there,it worked ou in the end;):pac:

Duffers · 12-03-2009 1:42am

Pand wrote: »

With the recent tragic incidents in the North I have noticed the bombardment of the words "cowards" and "unfair" being used by the media to describe the perpetrators of these unjustified acts. Below is an extract from a recent American military handbook on Counter Insurgency (COIN FM3-24)

So naturally I tend to cringe a bit when I hear words like these are thrown about liberally purely on the basis they are disgusted. My question is, what is your perspective on Guerilla/insurgency/terrorist tactics, do you believe they are cowards or fighting unfairly? (Obviously terrorist tactics will always be cowardly since they involve the direct target of civilians though)

My view is these current attacks and the people who did it are many bad things I could not say here, but to label them simply cowards from a military perspective does not hold ground.

I think attacking unarmed men and civvies is cowardly. The tactics used by insurgents can also use the civ pop as defence...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.
I know its second hand dit spinning:o but I've heard about insurgents in Iraq displaying a complete disregard for their own safety in certain circumstances, firing from exposed pos'ns, in a one man taking on a convoy scenario, so I suppose that's not cowardly.
Also you could argue that the original Commando raids in WW2 were utilising similar tactics to those seen used by insurgents ie harass and disrupt the enemy, sap their morale, etc
But ultimately suicide bombing, IED's, attacking soft targets, and using aid workers & captured troops as barter chips/a message is cowardly imo
The IRA have shown they are capable of some pretty low, cowardly acts, particularly with captives, bombing civvies, killing unarmed squaddies....
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. Likewise trying to use semantics to argue they are not cowards when they shot injured men who were incapacitated makes me angry.
The IRA are cowards, paint it however you like Pand.
I reckon I'm gonna have to stop reading this forum!

Pandcoa · 12-03-2009 10:02pm

Duffers wrote: »

I think attacking unarmed men and civvies is cowardly. The tactics used by insurgents can also use the civ pop as defence...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.
I know its second hand dit spinning:o but I've heard about insurgents in Iraq displaying a complete disregard for their own safety in certain circumstances, firing from exposed pos'ns, in a one man taking on a convoy scenario, so I suppose that's not cowardly.
Also you could argue that the original Commando raids in WW2 were utilising similar tactics to those seen used by insurgents ie harass and disrupt the enemy, sap their morale, etc
But ultimately suicide bombing, IED's, attacking soft targets, and using aid workers & captured troops as barter chips/a message is cowardly imo
The IRA have shown they are capable of some pretty low, cowardly acts, particularly with captives, bombing civvies, killing unarmed squaddies....
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. Likewise trying to use semantics to argue they are not cowards when they shot injured men who were incapacitated makes me angry.
The IRA are cowards, paint it however you like Pand.
I reckon I'm gonna have to stop reading this forum!

Calm down, we’re here to discuss the politics of war, not one sided politics, so I would suggest leaving the emotional responses to the Politics board.

I think you are being very ignorant to the theories of Insurgent tactics (guerrilla or terrorist), and fail to fully understand them completely. Insurgents don’t exactly employ guerrilla or terrorist tactics for the crack of it, they use them because they understand it is the only way they can conduct a successful campaign against a superior technological and numerical force and indeed the only way they can survive as a movement. Anybody waging war prefers a cheap, fast overwhelming victory over a long drawn out and bloody struggle. But to succeed against superior resources and technology, weaker actors have had to adapt. For example as the United States retains significant advantages in fires and intelligence, a thinking enemy is unlikely to choose to fight U.S. forces in open battle (what idiot would?). Some have foolishly attempted to do so, such as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. They were of course defeated in conflicts in a matter or hours or days. On the other hand, other opponents have offset America’s fires and surveillance advantages by operating close to civilians, as Somali clans did in 1993 and insurgents in Iraq have done since mid-2003; these enemies have been more successful in achieving their aims, like it or not. In war no one can afford to be romantic or idealist in trying to fight a “clean war” as you would so suggest, no one has ever won a war through that (yes even the righteous US, and civilised European countries have used devious subversive tactics to win their conflicts, like indiscriminate bombings and killing unarmed combatants). Guerrilla warfare is indeed not “fair”; many of the “rules” favour insurgents. That is why insurgency has been a common approach used by the weak against the strong. At the beginning of a conflict, insurgents typically hold the strategic initiative. So there’s no reason for anyone who are not civilians bawwing about it, dog eat dog in that business.

I think the word “coward” is pretty cheap in a military sense; it holds no relevance when actually trying to combat or understand insurgents so your post is a pretty moot point, but I do realise the importance of using the term as a powerful tool in media socialisation of the public

Also if you have taken offence to something as neutrally spoken as my example of how republicans use propaganda as a tool to create popular resentment then I suggest you stay away from the real world, I hear some people actually try to talk about these issues in a calm considered approach, dreadful I know but what do you do.

Manic Moran · 12-03-2009 10:26pm

killing unarmed combatants

Don't see anything wrong with that.

Pand = Pandcoa?

NTM

iceage · 12-03-2009 10:41pm

Was thinking the same myself, a very similar way of putting things..excellent argument by the way have you ever considered Politics Pand? or Pandcoa? You will of course forgive the sometimes emotive reponses that sometimes take place, I'm usually one of the first to start Ffing and blinding.

As to your last comments, do I detect a certain amount of baiting?

Pandcoa · 12-03-2009 10:43pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Don't see anything wrong with that.

Pand = Pandcoa?

NTM

Yeah, I apologise for not making that clear. I was permabanned in that account from one board for a supposed "trolling" response when in fact I had not read the forum charter on discussing moderation in threads. The moderator refused to hear me out.

I was refering to Duffers suggestion that killing unarmed combatents is a cowardly act, when infact it is very commonly done by what are considered legitimate forces in the developed world. I find nothing remarkably controversial about the tactic, I mean when your figting a war, you don't exactly care how your dangerous opponent was killed.

Pandcoa · 12-03-2009 10:58pm

iceage wrote: »

Was thinking the same myself, a very similar way of putting things..excellent argument by the way have you ever considered Politics Pand? or Pandcoa? You will of course forgive the sometimes emotive reponses that sometimes take place, I'm usually one of the first to start Ffing and blinding.

As to your last comments, do I detect a certain amount of baiting?

Thanks:), I am interested in politics but the constant cheap tittle tattle of everyday politics and politicians does my head in so I prefer to observe rather than participate. Too much hypocrisy from everyone (which I don't blame, if I really wanted to participate I would have to do the same, but I'm not great at persuasive one sided arguements on political topics)

I apologise for the antagonising remarks but I stopped visiting the politics board to get away from purely emotional one sided posts like these, but hey thats politics right?

I will use this account from now on, on the forum.

Manic Moran · 12-03-2009 11:06pm

You want to be cautious with the multiple persona thing. Most boards take issue to it.

I was refering to Duffers suggestion that killing unarmed combatents is a cowardly act, when infact it is very commonly done by what are considered legitimate forces in the developed world.

Fair enough. I've always thought it was a bit odd that off-duty soldiers are considered 'off-limits' by their governments. The same people who are considered responsible enough to go abroad and make life-or-death decisions in conflict zones are considered too dangerous to be armed when they're not on duty. The US is great at this, those guys who wanted to go shoot up Ft Dix last year would have had a whale of a time had they gotten onto a base. The Army's paranoid about privately owned guns. It's to the point that US commanders have restricted soldiers above and beyond the restrictions required of the civilian populace. For example, in Alaska, no permit is carried by anyone to carry a concealed firearm. Yet a base commander prohibited his soldiers from doing so off-duty. Yet more often than not, someone planning on attacking you isn't going to be nice enough to give you a bit of advance warning and then give you time to pick up a weapon in order to make sure you've got a 'sporting chance' at defending yourself.

However, I still think that 'cowardly' is an appropriate term for such people in the correct context.

NTM

iceage · 12-03-2009 11:20pm

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 use this case as an example to remove from the discussion briefly the two British soldiers who were killed lest we get into the whole area of so called legitamate tragets.

Zambia · 12-03-2009 11:45pm

If you fire artillery on a position , how do you know the men in the position are currently armed , they could be having tea.

Same goes for bombing , mortar fire , Mine planting.

Duffers · 13-03-2009 12:01am

Pandcoa wrote: »

Calm down, we’re here to discuss the politics of war, not one sided politics, so I would suggest leaving the emotional responses to the Politics board.

I think you are being very ignorant to the theories of Insurgent tactics (guerrilla or terrorist), and fail to fully understand them completely. Insurgents don’t exactly employ guerrilla or terrorist tactics for the crack of it, they use them because they understand it is the only way they can conduct a successful campaign against a superior technological and numerical force and indeed the only way they can survive as a movement. Anybody waging war prefers a cheap, fast overwhelming victory over a long drawn out and bloody struggle. But to succeed against superior resources and technology, weaker actors have had to adapt. For example as the United States retains significant advantages in fires and intelligence, a thinking enemy is unlikely to choose to fight U.S. forces in open battle (what idiot would?). Some have foolishly attempted to do so, such as in Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. They were of course defeated in conflicts in a matter or hours or days. On the other hand, other opponents have offset America’s fires and surveillance advantages by operating close to civilians, as Somali clans did in 1993 and insurgents in Iraq have done since mid-2003; these enemies have been more successful in achieving their aims, like it or not. In war no one can afford to be romantic or idealist in trying to fight a “clean war” as you would so suggest, no one has ever won a war through that (yes even the righteous US, and civilised European countries have used devious subversive tactics to win their conflicts, like indiscriminate bombings and killing unarmed combatants). Guerrilla warfare is indeed not “fair”; many of the “rules” favour insurgents. That is why insurgency has been a common approach used by the weak against the strong. At the beginning of a conflict, insurgents typically hold the strategic initiative. So there’s no reason for anyone who are not civilians bawwing about it, dog eat dog in that business.

I think the word “coward” is pretty cheap in a military sense; it holds no relevance when actually trying to combat or understand insurgents so your post is a pretty moot point, but I do realise the importance of using the term as a powerful tool in media socialisation of the public

Also if you have taken offence to something as neutrally spoken as my example of how republicans use propaganda as a tool to create popular resentment then I suggest you stay away from the real world, I hear some people actually try to talk about these issues in a calm considered approach, dreadful I know but what do you do.

Well that was patronising! Were you stroking your chin when you wrote that?:D
I'm not suggesting any war can or should be 'clean'. These guys do not have a clearly defined objective, the Islamic militants are motivated by hatred and zeal.Yes obviously in a battle where one side has an advantage in most areas, one side has to adapt, and use 'dirty' tactics.
I suppose you could argue they are just using what they've got to acheive their aims, which are to kill as many of their enemy as they can.
That doesn't change my opinion of their methods. I'm not saying you should agree with me, I'm just answering your question.
I've read the first few sentences in your second post and am struggling to comprehend their meaning. That's not a dig, I genuinely cannot understand what they actually mean!
You admit they are cowards in your first post. You then say you 'cringe' when you hear people say this and that it holds 'no ground' from a military perspective, despite the fact you are clearly looking at this from an academic perspective.
What does hold ground from your point of view?

Bookish theoric?

Duffers · 13-03-2009 12:12am

Pandcoa wrote: »

Yeah, I apologise for not making that clear. I was permabanned in that account from one board for a supposed "trolling" response when in fact I had not read the forum charter on discussing moderation in threads. The moderator refused to hear me out.

I was refering to Duffers suggestion that killing unarmed combatents is a cowardly act, when infact it is very commonly done by what are considered legitimate forces in the developed world. I find nothing remarkably controversial about the tactic, I mean when your figting a war, you don't exactly care how your dangerous opponent was killed.

Sorry, I was referring to the killing at Massereene Barracks there.

We were sternly warned in training about not mistreating prisoners, and not killing anyone unarmed, and told what we could expect if we were caught doing the above.
'It's what seperates us from them' was the line

iceage · 13-03-2009 12:16am

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.

Pandcoa · 13-03-2009 12:22am

Manic Moran wrote: »

You want to be cautious with the multiple persona thing. Most boards take issue to it.

Fair enough. I've always thought it was a bit odd that off-duty soldiers are considered 'off-limits' by their governments. The same people who are considered responsible enough to go abroad and make life-or-death decisions in conflict zones are considered too dangerous to be armed when they're not on duty. The US is great at this, those guys who wanted to go shoot up Ft Dix last year would have had a whale of a time had they gotten onto a base. The Army's paranoid about privately owned guns. It's to the point that US commanders have restricted soldiers above and beyond the restrictions required of the civilian populace. For example, in Alaska, no permit is carried by anyone to carry a concealed firearm. Yet a base commander prohibited his soldiers from doing so off-duty. Yet more often than not, someone planning on attacking you isn't going to be nice enough to give you a bit of advance warning and then give you time to pick up a weapon in order to make sure you've got a 'sporting chance' at defending yourself.

However, I still think that 'cowardly' is an appropriate term for such people in the correct context.

NTM

Good point, I think it's only used to portray to the public that these actions were not "fair" in war, in order to disgrace the opponent which is a very valid and effective tool in combating insurgency, at one point the IRA tried to tone down targeting off duty UDR soldiers because of growing backlash in support areas like down south or even in America that these actions were "illegitimate", this was obviously fueled by the media. They wanted to appear more "brave" in the romantic sense by trying to mainly target security forces on-duty.

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 use this case as an example to remove from the discussion briefly the two British soldiers who were killed lest we get into the whole area of so called legitamate tragets.

Well I don't like to use very subjective terms like that since its open to debate what constitutes "cowardly" acts and I don't like to be lead into traps like that (just look at every civilian casualty inflicted by both IRA and security forces, they don't like to admit fault or apology for fear of loss of authority and legitimacy). Further more, peoples views change when in times they consider to be war.

But my personal view since your asking is that it was completely unjustified, these murderers are acting militarism for militarisms sake and it is very obvious they have less than tiny support from their own community, they cannot survive. I have a lot of contempt for these people but as a matter of principle in trying to look from a neutral military perspective I won't call them or anybody else cowardly, I'll leave that to the politicians and media who have their own agenda.

Pandcoa · 13-03-2009 12:41am

Thats a lot of difficult points I gotta answer to but I gotta sesde tonight or I won't get my 8 hours:D, I'll answer with a clearer head tomorrow, thanks goodnight

iceage · 13-03-2009 12:50am

Pandcoa wrote: »

Well I don't like to use very subjective terms like that since its open to debate what constitutes "cowardly" acts and I don't like to be lead into traps like that QUOTE]

Hey get over yourself, my intent wasn't to "lead you into a trap" if it was you'd be the guy apologizing. Lets forget subjective and get into factual, My point was valid, a man lost his life though cowardly tactics...he was shot in the head from behind. Don't start me on the two soldiers.

And if I was anyway interested in continuing this discussion i suggest you have a chat with a soldier(you pick the country, its your choice) you'll find that the same opinions exist as to cowardly behaviour by so called military combatants.

Manic Moran · 13-03-2009 2:17am

My point was valid, a man lost his life though cowardly tactics...he was shot in the head from behind.

So you are saying, then, that the most tactically sound plans are also the most cowardly? Because the ideal is to give the other guy no chance to react at all. Better yet, kill him before he even knows you're there.

NTM

iceage · 13-03-2009 3:02pm

Did I say that? Don't think I did. Sounded completely the opposite in my head...

Manic Moran · 13-03-2009 5:25pm

It does seem to be the logical conclusion.

Take, for example, an ambush on a patrol. You set up in hiding, taking all the possible precautions to ensure that you are not seen. You hold fire for long enough to ensure the maximum casualties. You open up with your most casualty-producing weapons first, machineguns or claymores, in order to kill as many of the enemy as possible before they have time to react. It's all but irrelevant for practical purposes, if say, you are wearing uniforms or not, because you're taking all possible measures to make sure they don't see your uniforms in the first place!

How is this tactically any different from shooting the man in the back? you're doing everything you can to make sure it's not a fair fight.

NTM

Duffers · 13-03-2009 6:15pm

A fair point Manic, but the shooting in NI was in a street, not in a war zone. You go out on patrol with the knowledge that there is an enemy, that you may be ambushed, IED'd or stomped
Bit different from a routine Police call out to a civilian address where someones windows had been bricked, no?

iceage · 13-03-2009 6:26pm

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

When it comes to these individuals I'll put my hands up, as Ex TA my opinion of these guys is slightly biased... I've never really been a political head, you'll forgive me for using the term coward. I should have used the term murdering fatherless scum of the earth. Whoops... is the venom showing?

Cracking ambush by the way.

Pandcoa · 13-03-2009 8:33pm

Duffers wrote: »

Well that was patronising! Were you stroking your chin when you wrote that?:D
I'm not suggesting any war can or should be 'clean'. These guys do not have a clearly defined objective, the Islamic militants are motivated by hatred and zeal.Yes obviously in a battle where one side has an advantage in most areas, one side has to adapt, and use 'dirty' tactics.
I suppose you could argue they are just using what they've got to acheive their aims, which are to kill as many of their enemy as they can.
That doesn't change my opinion of their methods. I'm not saying you should agree with me, I'm just answering your question.
I've read the first few sentences in your second post and am struggling to comprehend their meaning. That's not a dig, I genuinely cannot understand what they actually mean!
You admit they are cowards in your first post. You then say you 'cringe' when you hear people say this and that it holds 'no ground' from a military perspective, despite the fact you are clearly looking at this from an academic perspective.
What does hold ground from your point of view? Bookish theoric?

I guess I’ve become a little muddled myself on how to define “cowardly” acts so I have contradicted myself in calling terrorist attacks cowardly. 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.

Sorry for being presumptuous in replying to your post, I accept your opinion. I am trying to keep my personal feelings away from this thread to further my understanding of modern insurgency and counterinsurgency, I just don’t think emotional one sided responses really answer the question.

Duffers wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to the killing at Massereene Barracks there.

We were sternly warned in training about not mistreating prisoners, and not killing anyone unarmed, and told what we could expect if we were caught doing the above.
'It's what seperates us from them' was the line

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.

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.

I am quite confused on the effectiveness of suicide bombings, I don’t understand them compared to conventional bombings. At the moment I would think they are quite counter productive to their aims when they loose members unnecessarily and are done completely on the basis that if they sacrifice themselves they will enter heaven rather than being strategically effective, further more I think there is no advantage of using children or other impressionable persons to carry these bombs so yes, at the minute I would call these acts cowardly since the old men could have done it themselves

iceage wrote: »

Hey get over yourself, my intent wasn't to "lead you into a trap" if it was you'd be the guy apologizing. Lets forget subjective and get into factual, My point was valid, a man lost his life though cowardly tactics...he was shot in the head from behind. Don't start me on the two soldiers.

And if I was anyway interested in continuing this discussion i suggest you have a chat with a soldier(you pick the country, its your choice) you'll find that the same opinions exist as to cowardly behaviour by so called military combatants.

Believe me I was not insinuating that, what I meant was the word “coward” is not something I like to throw around liberally lest I be accused of major hypocrisy. MM gave a good answer to this question and as much as I oppose and despise the acts he’s right, I cannot call them "cowardly" acts because they have been the most effective. I guess what I’m trying to find out is, what is strategically effective in achieving a groups aims and what tactics are truly cowardly and unnecessary in the definition I gave earlier. I think it’s obvious the dissidents have been successful in their one aim of creating mass panic and doubts of the peace process but then again they have failed in creating division within Stormont.

Are Insurgency/Guerilla/terrorist tactics cowardly/unfair?

Comments