Terrorism works

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 12:31 am

It's a new world, we need to adapt to the changing face of conflict.

Terrorized truckers balk at deliveries to U.S. forces
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_3.html

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 12:42 am

the only "new" thing about the role of terrorism in our world, is that "our backyard" is now part of the playing field.

speaking in terms of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism of course (as in, not Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kazinsky). people are resourceful, and even without technology, resources, or military power they will find ways to fight if that is what they are motivated to do.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 10, 2004, 1:43 am

how do you figure they're terrorists when they are fighting off an invasion from a hostile foreign power bent on setting up a puppet government and exploiting the natural resources of their homeland?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 10, 2004, 4:50 am

No fife and drum, obviously.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 10, 2004, 5:35 am

Yeah, bad terrorists, stop defeating your own country and give it all up to the invading armies.

My grandfather killed a german soldier when he was 17, when Denmark was under german control. Guess you could call him a terrorist too, and he would have been if germany hadnt lost the war. But since they lost, it instead make him a freedom fighter who did his duty to his country when most other people wouldnt.

Terrorism like 9/11 where terrorists hit foreign countries are bad, but i can can understand the people who fight an invading army on their own soil.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » August 10, 2004, 7:46 am

We shouldn't rely on noncombatants for our supplies in Iraq then get all outraged when they get killed. If truckers are getting killed taking food and water to our troops that's part of war, and probably our fault for not protecting them. I'm sure we would blow up their supply trucks if they had any.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 9:14 am

The sensationalist media is labeling anything and everyone terrorists. They should be calling them what they are......enemy combatants or even insurgents. It is not like most of Iraq is fighting anyone.....it is just insurgents.

In all honesty, if the insurgents stopped attacking, the U.S. would have the troops out of there by the end of the year and would only be working to help rebuild.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 10, 2004, 9:22 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The sensationalist media is labeling anything and everyone terrorists. They should be calling them what they are......enemy combatants or even insurgents. It is not like most of Iraq is fighting anyone.....it is just insurgents.

In all honesty, if the insurgents stopped attacking, the U.S. would have the troops out of there by the end of the year and would only be working to help rebuild.

We should just go back to "teh gud owld dayz" and call them "bad guys"!!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 10, 2004, 9:23 am

kyoukan wrote:how do you figure they're terrorists when they are fighting off an invasion from a hostile foreign power bent on setting up a puppet government and exploiting the natural resources of their homeland?

/yawn It gets old

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 12:27 pm

No, I think in this case it is properly labeled.

They attack a few truckers and use fear to paralyze the rest.

The terror of being attacked prevents the truckers from driving.

Terror cut that supply line, not casualties.

They are terrorists.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 10, 2004, 12:38 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:No, I think in this case it is properly labeled.

They attack a few truckers and use fear to paralyze the rest.

The terror of being attacked prevents the truckers from driving.

Terror cut that supply line, not casualties.

They are terrorists.

So can I call Americans terrorists for their airstrikes and bombings of Baghdad during the Gulf War?

Shock and Awe = Terror?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 10, 2004, 12:39 pm

miir wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:No, I think in this case it is properly labeled.

They attack a few truckers and use fear to paralyze the rest.

The terror of being attacked prevents the truckers from driving.

Terror cut that supply line, not casualties.

They are terrorists.
So can I call Americans terrorists for their airstrikes and bombings of Baghdad during the Gulf War?

Shock and Awe = Terror?

Call it what you want, I call it a royal ass kicking.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 10, 2004, 1:36 pm

Remember when we just called terrorism "Smart tactics"?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 2:02 pm

I can feel the love for terrorists flowing on this thread.

"Who wants to marry a terrorist?" can't be far behind.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 2:13 pm

Duh? I don't see any of you guys volunteering to drive trucks there. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 2:23 pm

miir wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:No, I think in this case it is properly labeled.

They attack a few truckers and use fear to paralyze the rest.

The terror of being attacked prevents the truckers from driving.

Terror cut that supply line, not casualties.

They are terrorists.
So can I call Americans terrorists for their airstrikes and bombings of Baghdad during the Gulf War?

Shock and Awe = Terror?

The main impact of our war machine at the time was destruction property and people who worked against us.

The main impact of these guys is fear.

They didn't destory the truck industry. They barely scratched the surface.

Think of all the changes in America. They didn't harm America physcially. But they affected change by the application of fear.

So no, I would not call our Army terrorists. Perhaps if we had an assassin squad that ran around taking out the leaders of AQ. Maybe by this definition you could call them terrorists, but only if their actions disuaded others from joining or participating in AQ.

Think of the power of the action. By using terror and fear, you can paralyze a giant with a pin prick.

That effect, that mental paralyzation is the new battlefield. It's not even fought with guns. If the truckers were hardened mentally to keep driving no matter what, AQ could not stop them even with their best of efforts.

The trick is how do we in the modern age, adopt a new mentality that nullifies the paralyzing effect of terrorism?

I guess one place is to look at nations that have been dealing with terrorism for a long time. How do they handle it? How do they as a culture work to minimize the lethargic impact of terroristic fear?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 2:33 pm

Here's another example of what I'm driving at Miir.

Let's say you and 20,000 people are stuck inside a stadium.

Senario 1:

You know that if you run outside, every one of you will be shot.

Senario 2:

You know that 1 out of 10 people at random will be shot if they run outside.

In both senarios people will want to stay in the stadium for fear of their life. But look at the cost involved. It takes much more manpower to carry out Senario 1, yet the same effect is achieved by the lesser manpower tactic in Senario 2. What does Senario 2 have going for it? Fear, terror. In return just a few people are necessary to make Senario 2 work.

Up until now, our power as nations has been dependant on the successful application of Senario 1.

Yet now by using terror you can get the same effect with just a tiny subset of the manpower.

The main difference is the application of fear towards your goal.

Fear can be nullified. AQ has teeth only because we allow them to effect us through fear.

What does it take as a culture to harden ourselves against terror and fear?

Where can we look for solutions?

History is rich, where in history can we pull from to find a fear nullifier?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 10, 2004, 2:43 pm

Winnow wrote:I can feel the love for terrorists flowing on this thread.

"Who wants to marry a terrorist?" can't be far behind.

\
You keep thinlking that we support Saddam and terrorists because we are telling you something differently. I never once saw someone say "GO SADDAM" or "GO TERRORISTS!".

All people are saying is that attacking US targets in their own homeland is not an act of terror.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 10, 2004, 2:53 pm

Lynks wrote:
Winnow wrote:I can feel the love for terrorists flowing on this thread.

"Who wants to marry a terrorist?" can't be far behind.
\
You keep thinlking that we support Saddam and terrorists because we are telling you something differently. I never once saw someone say "GO SADDAM" or "GO TERRORISTS!".

All people are saying is that attacking US targets in their own homeland is not an act of terror.

Many of the insurgents are not Iraqis. What do you call them? Tourists?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 10, 2004, 2:54 pm

Lynks wrote:
Winnow wrote:I can feel the love for terrorists flowing on this thread.

"Who wants to marry a terrorist?" can't be far behind.
\
You keep thinlking that we support Saddam and terrorists because we are telling you something differently. I never once saw someone say "GO SADDAM" or "GO TERRORISTS!".

All people are saying is that attacking US targets in their own homeland is not an act of terror.

umm it is when they are not Iraiqs or backed by someone outside of Iraq

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 10, 2004, 3:01 pm

Ok, I stand corrected, but lets face it, the US is at war with these people. I still don't call it terrorism.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 10, 2004, 3:10 pm

Given that the want to install another oppressive Islamic theocracy, we can't exactly call them "freedom fighters," now can we?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 10, 2004, 3:12 pm

Lynks wrote:Ok, I stand corrected, but lets face it, the US is at war with these people. I still don't call it terrorism.

I suppose we could create a whole new language for you people.

To my simple mind... if you act like a terrorist by performing terrorist acts then by golly you just might be a terrorist.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 3:12 pm

well if you are one of the dictator buddy's you are pretty free probably

probably more free than you or I for that matter! free to extort. free to murder. free to steal cars!

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 10, 2004, 3:38 pm

Honestly this is nothing new, whether it was the partisans in Spain helping Wellington drive out Napoleon's armies, the irregular troops harassing supply lines in the American War for Independence, or the tactics used in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. You’re just re-labeling a very old form of combat. Guerilla tactics are nothing new; the term was coined during Napoleon's occupation of Spain, but the idea has been around for much longer. It developed in parallel with traditional warfare. It is very effective and it is something that we always say we will learn to combat, but never do.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 10, 2004, 4:06 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:It's a new world, we need to adapt to the changing face of conflict.

Terrorized truckers balk at deliveries to U.S. forces
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_3.html

Stop your fucking whining.

Boo fucking hoo if they are scaring truckers away from supplying an occupying army.

You are the agressor here.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 10, 2004, 4:12 pm

Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:It's a new world, we need to adapt to the changing face of conflict.

Terrorized truckers balk at deliveries to U.S. forces
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_3.html
Stop your fucking whining.

Boo fucking hoo if they are scaring truckers away from supplying an occupying army.

You are the agressor here.

he is whining because he posted a link? God your a fucking idiot!

Maybe all we need is a armed escort for the trucks if anyone approaches the truck cut them down!! Seeing we are the agressor here.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 10, 2004, 4:19 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:It's a new world, we need to adapt to the changing face of conflict.

Terrorized truckers balk at deliveries to U.S. forces
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_3.html
Stop your fucking whining.

Boo fucking hoo if they are scaring truckers away from supplying an occupying army.

You are the agressor here.
he is whining because he posted a link? God your a fucking idiot!

Maybe all we need is a armed escort for the trucks if anyone approaches the truck cut them down!! Seeing we are the agressor here.

Sounds like a standard checkpoint to me. Plenty of pictures of women and children floating around out there from similar situations.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 4:29 pm

Germans "Terrorized" commercial shipping with U-Boats around WWI. granted modern terrorism rarely has technological advantage, but the bottom line is they wrecked economic havoc in greater proportion than the actual amount of ships destroyed.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 5:16 pm

In the case of Uboats we dealt with the situation by brute force sub hunting.

I'm not sure if we can directly apply that response to our current situation.

Forthe,

We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.

Besides my focus here isn't about Iraq. I just want to talk about how people in history handled the mental impact of terrorism.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 10, 2004, 5:30 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Forthe,

We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 10, 2004, 5:53 pm

We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.

Oh come on Adex, it's downright silly to make such a broad generalization.

There are many Iraqis that welcome the American occupying force and there are many Iraqis that would like nothing more than to see them get the hell out of their country.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 10, 2004, 5:54 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.

Besides my focus here isn't about Iraq. I just want to talk about how people in history handled the mental impact of terrorism.

I won't go into the semantics of whether we are an occupying army or not because honestly that's all it is, semantics.

As far as how people handled forcing non-combatants to fight against non-traditional warfare, well it usually involved the pointy end of a bayonet or pike if you will. Heck it was like that for regular warfare for the most part, sergeant weren't there to give orders they were there to make sure the soldiers went in the right direction and had a pike with them to make sure that they didn't attempt to run away.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 10, 2004, 7:08 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.

tell that to the guys blowing up your trucks you ignoramous.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 10, 2004, 7:48 pm

Terrorism is acts carried out by people not representing a nation state but merely representing some purpose which they cannot get the majority to agree with.

Freedom fighters are those who seek to restore their legitimate government,.

Those killing and torturing truck drivers are seeking their own power. No one is making beheading videos demanding that Saddam Hussein be returned to power.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 8:02 pm

Iraq is a mess. I'm sure everybody's intelligence agency is in there monkeying with the power brokering and the headlines.

That won't change.

What is the terrorism nullifier? How do you grow numb to the effects of fear? Wouldn't doing such defang the tactic?

Why don't you address that issue Kyo? Do you have an idea?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 10, 2004, 8:17 pm

What is the terrorism nullifier? How do you grow numb to the effects of fear? Wouldn't doing such defang the tactic?

I don't really understand the question. This isn't like asking "how can I overcome my irrational fear of snakes?" Or "how can I overcome my silly fear of heights?" You're asking "how can I overcome my very real fear of being violently decapitated for no particular purpose?" The only way to nullify or numb the effects of that fear is to remove the threat.

Basically:
Irrational or unjustified fear is something to be overcome.
Sensible fear based on real threats is something to be heeded.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 8:29 pm

Ok,

Remove the threat. Let's follow that.

1. You can try to stamp out the terrorist by force.
2. You can appease the terrorist until he is satisfied and stops.
3. You can change things so that the terrorist is never motivated to begin with.

Option 1 is horribly difficult with an elusive opponent.
Option 2 and 3 are next to impossible if the motivating factors for the terrorist is an global islamic theocracy.

That's why I keep gravitating to option 4. Remove the effects of fear from a culture being hit by terrorism. If this done, even the fullest terrorist efforts will do little against you.

They couldn't stop the trucks if everyone took the occasional hit and ignored fear's effect? Can a society reach such a state? With enough calloused trama I bet they can. After a while you just dont' give a damn and you push through the fear and drive that truck etc.

Maybe that's the ultimate ending to the terrorist question, an unresponsive calloused people, who refuse to let another bombing affect them.

Not that we're anywhere near that yet. I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 10, 2004, 8:31 pm

Kylere wrote:Terrorism is acts carried out by people not representing a nation state but merely representing some purpose which they cannot get the majority to agree with.

Freedom fighters are those who seek to restore their legitimate government,.

Those killing and torturing truck drivers are seeking their own power. No one is making beheading videos demanding that Saddam Hussein be returned to power.

Hmm so you’re saying that if you ask a majority of Iraqis, who by the way are Shiite, if they would like a theocracy, they would say no? Arguing semantics is useless. We are fighting irregulars that are threatening our supply lines; there is nothing older in warfare than this. Irregulars have always used terror and fear because fear is an instinct that can not be ignored. You can train people to cope and continue while in the face of fear, but that fear is always there. What do you think American irregular forces did to the Tories during the War for Independence?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 8:33 pm

That's why I keep gravitating to option 4. Remove the effects of fear from a culture being hit by terrorism. If this done, even the fullest terrorist efforts will do little against you.

They couldn't stop the trucks if everyone took the occasional hit and ignored fear's effect? Can a society reach such a state? With enough calloused trama I bet they can. After a while you just dont' give a damn and you push through the fear and drive that truck etc.

Isn't that kind of how terrorists and suicide bombers were created?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 10, 2004, 9:18 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:We are no longer an occupying army. We are no longer in Iraq against the Iraqi people's will.
tell that to the guys blowing up your trucks you ignoramous.

Hey Dumb ass the Iraq people are not the ones blowing up the trucks even if they are they are not the majority, But hell your to stupid to accept that.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 9:19 pm

Proof please Cart. Go over there and talk to every Iraqi and count them.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 10, 2004, 9:31 pm

1. You can try to stamp out the terrorist by force.
2. You can appease the terrorist until he is satisfied and stops.
3. You can change things so that the terrorist is never motivated to begin with.

The only acceptable solution is basically a mix of option 1 and 3. You need to bring a forceful end to the terrorist organizations, while simultaneously acting to eliminate incentives for young people to turn to militant organizations. This does not, however, totally discount option 2- to blindly say "we will not negotiate with terrorists" is ignorant. There are situations where the enemy may legitimately possess the upper hand.

You are right in that option 1 is difficult. However, I feel that it appears more difficult than it is because of failings in our strategy. The way to defeat terrorism is not massive land invasions of somewhat related sovereign governments. A far more effective strategy would be to pour that money into special ops and intelligence agencies. We have the financial, technological, and political wherewithal to create the most effective special forces on the planet. We could pinpoint and eliminate figures, organizations, and installations that allow the terrorist networks to operate efficiently.

They couldn't stop the trucks if everyone took the occasional hit and ignored fear's effect? Can a society reach such a state? With enough calloused trama I bet they can. After a while you just dont' give a damn and you push through the fear and drive that truck etc.

Take a look at Israel. I'd rather not follow that road, thank you very much.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 10, 2004, 11:29 pm

Crav wrote:
Kylere wrote:Terrorism is acts carried out by people not representing a nation state but merely representing some purpose which they cannot get the majority to agree with.

Freedom fighters are those who seek to restore their legitimate government,.

Those killing and torturing truck drivers are seeking their own power. No one is making beheading videos demanding that Saddam Hussein be returned to power.
Hmm so you’re saying that if you ask a majority of Iraqis, who by the way are Shiite, if they would like a theocracy, they would say no? Arguing semantics is useless. We are fighting irregulars that are threatening our supply lines; there is nothing older in warfare than this. Irregulars have always used terror and fear because fear is an instinct that can not be ignored. You can train people to cope and continue while in the face of fear, but that fear is always there. What do you think American irregular forces did to the Tories during the War for Independence?

Umm only a colonist or a protectorate gives them a name like Tories.

No one can say for sure what the majority of the Iraqi's want, they have not had the opportunity to actually express thier wishes, will they now? Perhaps, would they before, no. I am sure that you can all hang it up, they will never have the freedom to build a government based on a repressive religious sect, unless someone develops cold fusion sometime soon, or after the point at which oil becomes more expensive to extract and refine than it can be sold for. Then they can retreat to whatever society they wish, now before some lamer bitch like Kyoukan comes along and thinks I back that plan, fuck off. I am stating geopolitical reality. The US will not risk losing access to the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, good bad or democrat it will not happen.

I can categorically state that the average citizen of Iraq wiill be better off under a US backed government than they were under Saddam Hussein. Will the Mullahs be happier? Nope, not any happier than the Natives under Canadian rule. Nor the Palestinians under Israeli rule, nor the natives under American rule, nor the Indian subcontinent under British rule, etc. The Goths did not seem to appreciate the Romans, the Algerians did not like the French, the Warsaw Pact et al under the Russians.

But if you learn history you will understand it all comes in cycles, and the US will grow more and more repressive over the next 50 years until it collapses with the loss of cheap power or internal strife. External forces will then take their turn at the corpse and the world will move forward with less easily obtained resources, and certainly less population.

The people attacking the US troops in Iraq are not silversmiths, farmers, and woodsmens, they are professional thugs who wish to hurt main and kill and use their religion as a crutch. Comparing them to American or French revolutionaries or French resistance groups during Nazi occupation is not a game of semantics it is a statement of reality. The Americans acting against the British did so in majority without malcie and only when all other efforts had failed, they were not head hunting.

\

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 11:53 pm

I can categorically state that the average citizen of Iraq wiill be better off under a US backed government than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Most likely. However, I think we disagree on wether it is the US' right to go in and establish that government or not.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 11, 2004, 12:42 am

Kelshara wrote:
I can categorically state that the average citizen of Iraq wiill be better off under a US backed government than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Most likely. However, I think we disagree on wether it is the US' right to go in and establish that government or not.

"US backed government" doesn't define anything. The US government has supported in the past (including Iraq), and even today continues to support, some extremely repressive governments.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 11, 2004, 12:43 am

Kylere wrote: Umm only a colonist or a protectorate gives them a name like Tories.

Would you prefer Loyalist? I like the word Tory so I used that instead. Again you are arguing semantics. I sense a theme.

Kylere wrote: No one can say for sure what the majority of the Iraqi's want, they have not had the opportunity to actually express their wishes, will they now? Perhaps, would they before, no. I am sure that you can all hang it up; they will never have the freedom to build a government based on a repressive religious sect, unless someone develops cold fusion sometime soon, or after the point at which oil becomes more expensive to extract and refine than it can be sold for. Then they can retreat to whatever society they wish, now before some lamer bitch like Kyoukan comes along and thinks I back that plan, fuck off. I am stating geopolitical reality. The US will not risk losing access to the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, good bad or democrat it will not happen.

So what you are saying is because you do not agree with the cause that the insurgents are fighting for then they are terrorists. You are correct no one knows exactly what the majority of Iraqi people want, and so far we have not really given them that chance. We appointed the ruling council and by what you’re saying even if they wanted to have a theocracy we are not going to allow it. You can't say that it's not an occupation and then say that they will only be allowed to create a government that is acceptable to us.

Kylere wrote: I can categorically state that the average citizen of Iraq wiill be better off under a US backed government than they were under Saddam Hussein. Will the Mullahs be happier? Nope, not any happier than the Natives under Canadian rule. Nor the Palestinians under Israeli rule, nor the natives under American rule, nor the Indian subcontinent under British rule, etc. The Goths did not seem to appreciate the Romans, the Algerians did not like the French, the Warsaw Pact et al under the Russians.

Honestly I love how in one example you separate the group of occupied peoples, yet in all the others you group them all together. In each of the examples you use, the people who were under the rule of another did not like it and ultimately revolted.

Kylere wrote: But if you learn history you will understand it all comes in cycles, and the US will grow more and more repressive over the next 50 years until it collapses with the loss of cheap power or internal strife. External forces will then take their turn at the corpse and the world will move forward with less easily obtained resources, and certainly less population.

You are correct that if you learn anything from history everything goes in cycles. We have only been a country for two centuries and we are going to lose power. I think 50 years is a bit of a stretch, but hey whatever.

Kylere wrote: The people attacking the US troops in Iraq are not silversmiths, farmers, and woodsmens, they are professional thugs who wish to hurt main and kill and use their religion as a crutch. Comparing them to American or French revolutionaries or French resistance groups during Nazi occupation is not a game of semantics it is a statement of reality. The Americans acting against the British did so in majority without malcie and only when all other efforts had failed, they were not head hunting.

Hmm and you know this how? Yes everyone that fights against the U.S. couldn't be a normal person; no they are all super villains that think of nothing then destroying our way of life. Reality? So again because you do not agree with the reason/ideals that the insurgents are fighting for then they are terrorists. The funny thing about reality is that it is not just made up of one point of view. Apparently in your reality you can conduct a war without malice. As it's always been said one man's traitor is another man's hero.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 11, 2004, 2:02 am

If you look back at some examples of how people combatted guerillas:

- Napoleonic wars (particularly Spain where the word "guerillero" came to popularity) - the French tried to brutalize the population wherever needed but were driven out because their policy of "foraging" meant stealing everything that wasn't permanently anchored. Thus practically every man, woman and child hated them for it. Conversely Wellesley had a strict policy of paying for absolutely everything from the Spanish, Portugese and even French civilians. He had anyone who engaged in random looting/pillaging hung (and was not shy about it) thus avoiding the same problems as the French (and even though the British were fighting the French, most Catholic Spaniards still hated and distrusted the Protestant English).

- The American Revoluton - you guys tell me. My history lessons say that the British won most of the field actions especially int he early part of the war until guerilla tactics ate away at supply lines, etc. The British were unsuccessful at combating them. The French came and supported the rebellion and the USA was born.

- WW2 - the Nazis were ruthless to partisan-type activity in their occupations, often resorting to the " for every one of ours thats dies, we shoot 10 of you" tactics. Successful in some places and not others (especially in the balkans where Marchall Tito made his name).

- Vietnam - the Viet Cong couldn't meet the US and South Vietnamese armies head on, thus resorted to guerilla tactics, which coupled with the help of the North Vietnamese army led to eventual communist victory.

- Afghanistan - the mujahadeen with western aid was able to harass the Soviets and their puppet regime to the point the Soviets withdrew.

Those are probably the most prominent examples of invasion and occupation from the last 250 years. The only places occupying armies had success against partisan/guerilla activity is where they were willing to devote the immense resources to effect "martial law" and enforcing it with brutal swiftness. Wellesley managed to avoid it with for the British but he also had an advantage in that he was fighting the invader and his lot were much more disciplined than the French.

Now Adex et al can make the claim that the US is not an occupying army and it doesn't change anything: the coalition are foreign troops. They have the burden of people who resent them for being different and some who feel the US humiliated their county. I will agree point blank that I think life for most Iraqis may be better under a US backed/puppet government than it was under Saddam but what I think doesn't count. What YOU think doesn't count. Many of these people see foreigners who toppled a government and promised them freedom. Some see foreigners who have killed loved ones. Some see foreigners who permitted the disgrace at Abu Graib. That the insurgents exist is a testament to the fact that a portion of the population resents the US presence... and that won't change easily and negative for the "coalition" is that the more Iraqis who die, the more disaffected and resentful the population will become. Some of them will hate the "terrorists" who plant the bombs, but don't kid yourself into thinking they won't resent your troops for being there and making themselves targets that result in civilian deaths as well.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » August 11, 2004, 2:18 am

Hesten wrote:Yeah, bad terrorists, stop defeating your own country and give it all up to the invading armies.

My grandfather killed a german soldier when he was 17, when Denmark was under german control. Guess you could call him a terrorist too, and he would have been if germany hadnt lost the war. But since they lost, it instead make him a freedom fighter who did his duty to his country when most other people wouldnt.

Terrorism like 9/11 where terrorists hit foreign countries are bad, but i can can understand the people who fight an invading army on their own soil.

Now that is really a despicable post.

Killing innocent people to achieve a goal will always be terrorism. If they only went after policemen and military, that would be a very different situation, but the last what. . .half dozen hostages have all been civilians. If you say they are supporting the war effort, where do you draw the line? Truck drivers. . .salesmen who sell to Americans. . .Americans who pay taxes to support the troops. . .we are quickly getting into very dangerous waters here.

Military targets are one thing, civilian targets are another. . .as soon as you explain that away as a legitimate way to wage war, you are really dropping low. . .disgustingly low.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 11, 2004, 8:23 am

Kylere wrote:Terrorism is acts carried out by people not representing a nation state but merely representing some purpose which they cannot get the majority to agree with.

Freedom fighters are those who seek to restore their legitimate government.

Well, during WW2 the Germans occupied Denmark, our government and military gave up without a fight and let them do it. They let us keep our government, but as lapdogs for the germans.

Does that mean that the men that fought as freedom fighters/terrorists agains the germans was wrong, since noone had removed our legitimate govermnent?

VeeshanVault

Terrorism works

Terrorism works

Re: Terrorism works

Re: Terrorism works

Re: Terrorism works