GUERRILLA WARFARE AND TERRORISM???

[Super Xero]

Many may think there is no difference between Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism, but us interlectuals know so. Guerrilla Warfare targets Government & Military Buildings, Installations, Personal etc... Terrorism targets anyone and everything. There is a clear line between the 2 but why does it seem that the US does not see this? Why is FARC on the list??? and if the Insurgents are seen as so-called "Terrorist", I guess we are all so-called "Terrorist" then!

[libereco]

the war on terror is definded as lose as it is on puprose. this was our great leaders can point their fingers on anyone who disagrees and yell out WITCH...ehh...Terrorist!

Maybe in a few years anyone who disagrees is defined as a terrorist, or a terrorist symphesizer at least.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i totally agree with libereco......lets say one nation doesnt wants to know about usa or doesnt like usa or like doesnt agree there called terrorist.so like the isrealies they call palesteinians terrorist but there defending them selves....so bush uses the word "terrorist" just as an excuse to kill and destroy other people and country.....we the communist people are not terrorist were the defenders of the people and true democracy.

[Michael De Panama]

I see no cute little dinstinctions between the two. They are both acts of violence, which is only a representation of capitalism itself. Fuck guerrilla warfare. Violence captures the total essense of the competition and the "stronger guy gets the weaker guy down" mentality that composes the horrible system known as capitalism. So any form of violence is wrong.

There is no distinction between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. There is no distinction between terrorism and ANY form of warfare. The concept of a "war on terror" is an oxy moron. War and terrorism are the same fucking thing. Does anyone mean to tell me that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2 did not impose a sense of terror on Japanese?

[militantmindLAM]

panama it depends on what it is that one fights for

[liderDeFARC]

Quote: from libereco on 7:37 pm on Mar. 12, 2002
the war on terror is definded as lose as it is on puprose. this was our great leaders can point their fingers on anyone who disagrees and yell out WITCH...ehh...Terrorist!




lol thats funny.

There is a difference. But its small. Most of the time guerrilla warfare starts to abandon its original cause and just takes advantage of the power it has for profitable things (to them).

And terrorism strikes just anyone...

(Edited by liderDeFARC at 6:16 am on Mar. 13, 2002)

[militantmindLAM]

do u believe in that quote

[militantmindLAM]

your fidel quote

[PunkRawker677]

<<I see no cute little dinstinctions between the two. They are both acts of violence>>

in turn, you agree that killing someone for killing your family is the same as killing someone in cold blood.. yes, you are commiting murder all the same but its the principal behind the act of 'violence' and not just the act of violence intself.. its the motive..

[reagan lives]

"Many may think there is no difference between Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism, but us interlectuals know so."

Hahahahahaha.

DISCLAIMER: I know the difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, and also know that sometimes (perhaps even often) the lines get blurred; namely, when guerilla soldiers attack civilian targets. I just thought this quote was really, really funny. For a number of reasons.

[Michael De Panama]

Sorry, you didn't give me enough chance to answer that rhetoric, PunkRawker. Yes, killing someone for some other motivation is that same thing as killing someone in cold blood. How can you argue differently? The action is the exact same. The motivations behind the action are irrelevent.

But if the distinction between terrorism and guerrilla warfare lies the the motivations behind the actions, who's to say which motivations qualify for terrorism and which ones qualify for guerrilla warfare?

"panama it depends on what it is that one fights for "

Well how fucking convenient!!

[PunkRawker677]

I agree with you panama. The motive usually is not relevant and i made it pretty clear that murder is still murder no matter how you put it.. i never attempted to state that in some way it was more justified than the other.

and you are completly right, motivation is only considered 'relevant' if in coincides with someone's opinion, and as we all know, opinions often vary. So when it comes down to terrorism and guerilla warfare, you cannot say whos right and whos wrong. The opposers will say they are wrong and the defenders will say they are right - and in fuzzy logic, perhaps they are both right.

Violence in any form can be underlined in either direction and can be painted any way the people want, on both sides of course. You will always have contridictions, even when the situation does not concern violence. but either way you put it, it is all the same. The act does not change, just the motive behind it, and the 'right-and-wrong'.

I was not disagreeing that violence was bad. i was just letting you know that there 'is' a difference, and there is. But not a justified one, but again, this is MY opinion and many will disagree and agree, therefore brining us back to the same place we started.

so, in my opinion, and in no 'certainty' or statement of 'fact', violence does not solve any more problems than it creates, and there is usually a much better way to handle things then with violence. But, in my opinion, self defense falls away from this situation because it becomes an act of instinct, unlike murder.

[guerrillaradio]

Hmm...no I'd have to disagree. (Regan - either make a valid argument [something you are capable of] or fuck off.) The whole murder is murder idea is very harsh. Maybe if someone had killed a member of your family you would understand a bit better (not saying that it's happened to me). I don't condone murder in any situation (apart from when one is sure that failure to do so would result in certain death), but in some circumstances, leeway should be given to the guilty party.

Guerrilla warfare is a contentious subject. I see how it has acheived positives (in Cuba), but I feel that leftists wouldn't be so keen on it if it was employed by right-wingers.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also both debatable subjects. If America had threatened to nuke Japan, then there is a chance that they may have surrendered immediately. One fact that many people overlook is that although 70,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima, and 80,000 in Nagasaki, more than 83,000 were killed in an overnight bombing raid of Tokyo just previous to the bombs' releases. Discuss...

[Guest]

you people are perveted, don't you realize that you're discussing the morality of killing people, wtf.

[PunkRawker677]

Guest - yes, i believe we realize this, as you may have noticed.. yet, we have so far agreed, at least me an panama, that murder is NOT justified, therefore, we are not debating the 'morality of killing people' but why people see motives as a way of differentiating right from wrong..

[Guest]

What is this leftist site? Che is dead and so is the spirit of communism.

Regarding the topic of conversation, there is a clear distinction between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Terrorism is the use or terror, violence or fear to achieve a political end. The tactics of terrorism are popular among communist and socialist governments, who use it to suppress the free flow of ideas and minimize the voice of critisism. If you were living under one of these governments you would be to scared to voice such criticism. Stumbling on the a web site like this could get you killed.

Guerrilla warfare is traditionally a tactic employed by revolutionary forces that oppose such oppression and desire freedom. Many times, not all, it is used to fight terrorism and tyranny. Typically, guerrilla fighters do not target civilian populations directly, but use the large clumsy nature of the convention force they are fighting against itself. Guerillas can achive this by travelling in small groups, developing intricate networks in harsh environments, and engaging in harrassment operations to achieve ther end. A perfect example of this would be the rebels in the Carolinas defeating Cornwallis's army forcing a surrender at Yorktown. Or you could look only at Al Quida's two pronged war. What the did here was terrorism, what they are doing in Afganistan is Guerrilla fighting (unjustified as it may be).

Lately, I hear many people of my age group discuss the war on terrorism. Most of them are critical of the current administration and claim the it was all a ploy to extract oil from Afganastan. Some say that the government sat back and watched it happen to create the political environment where it would be easy to extend the long arm of empirialism. This just goes to show the ignorance of many who do not comprehend the enormity of the threat that we are facing. It is true that post World Trade Center many double edged swords are being created. The biggest concern and critism that I have is this. Rather than concerntrating most of our efforts to extinguish those who would destroy the greatest human experiment ever (freedom), it seams that most of the energy is spent destroying ourselves.

[Anarcho]

The destruction of that Taliban is worth the "War on Terror". They were the ultimate in reactionary zealots.

As for oil, well, as far as I know (and I could be wrong) there isn't much oil in Afghanistan, and there is darn little infrastructure there as well, so that claim is shaky at best.