Q: Guerrilla War or Terrorism?

A guerilla is a glorified terrorist, and a terrorist is a degraded terrorist that is all. There are many that are half-way in between:

For example, Moscow Theatre Hostage takers: They want independence and freedom for Chechenya, they did not kill civillians en-mass when they could have (when Russians stormed the building), but they did kill innocents within the theatre, and mistreated some of hostages.

The thing that makes Al-Qaeda dangerous is their ideology, not their "terrorist" nature.

Well, anybody can claim to be "stabilizing" any situation. Bin Laden could cliam that he was trying to "stabilize" the balance of power. Nazis can claim to "stabilize" the Jews.

What they claim counts for nothing.

All revolutionary and resistance groups fighting against oppression were fighting against "stability" that was imposed upon them by tyranny.

Maybe you are right Evildoer. 

But arn't leaders considered soldiers, because Geneva convention did not include leaders in the civilian section?

Can we please not make this a thread about Bush.  This is one of the few places I come when I want to talk history and not politics.

As for attacking civilians, I don't think it's wrong, just usually ineffective.

Originally posted by TMPikachu Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival A majority of these posts make great sense. So would you call America's attack on Japan in WWII a terrorist attack or military action? They solely targeted civilians, just as terrorists...and they did it because they were under attack from that country, just as the terrorists are under attack from America. The difference is, terrorists dont kill 50,000 civilians at a time like America did, their attacks are more frequent and much smaller in scale. So what differentiates the two? I would like to hear your thoughts. And a lot of Iraqi civilians have died in this war, more than most people think, whether unintentionally or deliberately....they wont show it on CNN. Watch Al-Jazeera, i see it on at my grandmas house sometimes, and it gives you a completely different side of the war. hmmm, but in the case of Japan/USA, the war had already officially began. funny you mention CNN. Some people call it the Communist News Network for being 'too liberal' People that watch Fox, mostly.

Youre right, the Japan/USA situation was a war, but nontheless, those bombs were meant to hit civilians and cripple their society more than anything. At least Japan bombed a military harbor. Maybe thats why people dont strike at U.S. military bases anymore, the U.S. will just nuke their civilians .

And btw, the U.S. waged war on Iraq, and many of these people see it as a war on Islam. Rightfully so, let the U.S. help the Iraqi people help themselves, dont get militarily involved. How would you feel if the U.S. or any other country occupied your homeland just to "help out your people"? I know id be pretty ticked off.

Most people dont understand that a lot of those people that wanted Saddam out, would rather ally with him just to drive the U.S. and coalition forces out of their country. Thats why theres still fighting going on...most of the militants fighting belong to the sect of Islam that Saddam was NOT part of, and they make up the vast majority of the population in Iraq. But, they are fighting against U.S. forces because they would rather fix their own problem rather than be embarassed and exploited while the rest of the world watches.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival A majority of these posts make great sense. So would you call America's attack on Japan in WWII a terrorist attack or military action? They solely targeted civilians, just as terrorists...and they did it because they were under attack from that country, just as the terrorists are under attack from America. The difference is, terrorists dont kill 50,000 civilians at a time like America did, their attacks are more frequent and much smaller in scale. So what differentiates the two? I would like to hear your thoughts. And a lot of Iraqi civilians have died in this war, more than most people think, whether unintentionally or deliberately....they wont show it on CNN. Watch Al-Jazeera, i see it on at my grandmas house sometimes, and it gives you a completely different side of the war.

hmmm, but in the case of Japan/USA, the war had already officially began.

funny you mention CNN. Some people call it the Communist News Network for being 'too liberal'

People that watch Fox, mostly.

 

Edited by TMPikachu

A majority of these posts make great sense. So would you call America's attack on Japan in WWII a terrorist attack or military action? They solely targeted civilians, just as terrorists...and they did it because they were under attack from that country, just as the terrorists are under attack from America. The difference is, terrorists dont kill 50,000 civilians at a time like America did, their attacks are more frequent and much smaller in scale. So what differentiates the two? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Hmmm.  The Japanese snipers used to target medics during WWII.  Would that be terrorism?

A majority of these posts make great sense. So would you call America's attack on Japan in WWII a terrorist attack or military action? They solely targeted civilians, just as terrorists...and they did it because they were under attack from that country, just as the terrorists are under attack from America. The difference is, terrorists dont kill 50,000 civilians at a time like America did, their attacks are more frequent and much smaller in scale. So what differentiates the two? I would like to hear your thoughts.

And a lot of Iraqi civilians have died in this war, more than most people think, whether unintentionally or deliberately....they wont show it on CNN. Watch Al-Jazeera, i see it on at my grandmas house sometimes, and it gives you a completely different side of the war.

Well, I'm more inclined to agree with fastspawn in that there's a big grey area standing between the two extremes of idealistic guerrilla warfare and plain sick terrorist warfare. In fact, most of the spectrum of low-intensity military action (or, in U.S. military parlance, MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War)) falls within this grey area. Say, we take an example of a Palestinian suicide bomber. If he directs his attack specifically at an Israeli military installation or the notorious boundary wall then his action is a legitimate military action and he can be called a guerrilla. If he directs his attack at the Israeli civilian population, though, his act would be termed terrorism because it causes largely unnecessary damage that is unlikely to spark the effect it is meant to create, not to mention that it violates every principle of Islam and any other religion. However, we must ask ourselves whether the definition would be legitimate or not if, say, the guerrilla attack caused a number of collateral civilian casualties or the terrorist attack was planned to be a military attack but the bomber got distracted along the way (much to the chagrin of his superiors!) and chose in desperation to attack a civilian taget. That kind of thing happens more often than most people think.

Yeah, what if a state bombs a civilian city like the air forces of World War II did?  Does that make them terrorists?