a question about terrorism

[mburbank]

Okay, I want to be clear here that I do not advocate killing civillians. I don't advocate killing at all.

But here's my question.

Suppose you feel so opressed by a system that you feel you have no option but armed rebellion.

But whoever this enemy is, they are way way way way more technologically advanced than you are. And way, way, richer.

If you confronted their army, you would be wiped out to the last man without the other side loosing anything.

If you gathered together, you would be wiped out to the last man from the air.

In any sort of traditional warfare, you had no statistical chance to even make an impact.


I hope that if I were in this situation, I would continue to strike only at military targets, even though I knew full well that it would greatly increase my groups risks. Because I can't ever see targetting non combatants.

So, suppose I took on a military target, and the far more powerful enemy began to destroy the infrastructure and anyone unlucky enough to be near it.


Here's what my question boils down to, and keep in mind, I am against all solutions that involve killing other people.

How does a weaker power fight a much stronger power? What options are open to them? I think one of the things that makes terrorism acceptable to so many people is this optionlessness. You are presented with a choice of die or submit.

What do you do if you don't use human shields? Move away from innocent civilians and you invite annilation.

For me, I would say, accept submission, and if you cannot, accept anihilation. Because killing other people is unaceptable. To me. But a lot of people would not say that submission or death are preferable to violence.

Since most people find some form of violence an acceptable method of problem solving, how does the weaker opponent fight?

[Preechr]

I have a friend from highschool that I spoke to at length during a wedding of a mutual friend's sister recently, and he made a very interesting point. His parents are Pakistani immigrants, and he and his brother were born American. My friend had to go Pakistan for a while to practice medicine, conditional to his degree, and he has an interesting perspective that I always try to factor into any thoughts I have on the WOT discussion.

He explained to me once the fine line in Islam between "acceptable" suicide bombing and that which is forbidden. He cited the version of the practice used against Pakistan's resistance to Indian occupation as the sole actual version throuhgout history that has ever been useful as a legitimate example. It's a compelling story. The new president of Pakistan, an old man, viewed the oncoming tanks and asked for anything that would explode. When asky why, he said the thing he wanted to do the most at that moment was to run under that vastly superior and absoutely counterable oncoming weaponry and die for his beliefs.

His advisors did not let him do it, but many of Pakistan's first citizens committed political suicide just as he had wanted to, as everybody individually heard the story and pondered whether they were better off martyred or living to fight on. The infirm were the first to run under the tanks, followed by the old. It's a long story, but in the end, Pakistan is still a sovereign nation, isn't it?

I understand the sophistry behind the "Palestinian Cause." I know the truth of it as well as the lies. The PR war is being won, so the truth is coming out for the better understanding of the greater unwashed. The war on terror could very well be the war to end the utility of War altogether.

Originally Posted by mburbank

How does a weaker power fight a much stronger power? What options are open to them? I think one of the things that makes terrorism acceptable to so many people is this optionlessness. You are presented with a choice of die or submit.

Is it so necessary that the weaker opponent in any fight these days actually "fight," as in potentially die, or even take out as many other people as possible? For all the venom so visually dislayed in even American political wars these days, is anyone actually, physically DYING for their causes in the modern world? If so, shouldn't we be actively discouraging that?

[Abcdxxxx]

Suppose they really had a legit reason to be upset? Then would it be okay to kill innocent people?

Suppose they hadn't made up all sorts of shit ,and then forced people to live in hellish conditions in front of the cameras, all so they could manipulate history to trick people into thinking they have a legit cause? Then would it be okay to kill innocent people!?

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by Preechr

He explained to me once the fine line in Islam between "acceptable" suicide bombing and that which is forbidden. He cited the version of the practice used against Pakistan's resistance to Indian occupation as the sole actual version throuhgout history that has ever been useful as a legitimate example. It's a compelling story. The new president of Pakistan, an old man, viewed the oncoming tanks and asked for anything that would explode. When asky why, he said the thing he wanted to do the most at that moment was to run under that vastly superior and absoutely counterable oncoming weaponry and die for his beliefs.

See I think that martyrism is way too loose of an ideal to be associated with any type of suicide. And the reason I believe in my islamic perspective that suicide bombers are going to hell is because they use being a martyr as a type of free pass to suicide, just because you say you're dying in the name of a cause doesn't make it so. Believing that you're gonna get a ton of virgins in heaven is just trying to justify your sin. The sin is still being recorded whether you believe it's justified or not, it's not your desicion to make.

Also in all of the examples from the times of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) none of the martyrs went in with the intentions of dying. They fought and death was just a consequence of it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Didn't the Germans feel oppressed? Weren't they ultimately weaker than the United States and the Allied Nations? That didn't make them justified in any way, did it?

Isn't there almost always a weaker side in war?

And since we're really talking about the Middle East here, let's just address the issue. It's erronious to cling to the old fable that the poor Palestinians are using rocks and sticks against the powerful, U.S. supported Israel juggernaut. Granted, Israel has one of the finest militaries in the world. But to look at this whole conflict, and its history, and to say it's two actors butting heads is ridiculous. Israel has had just about every country in the middle east declare war on them since their state recognition in 1948. This is a nation that has been surrounded by enemies.

I think Thomas Friedman put it best when he said that if the Palestinians stopped resorting to terrorism, recognized Israel, and disarmed their militias, Israel would talk peace in a heartbeat. They've proven this with Egypt and Jordan. Israel dismantled Jewish settlements, and clashed with their own radical elements, all in order to show at least some compromise with the Palestinians. They left Gaza, and watched as the Palestinians elected a legislative leadership that promised the destruction of Israel. Where is Israel's peace partner, and if all these poor underdogs want is land, why do they continue to fight despite history's lesson that Israel will GIVE land if you stop blowing them up!??

Furthermore, in the current clash with Hezbollah, Israel is facing a well financed, well trained, and well organized force. Israel was surprised this week to learn how deep Hezbollah's infrastructure is, and how ineffective the bombings have been. This is a militant party that is supported financially and militarily by 1-3 nation states. They are protected and sheltered in Lebanon, and popularly supported by at least a chunk of the Lebanese population.

This is no mere underdog.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well said. Thank you.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

the main way you fight it is with international help, then you can launch stealth missions. After all killing civilians doesnt even HELP in a war it's a last desperate act. All it does is rally the enemy against you and the international community (and as the smaller power the international community is your key to victory)

The key is espionage and stealth.

BTW Kevin, that speech almost made me clap. I know Israel may be heavy handed at times but I think you are 100% right as to the PLO tactics and motives.

[Ninjavenom]

Personally, i would fight with every ounce of strength until my death. That, or kamikaze attack something important to them as a great big "fuck you".

[Preechr]

Only recently have civilian casualties even been a factor in popular support of a war in the way they are now. More civilians died in both world wars than did soldiers.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

...that you're gonna get a ton of virgins in heaven...

I think they are generally looking for a quantity of virgins, not a gross tonnage. While your wording has much more potential for delicious irony, I just don't believe life is that fair.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Alan Dershowitz

Annan then calls for an "immediate cessation of indiscriminate and disproportionate violence" on both sides, again suggesting a moral equivalence. Among the most immoral positions anyone can take is to suggest a moral equivalence between morally different actions.

Part of the goal of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas is to gain moral legitimacy for their terrorist tactics by having them equated with the conventional military tactics used by democratic regimes. Only the morally obtuse--or perverse--cannot recognize the difference between a terrorist group that targets civilian population centers with anti-personnel weapons designed to maximize civilian casualties and a democracy that seeks to prevent terrorism by employing smart bombs designed to minimize civilian casualties.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Preechr

I think they are generally looking for a quantity of virgins, not a gross tonnage. While your wording has much more potential for delicious irony, I just don't believe life is that fair.

No, life isn't fair. Thats why so many of us believe in an afterlife.

I do agree about the irony. The little bastard gets his 72 virgins.....and realizes why they are virgins.

[Abcdxxxx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2fqe4oWsI

The great Wafa Sultan on the Zionist controlled Al Jazeera television.